<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_14_193227</id>
	<title>Family's Christmas Photos Hawk Groceries In Prague</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1245001560000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"The Telegraph reports that Jeff and Danielle Smith sent a photo of themselves with their two young children to family and friends as a Christmas card, and posted the image on her blog and a few social networking websites. Then, last month, a friend of the family was vacationing in the Czech Republic when he spotted a full size <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5507113/Beware-photos-online-US-familys-Christmas-card-photo-used-as-advertisement-in-Prague.html">poster of the Missouri family's smiling faces in the window of a local supermarket</a> in Prague, advertising a grocery delivery service. The friend snapped a few pictures and sent them to the Smiths, who were flabbergasted. Mario Bertuccio, who owns the Grazie store in Prague, admitted that he had found the photo online but thought it was computer-generated and promised to remove it, and 'We'll be happy to write an e-mail with our apology,' he says. Meanwhile Mrs. Smith has <a href="http://www.extraordinarymommy.com/blog/are-you-kidding-me/stolen-picture/">received 180,000 visitors and over 500 comments on her blog</a> since she posted the story. She says she is glad the photo wasn't used in an unseemly manner. 'Interesting.  Bizarre. Flattering, I suppose,' writes Mrs. Smith.  'But quite creepy.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " The Telegraph reports that Jeff and Danielle Smith sent a photo of themselves with their two young children to family and friends as a Christmas card , and posted the image on her blog and a few social networking websites .
Then , last month , a friend of the family was vacationing in the Czech Republic when he spotted a full size poster of the Missouri family 's smiling faces in the window of a local supermarket in Prague , advertising a grocery delivery service .
The friend snapped a few pictures and sent them to the Smiths , who were flabbergasted .
Mario Bertuccio , who owns the Grazie store in Prague , admitted that he had found the photo online but thought it was computer-generated and promised to remove it , and 'We 'll be happy to write an e-mail with our apology, ' he says .
Meanwhile Mrs. Smith has received 180,000 visitors and over 500 comments on her blog since she posted the story .
She says she is glad the photo was n't used in an unseemly manner .
'Interesting. Bizarre .
Flattering , I suppose, ' writes Mrs. Smith. 'But quite creepy .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "The Telegraph reports that Jeff and Danielle Smith sent a photo of themselves with their two young children to family and friends as a Christmas card, and posted the image on her blog and a few social networking websites.
Then, last month, a friend of the family was vacationing in the Czech Republic when he spotted a full size poster of the Missouri family's smiling faces in the window of a local supermarket in Prague, advertising a grocery delivery service.
The friend snapped a few pictures and sent them to the Smiths, who were flabbergasted.
Mario Bertuccio, who owns the Grazie store in Prague, admitted that he had found the photo online but thought it was computer-generated and promised to remove it, and 'We'll be happy to write an e-mail with our apology,' he says.
Meanwhile Mrs. Smith has received 180,000 visitors and over 500 comments on her blog since she posted the story.
She says she is glad the photo wasn't used in an unseemly manner.
'Interesting.  Bizarre.
Flattering, I suppose,' writes Mrs. Smith.  'But quite creepy.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333143</id>
	<title>Least convincing explanation ever</title>
	<author>dugeen</author>
	<datestamp>1245061320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>'He said he thought the image was computer-generated'</htmltext>
<tokenext>'He said he thought the image was computer-generated'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'He said he thought the image was computer-generated'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333239</id>
	<title>This is why I hate Professional Photographers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245063420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every stupid ass photo is copyrighted by  "Professional Photographers."</p><p>There's a reason they can afford a D4 or your favorite DSLR.</p><p>They are out for money. Not the art. And not the history. What they say, and what they do legally are two different things entirely.</p><p>GO BUY A DSLR, don't hire them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every stupid ass photo is copyrighted by " Professional Photographers .
" There 's a reason they can afford a D4 or your favorite DSLR.They are out for money .
Not the art .
And not the history .
What they say , and what they do legally are two different things entirely.GO BUY A DSLR , do n't hire them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every stupid ass photo is copyrighted by  "Professional Photographers.
"There's a reason they can afford a D4 or your favorite DSLR.They are out for money.
Not the art.
And not the history.
What they say, and what they do legally are two different things entirely.GO BUY A DSLR, don't hire them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332963</id>
	<title>Re:The moral is</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1245058740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People want to be famous! American Idol, Big Brother and similar shows are proof of it. What they fail to see is the drawback: You don't necessarily get famous for something "good", something you want to be famous for.</p><p>For reference, see Star Wars kid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People want to be famous !
American Idol , Big Brother and similar shows are proof of it .
What they fail to see is the drawback : You do n't necessarily get famous for something " good " , something you want to be famous for.For reference , see Star Wars kid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People want to be famous!
American Idol, Big Brother and similar shows are proof of it.
What they fail to see is the drawback: You don't necessarily get famous for something "good", something you want to be famous for.For reference, see Star Wars kid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333215</id>
	<title>Marco-pasta</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245062880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nintendo might have something to say about this:</p><p><a href="http://karhuton.com/tmp/marco-pasta.jpg" title="karhuton.com" rel="nofollow">http://karhuton.com/tmp/marco-pasta.jpg</a> [karhuton.com]</p><p>The product was made somewhere in Eastern Europe and sold atleast in Finland.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nintendo might have something to say about this : http : //karhuton.com/tmp/marco-pasta.jpg [ karhuton.com ] The product was made somewhere in Eastern Europe and sold atleast in Finland .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nintendo might have something to say about this:http://karhuton.com/tmp/marco-pasta.jpg [karhuton.com]The product was made somewhere in Eastern Europe and sold atleast in Finland.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333229</id>
	<title>Kind of happened to me too</title>
	<author>ukoda</author>
	<datestamp>1245063180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was looking thru my web server logs and noticed one of my photos was being referenced often from another site.  I turns out some guy was using a photo of me on a motorcycle as his icon/avatar on some motorcycle forums.  Since he was referencing my site directly I was tempted to change the image to something wacky for a laugh but since I couldn't be recognized behind the helmet I thought it was harmless and was kind of faltered so didn't change it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was looking thru my web server logs and noticed one of my photos was being referenced often from another site .
I turns out some guy was using a photo of me on a motorcycle as his icon/avatar on some motorcycle forums .
Since he was referencing my site directly I was tempted to change the image to something wacky for a laugh but since I could n't be recognized behind the helmet I thought it was harmless and was kind of faltered so did n't change it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was looking thru my web server logs and noticed one of my photos was being referenced often from another site.
I turns out some guy was using a photo of me on a motorcycle as his icon/avatar on some motorcycle forums.
