<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: TIME Inc. s*cks / Lose the right to your picture through adoption 28/40</title>
	<atom:link href="http://anaj.wordpress.com/2007/03/24/time-inc-scks-lose-the-right-to-your-picture-through-adoption-2840/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://anaj.wordpress.com/2007/03/24/time-inc-scks-lose-the-right-to-your-picture-through-adoption-2840/</link>
	<description>Everyone knows diaries are full of crap.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 08:41:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: skunkcabbage</title>
		<link>http://anaj.wordpress.com/2007/03/24/time-inc-scks-lose-the-right-to-your-picture-through-adoption-2840/#comment-575</link>
		<dc:creator>skunkcabbage</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:36:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://anaj.wordpress.com/2007/03/24/time-inc-scks-lose-the-right-to-your-picture-through-adoption-2840/#comment-575</guid>
		<description>That makes perfect sense.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That makes perfect sense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: anaj</title>
		<link>http://anaj.wordpress.com/2007/03/24/time-inc-scks-lose-the-right-to-your-picture-through-adoption-2840/#comment-573</link>
		<dc:creator>anaj</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:29:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://anaj.wordpress.com/2007/03/24/time-inc-scks-lose-the-right-to-your-picture-through-adoption-2840/#comment-573</guid>
		<description>Yep, red fonts, uniforms, that all works pretty well. If this was my own website, I&#039;d probably keep it (although there are topics that matter to me more than that one). But I don&#039;t want the WP guys to get into trouble - TIME Inc. turned to them, and they to me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yep, red fonts, uniforms, that all works pretty well. If this was my own website, I&#8217;d probably keep it (although there are topics that matter to me more than that one). But I don&#8217;t want the WP guys to get into trouble &#8211; TIME Inc. turned to them, and they to me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: skunkcabbage</title>
		<link>http://anaj.wordpress.com/2007/03/24/time-inc-scks-lose-the-right-to-your-picture-through-adoption-2840/#comment-572</link>
		<dc:creator>skunkcabbage</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:21:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://anaj.wordpress.com/2007/03/24/time-inc-scks-lose-the-right-to-your-picture-through-adoption-2840/#comment-572</guid>
		<description>Time Inc dies suck. (oops, parapraxis, I&#039;ll leave it.) You might be able to fight to keep the picture. The DMCA process seems to simply say that someone &quot;believes&quot; their copyright has been infringed and that the parties will be notified. Don&#039;t know if you want to be bothered, though. 

It&#039;s not like you&#039;re selling the picture !? As you note, not very Web 2.0. If Pham is now a celebrity, then he loses (which seems unfair somehow) the right to his picture, but so too does Time Inc. 

With the DMCA process we don&#039;t seem to see what Time&#039;s copyright argument consists of. Note, too, the  red font scare tactics.

Grrr....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Time Inc dies suck. (oops, parapraxis, I&#8217;ll leave it.) You might be able to fight to keep the picture. The DMCA process seems to simply say that someone &#8220;believes&#8221; their copyright has been infringed and that the parties will be notified. Don&#8217;t know if you want to be bothered, though. </p>
<p>It&#8217;s not like you&#8217;re selling the picture !? As you note, not very Web 2.0. If Pham is now a celebrity, then he loses (which seems unfair somehow) the right to his picture, but so too does Time Inc. </p>
<p>With the DMCA process we don&#8217;t seem to see what Time&#8217;s copyright argument consists of. Note, too, the  red font scare tactics.</p>
<p>Grrr&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