Since he was referencing my site directly I was tempted to change the image to something wacky for a laugh but since I couldn't be recognized behind the helmet I thought it was harmless and was kind of faltered so didn't change it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332239</id>
	<title>For chrissakes, you're American, right?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245005880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do it right.</p><p><a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002168937\_coffeemug03.html" title="nwsource.com" rel="nofollow">http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002168937\_coffeemug03.html</a> [nwsource.com]</p><p>Sue them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do it right.http : //seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002168937 \ _coffeemug03.html [ nwsource.com ] Sue them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do it right.http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002168937\_coffeemug03.html [nwsource.com]Sue them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332205</id>
	<title>Really...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245005400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anything (well unless it's something I'm trying to find) you post on the internet can be found. It's common sense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anything ( well unless it 's something I 'm trying to find ) you post on the internet can be found .
It 's common sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anything (well unless it's something I'm trying to find) you post on the internet can be found.
It's common sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28334043</id>
	<title>It happened to me too</title>
	<author>szo</author>
	<datestamp>1245074160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A few years ago I got a call from a friend who told me that I'm in the newspaper: a city newspaper used one of the pictures I made on a glacier to illustrate an article about global warming and the melting of the glaciers. Funny thing is that on the picture is more about the people than the glacier, and they downloaded and printed the 600x800 picture and it looked crappy in print, very pixeled compared to the other pictures on the page<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A few years ago I got a call from a friend who told me that I 'm in the newspaper : a city newspaper used one of the pictures I made on a glacier to illustrate an article about global warming and the melting of the glaciers .
Funny thing is that on the picture is more about the people than the glacier , and they downloaded and printed the 600x800 picture and it looked crappy in print , very pixeled compared to the other pictures on the page : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few years ago I got a call from a friend who told me that I'm in the newspaper: a city newspaper used one of the pictures I made on a glacier to illustrate an article about global warming and the melting of the glaciers.
Funny thing is that on the picture is more about the people than the glacier, and they downloaded and printed the 600x800 picture and it looked crappy in print, very pixeled compared to the other pictures on the page :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332593</id>
	<title>I wouldn't be so sure</title>
	<author>Chuck Chunder</author>
	<datestamp>1245097020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps the supermarket has access to the same sort of computers as they use on CSI, NCIS etc.

They probably have 3d models of the family, reconstructed based on DNA obtained by enhancing the Facespace photo and zooming in to the atomic level.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps the supermarket has access to the same sort of computers as they use on CSI , NCIS etc .
They probably have 3d models of the family , reconstructed based on DNA obtained by enhancing the Facespace photo and zooming in to the atomic level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps the supermarket has access to the same sort of computers as they use on CSI, NCIS etc.
They probably have 3d models of the family, reconstructed based on DNA obtained by enhancing the Facespace photo and zooming in to the atomic level.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28334715</id>
	<title>That's All And Fine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245078600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you stop other people from posting YOUR personal life on the internet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you stop other people from posting YOUR personal life on the internet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you stop other people from posting YOUR personal life on the internet?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332981</id>
	<title>Does Rule 34 still apply?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245059040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because there is no exception...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because there is no exception.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because there is no exception...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28334369</id>
	<title>Computer generated?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1245076440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reminds me of an answer to an HL2 developer / PR guy.<br>Back then, he meant that Far Cry looks like plastic. There also was a stupid looking photo of himself in the article.<br>To which a guy in the comments answered "Half-Life developer looks like plastic!"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)<br>(He meant, that all those PR guys look groomed and clean like a inhuman puppet, with a stupid PR smile.)</p><p>Does anyone know if the parents are working in PR too? ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of an answer to an HL2 developer / PR guy.Back then , he meant that Far Cry looks like plastic .
There also was a stupid looking photo of himself in the article.To which a guy in the comments answered " Half-Life developer looks like plastic !
" ; ) ( He meant , that all those PR guys look groomed and clean like a inhuman puppet , with a stupid PR smile .
) Does anyone know if the parents are working in PR too ?
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of an answer to an HL2 developer / PR guy.Back then, he meant that Far Cry looks like plastic.
There also was a stupid looking photo of himself in the article.To which a guy in the comments answered "Half-Life developer looks like plastic!
" ;)(He meant, that all those PR guys look groomed and clean like a inhuman puppet, with a stupid PR smile.
)Does anyone know if the parents are working in PR too?
^^</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332389</id>
	<title>Mr. Sparkle</title>
	<author>Pulse\_Instance</author>
	<datestamp>1245007500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now the Czech Republic only has 11 more years of the Simpsons to catch up on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now the Czech Republic only has 11 more years of the Simpsons to catch up on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now the Czech Republic only has 11 more years of the Simpsons to catch up on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28340221</id>
	<title>Re:Do it better</title>
	<author>dbcad7</author>
	<datestamp>1245058320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Heck, leave it up.. travel to Prague and take a photo in front of it for the next Christmas card.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Heck , leave it up.. travel to Prague and take a photo in front of it for the next Christmas card .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heck, leave it up.. travel to Prague and take a photo in front of it for the next Christmas card.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28340081</id>
	<title>Re:The way it looks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245057900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>is assumed to be a hi-res picture from a dSLR.</p></div> </blockquote><p>
The dSLR was a Canon EOS 30D, according to the jpg EXIF headers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>is assumed to be a hi-res picture from a dSLR .
The dSLR was a Canon EOS 30D , according to the jpg EXIF headers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is assumed to be a hi-res picture from a dSLR.
The dSLR was a Canon EOS 30D, according to the jpg EXIF headers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332669</id>
	<title>Re:Eh</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1245097980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, its not about USA copyrights since the grocer is in Czech. Lots of americans seem to think their laws apply everywhere (not trying to be hostile, but they usually do). Now, I dont know about Czech laws, maybe they have a point in the copyright laws that would cover it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , its not about USA copyrights since the grocer is in Czech .
Lots of americans seem to think their laws apply everywhere ( not trying to be hostile , but they usually do ) .
Now , I dont know about Czech laws , maybe they have a point in the copyright laws that would cover it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, its not about USA copyrights since the grocer is in Czech.
Lots of americans seem to think their laws apply everywhere (not trying to be hostile, but they usually do).
Now, I dont know about Czech laws, maybe they have a point in the copyright laws that would cover it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333619</id>
	<title>Re:Amazing what you can find online ...</title>
	<author>lawnsprinkler</author>
	<datestamp>1245069540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So what you're saying is that if I don't change my photo's file name, someone using google to search for a specific file name can come across a totally random image?  Or are you saying that photos uploaded to a searchable site with a common file name can possibly come up in a google image search?  Either way, this is shocking and I'm surprised you only got modded "+3 interesting"</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what you 're saying is that if I do n't change my photo 's file name , someone using google to search for a specific file name can come across a totally random image ?
Or are you saying that photos uploaded to a searchable site with a common file name can possibly come up in a google image search ?
Either way , this is shocking and I 'm surprised you only got modded " + 3 interesting "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what you're saying is that if I don't change my photo's file name, someone using google to search for a specific file name can come across a totally random image?
Or are you saying that photos uploaded to a searchable site with a common file name can possibly come up in a google image search?
Either way, this is shocking and I'm surprised you only got modded "+3 interesting"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333131</id>
	<title>Re:The way it looks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245061200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To keep things in perspective, copyright is mostly respected in all Central and East Europe - it's not like it's a jungle.</p> </div><p>Well, I live in Eastern Europe and half of your statement is false.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To keep things in perspective , copyright is mostly respected in all Central and East Europe - it 's not like it 's a jungle .
Well , I live in Eastern Europe and half of your statement is false .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To keep things in perspective, copyright is mostly respected in all Central and East Europe - it's not like it's a jungle.
Well, I live in Eastern Europe and half of your statement is false.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28338423</id>
	<title>Re:Do it better</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245095160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First make him apologize for saying you look computer generated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First make him apologize for saying you look computer generated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First make him apologize for saying you look computer generated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332317</id>
	<title>You can...</title>
	<author>Anachragnome</author>
	<datestamp>1245006720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"You can make that apology out to Jeff and Danielle Smith. Don't forget to sign it."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" You can make that apology out to Jeff and Danielle Smith .
Do n't forget to sign it .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You can make that apology out to Jeff and Danielle Smith.
Don't forget to sign it.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28337995</id>
	<title>Re:its a new kind of internet weirdness</title>
	<author>SCHecklerX</author>
	<datestamp>1245093120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, wow!  That's hilarious!  I used to browse the Bert is Evil site every now and then back in the day.  Never even knew about this. Ha!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , wow !
That 's hilarious !
I used to browse the Bert is Evil site every now and then back in the day .
Never even knew about this .
Ha !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, wow!
That's hilarious!
I used to browse the Bert is Evil site every now and then back in the day.
Never even knew about this.
Ha!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28336317</id>
	<title>Welcome to last week</title>
	<author>DaveDerrick</author>
	<datestamp>1245085560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>news on the BBC website last week.</htmltext>
<tokenext>news on the BBC website last week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>news on the BBC website last week.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333051</id>
	<title>Re:Not Stolen. Nope. Not At All.</title>
	<author>YourExperiment</author>
	<datestamp>1245059940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As stated in the blog post itself, Danielle posted the high resolution image by mistake, due to her lack of understanding of such things. Slightly dumb? Yes. An excuse for stealing the picture and making it into a huge great billboard without a license? Nope.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As stated in the blog post itself , Danielle posted the high resolution image by mistake , due to her lack of understanding of such things .
Slightly dumb ?
Yes. An excuse for stealing the picture and making it into a huge great billboard without a license ?
Nope .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As stated in the blog post itself, Danielle posted the high resolution image by mistake, due to her lack of understanding of such things.
Slightly dumb?
Yes. An excuse for stealing the picture and making it into a huge great billboard without a license?
Nope.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333105</id>
	<title>Happens all the time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245060720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My cousin just last week wrote to tell me she saw a photo she took of another cousin of ours being used in a Flash ad on a website.  So it's not that uncommon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My cousin just last week wrote to tell me she saw a photo she took of another cousin of ours being used in a Flash ad on a website .
So it 's not that uncommon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My cousin just last week wrote to tell me she saw a photo she took of another cousin of ours being used in a Flash ad on a website.
So it's not that uncommon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332957</id>
	<title>The logical conclusion</title>
	<author>Lord Bitman</author>
	<datestamp>1245058680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This will become more and more common, and then eventually the whole concept of "here's a random image of an unrelated happy family! BUY OUR PRODUCT!" will fall out of favor.</p><p>When it's just a random image, sure, it's stupid but apparently gets the message across.<br>When it's just a truly random image from the internet... would you buy from<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/b/? I mean, for reasons other than lulz?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This will become more and more common , and then eventually the whole concept of " here 's a random image of an unrelated happy family !
BUY OUR PRODUCT !
" will fall out of favor.When it 's just a random image , sure , it 's stupid but apparently gets the message across.When it 's just a truly random image from the internet... would you buy from /b/ ?
I mean , for reasons other than lulz ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will become more and more common, and then eventually the whole concept of "here's a random image of an unrelated happy family!
BUY OUR PRODUCT!
" will fall out of favor.When it's just a random image, sure, it's stupid but apparently gets the message across.When it's just a truly random image from the internet... would you buy from /b/?
I mean, for reasons other than lulz?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332433</id>
	<title>Can we go more global?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245008040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Italian guy in Czech Republic has used a photo of american family. It was pizzeria, was not it? If it was  chineese restaurant....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Italian guy in Czech Republic has used a photo of american family .
It was pizzeria , was not it ?
If it was chineese restaurant... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Italian guy in Czech Republic has used a photo of american family.
It was pizzeria, was not it?
If it was  chineese restaurant....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28335503</id>
	<title>Re:The moral is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245082440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of my colleagues has a family website.  The whole site is protected with a password, and the password clue is posted on the front page: "our ginger stepson's first name followed by the name of our cat" or somesuch.  Anyone who knows the family well enough can browse.  Random strangers and search engines can't.  Simple and effective.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of my colleagues has a family website .
The whole site is protected with a password , and the password clue is posted on the front page : " our ginger stepson 's first name followed by the name of our cat " or somesuch .
Anyone who knows the family well enough can browse .
Random strangers and search engines ca n't .
Simple and effective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of my colleagues has a family website.
The whole site is protected with a password, and the password clue is posted on the front page: "our ginger stepson's first name followed by the name of our cat" or somesuch.
Anyone who knows the family well enough can browse.
Random strangers and search engines can't.
Simple and effective.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333005</id>
	<title>Re:Amazing what you can find online ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245059400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>God damn you. You've just created a new online hobby that will undoubtedly usurp hours of my work time.</p><p>DSCFXXXX anyone? (where X refers to a single digit number. not used in the pornography sense. no siree bob.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>God damn you .
You 've just created a new online hobby that will undoubtedly usurp hours of my work time.DSCFXXXX anyone ?
( where X refers to a single digit number .
not used in the pornography sense .
no siree bob .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God damn you.
You've just created a new online hobby that will undoubtedly usurp hours of my work time.DSCFXXXX anyone?
(where X refers to a single digit number.
not used in the pornography sense.
no siree bob.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28342679</id>
	<title>Re:Amazing what you can find online ...</title>
	<author>toddestan</author>
	<datestamp>1245072120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You people have never heard of the <a href="http://diddly.com/random/" title="diddly.com">Random Personal Picture Finder(tm)</a> [diddly.com]?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You people have never heard of the Random Personal Picture Finder ( tm ) [ diddly.com ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You people have never heard of the Random Personal Picture Finder(tm) [diddly.com]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332387</id>
	<title>Amazing what you can find online ...</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1245007500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... when you use common file names that typical cameras use for their stored photos.  Most people never change them.  I took the part of the file name of that family's photo (removing the appended reduced size that was used) which was "img\_1053".  Google images found <a href="http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://image26.webshots.com/26/8/74/14/280087414XWhlgJ\_fs.jpg&amp;imgrefurl=http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/1280087414060365197XWhlgJ&amp;usg=\_\_L3ehP7KYs5VQ5zgJAskgCr3b--c=&amp;h=1704&amp;w=2272&amp;sz=271&amp;hl=en&amp;start=192&amp;tbnid=MrhnoHBy-drdoM:&amp;tbnh=112&amp;tbnw=150&amp;prev=/images\%3Fq\%3Dimg\_1053\%26gbv\%3D2\%26ndsp\%3D20\%26hl\%3Den\%26sa\%3DN\%26start\%3D180" title="google.com">this</a> [google.com].  People should think about what they put online.  Google is watching.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... when you use common file names that typical cameras use for their stored photos .
Most people never change them .
I took the part of the file name of that family 's photo ( removing the appended reduced size that was used ) which was " img \ _1053 " .
Google images found this [ google.com ] .
People should think about what they put online .
Google is watching .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... when you use common file names that typical cameras use for their stored photos.
Most people never change them.
I took the part of the file name of that family's photo (removing the appended reduced size that was used) which was "img\_1053".
Google images found this [google.com].
People should think about what they put online.
Google is watching.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332713</id>
	<title>Re:Photography Copyright</title>
	<author>gaspyy</author>
	<datestamp>1245098640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not completely true. You still need a model release (e.g. <a href="http://www.e-model.net/info/mr.html" title="e-model.net">like this</a> [e-model.net]) to use the photos commercially. No stock agency will accept your photos without one (some will accept photos of persons without a MR for editorial purposes only, but unless you're photographing a celebrity, it's still useless).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not completely true .
You still need a model release ( e.g .
like this [ e-model.net ] ) to use the photos commercially .
No stock agency will accept your photos without one ( some will accept photos of persons without a MR for editorial purposes only , but unless you 're photographing a celebrity , it 's still useless ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not completely true.
You still need a model release (e.g.
like this [e-model.net]) to use the photos commercially.
No stock agency will accept your photos without one (some will accept photos of persons without a MR for editorial purposes only, but unless you're photographing a celebrity, it's still useless).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332747</id>
	<title>Re:Photography Copyright</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245099000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I take a picture of you, I own the copyright on the image, not you.</p></div><p>But it has my SOUL in it! You can't just do anything you want with that!</p><p>Imagine, people in another country could be <i>looking at me</i>. Horrifying!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I take a picture of you , I own the copyright on the image , not you.But it has my SOUL in it !
You ca n't just do anything you want with that ! Imagine , people in another country could be looking at me .
Horrifying !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I take a picture of you, I own the copyright on the image, not you.But it has my SOUL in it!
You can't just do anything you want with that!Imagine, people in another country could be looking at me.
Horrifying!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28336115</id>
	<title>Nice of the store, really nice.</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1245084780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The truth of the matter is that if you make something available on the Internet, it is there for the taking.  If you make something in digital form and someone else makes it available on the Internet, again it is just there.  Once it is out there, all control is lost.</p><p>There used to be these things like ethics, copyright and common decency.  They are pretty much gone now.  If I find your picture and I want to use it in some way, I can and there is very, very little you can do about it.  You might try suing - but if an international border is crossed you will find it very, very expensive to do so.  You will find many countries take the attitude that Americans have no business involving themselves in their country - go away and take your silly attitudes with you.  Americans are there to be abused in any way possible.</p><p>So of you leave yourself open to being abused, you will not be disappointed.</p><p>Sometimes people just assume that if it is on the Internet, it is free to be used.  They are pretty much right.  It's like music - it used to have to be paid for.  Today, it is just there.</p><p>Rule 1 is pretty clear.  Don't put stuff on the Internet that you weren't intending others to have.  And by "others" we really mean the entire planet.</p><p>Rule 2 is if you were thinking your digital information has value, you were wrong.  At least after someone posted it on the Internet.  And once it is there, it is there forever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The truth of the matter is that if you make something available on the Internet , it is there for the taking .
If you make something in digital form and someone else makes it available on the Internet , again it is just there .
Once it is out there , all control is lost.There used to be these things like ethics , copyright and common decency .
They are pretty much gone now .
If I find your picture and I want to use it in some way , I can and there is very , very little you can do about it .
You might try suing - but if an international border is crossed you will find it very , very expensive to do so .
You will find many countries take the attitude that Americans have no business involving themselves in their country - go away and take your silly attitudes with you .
Americans are there to be abused in any way possible.So of you leave yourself open to being abused , you will not be disappointed.Sometimes people just assume that if it is on the Internet , it is free to be used .
They are pretty much right .
It 's like music - it used to have to be paid for .
Today , it is just there.Rule 1 is pretty clear .
Do n't put stuff on the Internet that you were n't intending others to have .
And by " others " we really mean the entire planet.Rule 2 is if you were thinking your digital information has value , you were wrong .
At least after someone posted it on the Internet .
And once it is there , it is there forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The truth of the matter is that if you make something available on the Internet, it is there for the taking.
If you make something in digital form and someone else makes it available on the Internet, again it is just there.
Once it is out there, all control is lost.There used to be these things like ethics, copyright and common decency.
They are pretty much gone now.
If I find your picture and I want to use it in some way, I can and there is very, very little you can do about it.
You might try suing - but if an international border is crossed you will find it very, very expensive to do so.
You will find many countries take the attitude that Americans have no business involving themselves in their country - go away and take your silly attitudes with you.
Americans are there to be abused in any way possible.So of you leave yourself open to being abused, you will not be disappointed.Sometimes people just assume that if it is on the Internet, it is free to be used.
They are pretty much right.
It's like music - it used to have to be paid for.
Today, it is just there.Rule 1 is pretty clear.
Don't put stuff on the Internet that you weren't intending others to have.
And by "others" we really mean the entire planet.Rule 2 is if you were thinking your digital information has value, you were wrong.
At least after someone posted it on the Internet.
And once it is there, it is there forever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333711</id>
	<title>This happens more often,even to the more 'famous'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245070560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heh. Reminds me of when a picture of a dutch actress was used on a billboard ad for a florida strip-joint!<br>Can't remember her name though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heh .
Reminds me of when a picture of a dutch actress was used on a billboard ad for a florida strip-joint ! Ca n't remember her name though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heh.
Reminds me of when a picture of a dutch actress was used on a billboard ad for a florida strip-joint!Can't remember her name though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332221</id>
	<title>second post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245005640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>fag biscuits</htmltext>
<tokenext>fag biscuits</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fag biscuits</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332329</id>
	<title>Murky Legal Boundaries</title>
	<author>tecc91</author>
	<datestamp>1245006900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>[is too busy pulling down his own photos to post]

The bit where this becomes exceptionally mushy is at what point does any certain legal authority release or take up the power to determine the ramifications of things like this. Clearly, this was an instance where no harm was done, but what if it were to be something incriminating that was leaked, without your permission, and then illegally used in another country.  Where do the boundaries start and end?</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ is too busy pulling down his own photos to post ] The bit where this becomes exceptionally mushy is at what point does any certain legal authority release or take up the power to determine the ramifications of things like this .
Clearly , this was an instance where no harm was done , but what if it were to be something incriminating that was leaked , without your permission , and then illegally used in another country .
Where do the boundaries start and end ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[is too busy pulling down his own photos to post]

The bit where this becomes exceptionally mushy is at what point does any certain legal authority release or take up the power to determine the ramifications of things like this.
Clearly, this was an instance where no harm was done, but what if it were to be something incriminating that was leaked, without your permission, and then illegally used in another country.
Where do the boundaries start and end?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28334087</id>
	<title>Re:For chrissakes, you're American, right?</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1245074580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If only this was in America, then they could sue them for a million billion dollars (or whatever the RIAA going rate is for an mp3 these days)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If only this was in America , then they could sue them for a million billion dollars ( or whatever the RIAA going rate is for an mp3 these days ) : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only this was in America, then they could sue them for a million billion dollars (or whatever the RIAA going rate is for an mp3 these days) :(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332441</id>
	<title>And this is news?</title>
	<author>dingram17</author>
	<datestamp>1245008100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Given this story was in the local throw-away newspaper (dead tree version, not online) last week, it looks like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is waaay behind the times.

Goes to show however that any image, when it is on the internet, can be used for all sorts of things!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given this story was in the local throw-away newspaper ( dead tree version , not online ) last week , it looks like / .
is waaay behind the times .
Goes to show however that any image , when it is on the internet , can be used for all sorts of things !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given this story was in the local throw-away newspaper (dead tree version, not online) last week, it looks like /.
is waaay behind the times.
Goes to show however that any image, when it is on the internet, can be used for all sorts of things!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332577</id>
	<title>Re:Not Stolen. Nope. Not At All.</title>
	<author>kklein</author>
	<datestamp>1245096720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's no way that large format print was produced from a 500 pixel wide Facebook rip.</p></div><p>See, that's what I thought as well, and wondered why I was the only one. Now I know I'm not. The image is clearly a professional shot; if you're looking for a culprit, that's where I'd start looking.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no way that large format print was produced from a 500 pixel wide Facebook rip.See , that 's what I thought as well , and wondered why I was the only one .
Now I know I 'm not .
The image is clearly a professional shot ; if you 're looking for a culprit , that 's where I 'd start looking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no way that large format print was produced from a 500 pixel wide Facebook rip.See, that's what I thought as well, and wondered why I was the only one.
Now I know I'm not.
The image is clearly a professional shot; if you're looking for a culprit, that's where I'd start looking.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333027</id>
	<title>Big deal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245059700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>First, I'd like to say that I'm astounded that a non-story like this has made major front-page news all over the world.  It's probably due to the horridly decayed state of journalism, combined with the fact that the kids are blonde.  Seriously, this is the sort of thing you'd see to fill space on page D5 of the local city shopper.<p>Similar thing happened here a while back, the kids at one of the international schools had class photos taken.  A few months later, one of the dads is browsing factory catalogs, and lo and behold it's a picture of his kid and a lot of her friends decorating the pages.  Evidently, the Chinese administrators had given the pictures to the factory due to a guanxi relationship.  None of them could understand why the parents were upset - they just used the pictures, no harm no foul.  Why, did you want some money for it?  Intellecutal property is a cultural concept, and people in China just don't understand why they shouldn't be able to copy something as long as nobody has been physically deprived.</p><p>I also "borrow" material from the internet for printing.  Guess what, it's not front-page news.  Everyone does it, and I'm sure I've published someone's vacation photo before.  I try to use public domain images, but if they're not forthcoming then I've got a deadline to meet.  Online repositories are a crapshoot, and my 300+ CDs of stock photos lack in entire categories - I've got three CDs of pictures of trucks and roads, and one photo of an airliner which I used a long time ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , I 'd like to say that I 'm astounded that a non-story like this has made major front-page news all over the world .
It 's probably due to the horridly decayed state of journalism , combined with the fact that the kids are blonde .
Seriously , this is the sort of thing you 'd see to fill space on page D5 of the local city shopper.Similar thing happened here a while back , the kids at one of the international schools had class photos taken .
A few months later , one of the dads is browsing factory catalogs , and lo and behold it 's a picture of his kid and a lot of her friends decorating the pages .
Evidently , the Chinese administrators had given the pictures to the factory due to a guanxi relationship .
None of them could understand why the parents were upset - they just used the pictures , no harm no foul .
Why , did you want some money for it ?
Intellecutal property is a cultural concept , and people in China just do n't understand why they should n't be able to copy something as long as nobody has been physically deprived.I also " borrow " material from the internet for printing .
Guess what , it 's not front-page news .
Everyone does it , and I 'm sure I 've published someone 's vacation photo before .
I try to use public domain images , but if they 're not forthcoming then I 've got a deadline to meet .
Online repositories are a crapshoot , and my 300 + CDs of stock photos lack in entire categories - I 've got three CDs of pictures of trucks and roads , and one photo of an airliner which I used a long time ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, I'd like to say that I'm astounded that a non-story like this has made major front-page news all over the world.
It's probably due to the horridly decayed state of journalism, combined with the fact that the kids are blonde.
Seriously, this is the sort of thing you'd see to fill space on page D5 of the local city shopper.Similar thing happened here a while back, the kids at one of the international schools had class photos taken.
A few months later, one of the dads is browsing factory catalogs, and lo and behold it's a picture of his kid and a lot of her friends decorating the pages.
Evidently, the Chinese administrators had given the pictures to the factory due to a guanxi relationship.
None of them could understand why the parents were upset - they just used the pictures, no harm no foul.
Why, did you want some money for it?
Intellecutal property is a cultural concept, and people in China just don't understand why they shouldn't be able to copy something as long as nobody has been physically deprived.I also "borrow" material from the internet for printing.
Guess what, it's not front-page news.
Everyone does it, and I'm sure I've published someone's vacation photo before.
I try to use public domain images, but if they're not forthcoming then I've got a deadline to meet.
Online repositories are a crapshoot, and my 300+ CDs of stock photos lack in entire categories - I've got three CDs of pictures of trucks and roads, and one photo of an airliner which I used a long time ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332553</id>
	<title>Do it better</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1245096420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't sue them.  Give them permission.</p><p>How cool is it to have your family shown in Prague?  As noted it's not for unseemly use, and it's some small grocer just trying to get by.</p><p>Don't make him go to the expense (and waste) of having to print a new poster.</p><p>Instead, do the adult thing - accept the apology and let him keep using the image officially until he moves on.  Everyone wins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't sue them .
Give them permission.How cool is it to have your family shown in Prague ?
As noted it 's not for unseemly use , and it 's some small grocer just trying to get by.Do n't make him go to the expense ( and waste ) of having to print a new poster.Instead , do the adult thing - accept the apology and let him keep using the image officially until he moves on .
Everyone wins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't sue them.
Give them permission.How cool is it to have your family shown in Prague?
As noted it's not for unseemly use, and it's some small grocer just trying to get by.Don't make him go to the expense (and waste) of having to print a new poster.Instead, do the adult thing - accept the apology and let him keep using the image officially until he moves on.
Everyone wins.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332239</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28334389</id>
	<title>Re:Not Stolen. Nope. Not At All.</title>
	<author>Effexor</author>
	<datestamp>1245076560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course below the comment you link to is a link to the photo which it turns out is not 500 pixels wide, a number apparently spontaneously generated between someones buttocks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course below the comment you link to is a link to the photo which it turns out is not 500 pixels wide , a number apparently spontaneously generated between someones buttocks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course below the comment you link to is a link to the photo which it turns out is not 500 pixels wide, a number apparently spontaneously generated between someones buttocks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332731</id>
	<title>In East Europe, that's considered Fair Use</title>
	<author>Klistvud</author>
	<datestamp>1245098760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not legally, but for all practical purposes it is. For instance, it is a popular practice in Slovenia for local businesess to use pop songs as background music in their advertising without ever paying for the copyright. Most recent case in point: a TV ad running on all Slovenian TV stations uses Orbison's song "You Got It" not only as background music, but it actually builds its message on it. The ad, advertising Merkure -- a major Slovenian superstore chain -- suggests that "anything you need, anything you want," you just come to their store and "You Got It"! I could bet they never even asked if they should pay the copyright holder anything before (ab)using the song. In ex-socialist states, this phenomenon is still endemic, it's like a sort of folklore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not legally , but for all practical purposes it is .
For instance , it is a popular practice in Slovenia for local businesess to use pop songs as background music in their advertising without ever paying for the copyright .
Most recent case in point : a TV ad running on all Slovenian TV stations uses Orbison 's song " You Got It " not only as background music , but it actually builds its message on it .
The ad , advertising Merkure -- a major Slovenian superstore chain -- suggests that " anything you need , anything you want , " you just come to their store and " You Got It " !
I could bet they never even asked if they should pay the copyright holder anything before ( ab ) using the song .
In ex-socialist states , this phenomenon is still endemic , it 's like a sort of folklore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not legally, but for all practical purposes it is.
For instance, it is a popular practice in Slovenia for local businesess to use pop songs as background music in their advertising without ever paying for the copyright.
Most recent case in point: a TV ad running on all Slovenian TV stations uses Orbison's song "You Got It" not only as background music, but it actually builds its message on it.
The ad, advertising Merkure -- a major Slovenian superstore chain -- suggests that "anything you need, anything you want," you just come to their store and "You Got It"!
I could bet they never even asked if they should pay the copyright holder anything before (ab)using the song.
In ex-socialist states, this phenomenon is still endemic, it's like a sort of folklore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332881</id>
	<title>Re:Eh -- Support CC!</title>
	<author>woof69</author>
	<datestamp>1245057360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Excellent point! In that case a friendly "Can we use your photo, please?" Wouldn't be bad either.

(This post is licensed under a CC attribution non-commercial share alike license)
original post by by pinkushun on slashdot.org</htmltext>
<tokenext>Excellent point !
In that case a friendly " Can we use your photo , please ?
" Would n't be bad either .
( This post is licensed under a CC attribution non-commercial share alike license ) original post by by pinkushun on slashdot.org</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excellent point!
In that case a friendly "Can we use your photo, please?
" Wouldn't be bad either.
(This post is licensed under a CC attribution non-commercial share alike license)
original post by by pinkushun on slashdot.org</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28334469</id>
	<title>Fair Game Rule</title>
	<author>(arg!)Styopa</author>
	<datestamp>1245077040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...considering that in 2009 if you're stupid enough to post a pic of your family online, that means you are entirely fair game for followup comments:</p><p>Is it just me or does she have an enormous head?  Or her husband has a teeny head.<br>Either way, she and the kid she's holding look bizarrely large-headed, and I don't think it's just perspective.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...considering that in 2009 if you 're stupid enough to post a pic of your family online , that means you are entirely fair game for followup comments : Is it just me or does she have an enormous head ?
Or her husband has a teeny head.Either way , she and the kid she 's holding look bizarrely large-headed , and I do n't think it 's just perspective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...considering that in 2009 if you're stupid enough to post a pic of your family online, that means you are entirely fair game for followup comments:Is it just me or does she have an enormous head?
Or her husband has a teeny head.Either way, she and the kid she's holding look bizarrely large-headed, and I don't think it's just perspective.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332259</id>
	<title>its a new kind of internet weirdness</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1245006000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>other (funnier) examples of global clashing with local:</p><p><a href="http://boingboing.net/2008/07/15/chinese-restaurant-c.html" title="boingboing.net">http://boingboing.net/2008/07/15/chinese-restaurant-c.html</a> [boingboing.net]</p><p><a href="http://www.snopes.com/rumors/bert.asp" title="snopes.com">http://www.snopes.com/rumors/bert.asp</a> [snopes.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>other ( funnier ) examples of global clashing with local : http : //boingboing.net/2008/07/15/chinese-restaurant-c.html [ boingboing.net ] http : //www.snopes.com/rumors/bert.asp [ snopes.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>other (funnier) examples of global clashing with local:http://boingboing.net/2008/07/15/chinese-restaurant-c.html [boingboing.net]http://www.snopes.com/rumors/bert.asp [snopes.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332661</id>
	<title>Why is this such a big deal.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245097920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder why people are surprised at this. This kind of stuff is somewhat part of the eastern european (I'm of that originality myself) and even russian culture.</p><p>A few years back, I did web design for a bunch of people from eastern europe. If we'd need an image for their site, I'd suggest a stock picture and they would just say "Why can't we use this one off of Google Images?". I literally had to convince a bunch of people not to steal some random pictures off of google images for use in ads.</p><p>It wouldn't surprise me if they hired some random teenager to Photoshop that ad and the guy was just going "davai! davai!" and instructing him to take any image.</p><p>And yes, the moral of the story is to not put random stuff on the Internet that might be stolen. Create some password-protected site if you want to share family pictures with your extended family. I'm sure that random people visiting your site do not care how your kids look like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder why people are surprised at this .
This kind of stuff is somewhat part of the eastern european ( I 'm of that originality myself ) and even russian culture.A few years back , I did web design for a bunch of people from eastern europe .
If we 'd need an image for their site , I 'd suggest a stock picture and they would just say " Why ca n't we use this one off of Google Images ? " .
I literally had to convince a bunch of people not to steal some random pictures off of google images for use in ads.It would n't surprise me if they hired some random teenager to Photoshop that ad and the guy was just going " davai !
davai ! " and instructing him to take any image.And yes , the moral of the story is to not put random stuff on the Internet that might be stolen .
Create some password-protected site if you want to share family pictures with your extended family .
I 'm sure that random people visiting your site do not care how your kids look like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder why people are surprised at this.
This kind of stuff is somewhat part of the eastern european (I'm of that originality myself) and even russian culture.A few years back, I did web design for a bunch of people from eastern europe.
If we'd need an image for their site, I'd suggest a stock picture and they would just say "Why can't we use this one off of Google Images?".
I literally had to convince a bunch of people not to steal some random pictures off of google images for use in ads.It wouldn't surprise me if they hired some random teenager to Photoshop that ad and the guy was just going "davai!
davai!" and instructing him to take any image.And yes, the moral of the story is to not put random stuff on the Internet that might be stolen.
Create some password-protected site if you want to share family pictures with your extended family.
I'm sure that random people visiting your site do not care how your kids look like.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28335005</id>
	<title>It's computer-generated...</title>
	<author>raguirre</author>
	<datestamp>1245079980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can tell by the pixels, and having shop at many supermarkets in my day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can tell by the pixels , and having shop at many supermarkets in my day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can tell by the pixels, and having shop at many supermarkets in my day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28342959</id>
	<title>When I worked at Intel</title>
	<author>GWBasic</author>
	<datestamp>1245074400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I worked at Intel I ran to jump into a company photo.  A few years later, I was reading a tech web site and I found myself in an Intel ad!</p><p>The worst thing about the ad was that it's a horrible photo of me!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I worked at Intel I ran to jump into a company photo .
A few years later , I was reading a tech web site and I found myself in an Intel ad ! The worst thing about the ad was that it 's a horrible photo of me !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I worked at Intel I ran to jump into a company photo.
A few years later, I was reading a tech web site and I found myself in an Intel ad!The worst thing about the ad was that it's a horrible photo of me!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28334559</id>
	<title>Re:Eh</title>
	<author>ScentCone</author>
	<datestamp>1245077640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>If our culture had instead developed along the lines of liberal copyrights, such as the creative commons licenses, rather than the restrictive copyrights that are common, I don't think anyone would care about this</i>
<br> <br>
Once again, somebody who <i>completely</i> misunderstands the difference between a copyright and a model release. The subject of the photograph doesn't own the copyright (except under very specific contractual situations). By default, the person who creates the image owns the copyright from the moment of the image's creation. But that doesn't grant them the liberty to use someone's <i>likeness</i> for commercial purposes. For that, you need an signed release that <i>includes compensation</i> (if it's just a token - like a print of the image, if not cash... but it's usually phrased along the lines of, "In consideration of valuable compensation... blah blah").
<br> <br>
Why does this matter? Because the subject of the photograph might be more than happy to have their image used commercially, but might be a rabid vegan, and not want their likeness used to endorse a small grocery store that specializes in foie gras or baby seal tenderloin or something else equally tasty. Many models don't get the luxury of choosing how their images will be used when they sign a release, since they don't have the contractual muscle for that sort of thing until they're well established. But even a broad-language commercial release signed by the model doesn't grant defamatory use, or use that might alter how your reputation plays out.
<br> <br>
Consider a photograph of someone like, say, Lance Armstrong riding across the finish line in a race. He might understandibly not want that used in an advertisement for Preparation H, to be run in a newspaper aimed at the gay demographic. Or maybe he would. The point is that he and he can consider issues like that when he signs a release, and use such considerations to limit use of the image.
<br> <br>
That has <i>absolutely nothing</i> to do with copyright. The subject of the photograph isn't the creator of the work. Curiously, you seem to desire both a situation where a family photograph of you is used in the next Viagra campaign (with a caption that says, "Our product can even help <i>this</i> guy!"), but you also want people who go to the trouble and expense to produce creeative works to have no means to license them in a way that can generate income. Doesn't mean that a given artist <i>will</i> produce anything that can be commercially licensed for compensation, but you don't even want them to have that choice.
<br> <br>
Your thoughts about the "evolution" of artists' and subjects' rights being <i>better</i> if both of those parties lost any control over their work are: wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If our culture had instead developed along the lines of liberal copyrights , such as the creative commons licenses , rather than the restrictive copyrights that are common , I do n't think anyone would care about this Once again , somebody who completely misunderstands the difference between a copyright and a model release .
The subject of the photograph does n't own the copyright ( except under very specific contractual situations ) .
By default , the person who creates the image owns the copyright from the moment of the image 's creation .
But that does n't grant them the liberty to use someone 's likeness for commercial purposes .
For that , you need an signed release that includes compensation ( if it 's just a token - like a print of the image , if not cash... but it 's usually phrased along the lines of , " In consideration of valuable compensation... blah blah " ) .
Why does this matter ?
Because the subject of the photograph might be more than happy to have their image used commercially , but might be a rabid vegan , and not want their likeness used to endorse a small grocery store that specializes in foie gras or baby seal tenderloin or something else equally tasty .
Many models do n't get the luxury of choosing how their images will be used when they sign a release , since they do n't have the contractual muscle for that sort of thing until they 're well established .
But even a broad-language commercial release signed by the model does n't grant defamatory use , or use that might alter how your reputation plays out .
Consider a photograph of someone like , say , Lance Armstrong riding across the finish line in a race .
He might understandibly not want that used in an advertisement for Preparation H , to be run in a newspaper aimed at the gay demographic .
Or maybe he would .
The point is that he and he can consider issues like that when he signs a release , and use such considerations to limit use of the image .
That has absolutely nothing to do with copyright .
The subject of the photograph is n't the creator of the work .
Curiously , you seem to desire both a situation where a family photograph of you is used in the next Viagra campaign ( with a caption that says , " Our product can even help this guy !
" ) , but you also want people who go to the trouble and expense to produce creeative works to have no means to license them in a way that can generate income .
Does n't mean that a given artist will produce anything that can be commercially licensed for compensation , but you do n't even want them to have that choice .
Your thoughts about the " evolution " of artists ' and subjects ' rights being better if both of those parties lost any control over their work are : wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If our culture had instead developed along the lines of liberal copyrights, such as the creative commons licenses, rather than the restrictive copyrights that are common, I don't think anyone would care about this
 
Once again, somebody who completely misunderstands the difference between a copyright and a model release.
The subject of the photograph doesn't own the copyright (except under very specific contractual situations).
By default, the person who creates the image owns the copyright from the moment of the image's creation.
But that doesn't grant them the liberty to use someone's likeness for commercial purposes.
For that, you need an signed release that includes compensation (if it's just a token - like a print of the image, if not cash... but it's usually phrased along the lines of, "In consideration of valuable compensation... blah blah").
Why does this matter?
Because the subject of the photograph might be more than happy to have their image used commercially, but might be a rabid vegan, and not want their likeness used to endorse a small grocery store that specializes in foie gras or baby seal tenderloin or something else equally tasty.
Many models don't get the luxury of choosing how their images will be used when they sign a release, since they don't have the contractual muscle for that sort of thing until they're well established.
But even a broad-language commercial release signed by the model doesn't grant defamatory use, or use that might alter how your reputation plays out.
Consider a photograph of someone like, say, Lance Armstrong riding across the finish line in a race.
He might understandibly not want that used in an advertisement for Preparation H, to be run in a newspaper aimed at the gay demographic.
Or maybe he would.
The point is that he and he can consider issues like that when he signs a release, and use such considerations to limit use of the image.
That has absolutely nothing to do with copyright.
The subject of the photograph isn't the creator of the work.
Curiously, you seem to desire both a situation where a family photograph of you is used in the next Viagra campaign (with a caption that says, "Our product can even help this guy!
"), but you also want people who go to the trouble and expense to produce creeative works to have no means to license them in a way that can generate income.
Doesn't mean that a given artist will produce anything that can be commercially licensed for compensation, but you don't even want them to have that choice.
Your thoughts about the "evolution" of artists' and subjects' rights being better if both of those parties lost any control over their work are: wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332347</id>
	<title>Re:Eh -- Support CC!</title>
	<author>pinkushun</author>
	<datestamp>1245007020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Excellent point!

In that case a friendly "Can we use your photo, please?" Wouldn't be bad either.

<br> <br>
<em>(This post is licensed under a CC attribution non-commercial share alike license)</em></htmltext>
<tokenext>Excellent point !
In that case a friendly " Can we use your photo , please ?
" Would n't be bad either .
( This post is licensed under a CC attribution non-commercial share alike license )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excellent point!
In that case a friendly "Can we use your photo, please?
" Wouldn't be bad either.
(This post is licensed under a CC attribution non-commercial share alike license)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332665</id>
	<title>RTFB</title>
	<author>dabadab</author>
	<datestamp>1245097920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you would have read the linked blog entry you would have seen this, written by the wife:<br>"I take FULL responsibillity for posting this picture with the incorrect resolution (read: too high)."</p><p>So we can take this "their friend sold their photo out" theory to rest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you would have read the linked blog entry you would have seen this , written by the wife : " I take FULL responsibillity for posting this picture with the incorrect resolution ( read : too high ) .
" So we can take this " their friend sold their photo out " theory to rest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you would have read the linked blog entry you would have seen this, written by the wife:"I take FULL responsibillity for posting this picture with the incorrect resolution (read: too high).
"So we can take this "their friend sold their photo out" theory to rest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332501</id>
	<title>Not Stolen. Nope. Not At All.</title>
	<author>Karganeth</author>
	<datestamp>1245009120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>From <a href="http://digg.com/odd\_stuff/Stolen\_picture\_used\_on\_a\_huge\_billboard\_in\_another\_country" title="digg.com">http://digg.com/odd\_stuff/Stolen\_picture\_used\_on\_a\_huge\_billboard\_in\_another\_country</a> [digg.com] "Her blog post and most of the comments here are retarded. That image was not stolen.

There's no way that large format print was produced from a 500 pixel wide Facebook rip. If you read her post she says a professional photographer "friend" took the image. The friend most likely sold it to a microstock agency which is where the design agency for the Czech supermarket chain bought it and is now denying it.

With tens of thousands of decent quality high resolution images taken on pro/semi-pro equipment available for a few dollars each on microstock sites, there's no way any designer would troll blogs to find a usable random photo of a family among point&amp;shoot and low rez photos."</htmltext>
<tokenext>From http : //digg.com/odd \ _stuff/Stolen \ _picture \ _used \ _on \ _a \ _huge \ _billboard \ _in \ _another \ _country [ digg.com ] " Her blog post and most of the comments here are retarded .
That image was not stolen .
There 's no way that large format print was produced from a 500 pixel wide Facebook rip .
If you read her post she says a professional photographer " friend " took the image .
The friend most likely sold it to a microstock agency which is where the design agency for the Czech supermarket chain bought it and is now denying it .
With tens of thousands of decent quality high resolution images taken on pro/semi-pro equipment available for a few dollars each on microstock sites , there 's no way any designer would troll blogs to find a usable random photo of a family among point&amp;shoot and low rez photos .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From http://digg.com/odd\_stuff/Stolen\_picture\_used\_on\_a\_huge\_billboard\_in\_another\_country [digg.com] "Her blog post and most of the comments here are retarded.
That image was not stolen.
There's no way that large format print was produced from a 500 pixel wide Facebook rip.
If you read her post she says a professional photographer "friend" took the image.
The friend most likely sold it to a microstock agency which is where the design agency for the Czech supermarket chain bought it and is now denying it.
With tens of thousands of decent quality high resolution images taken on pro/semi-pro equipment available for a few dollars each on microstock sites, there's no way any designer would troll blogs to find a usable random photo of a family among point&amp;shoot and low rez photos.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332997</id>
	<title>What about this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245059280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have long thought that <a href="http://netapps.com.au/R0013764.JPG" title="netapps.com.au">this cafe logo</a> [netapps.com.au] is a rip off of the debian logo. If you reverse the colors and rotate by 180 degrees they are almost the same.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have long thought that this cafe logo [ netapps.com.au ] is a rip off of the debian logo .
If you reverse the colors and rotate by 180 degrees they are almost the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have long thought that this cafe logo [netapps.com.au] is a rip off of the debian logo.
If you reverse the colors and rotate by 180 degrees they are almost the same.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332605</id>
	<title>The way it looks</title>
	<author>gaspyy</author>
	<datestamp>1245097200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've read about this over a week ago and it's very strange: There's no way anyone can take a 600px wide pic and blow it up to 1-2 m. 2m is about 80 inches; so that picture would have to be printed at 7.62 dpi (ppi would be more accurate). No way.</p><p>The only way that pic could have been used is if the ad people had access to the original file, which is assumed to be a hi-res picture from a dSLR. How could that happen? I see a few possibilities:</p><ul><li>The lady printed the high-res pic somewhere and a clerk took the pic, forged the model releases and submitted it to a microstock agency;</li><li>She uploaded the full size pic to Facebook and they used her pic. I am not familiar with Facebook's TOS (don't use it) so I don't know if you grant them the use of the stuff you upload;</li><li>The photographer sold the pic - again, model releases should have been required; 'extraordinarymommy' says she did not sign any model release. I don't want to accuse the photographer of anything, I'm just stating the options.</li></ul><p>To keep things in perspective, copyright is mostly respected in all Central and East Europe - it's not like it's a jungle. Stock images from sites like iStock are very cheap and of good quality. A 12-15 Mp file costs $20 at iStock, that's nothing when you have a paying customer. There's no NEED for anyone to steal the pic.</p><p>Course of action: contact the grocery store, find out who made their ad. Contact the ad agency. If they got the file legitimately, they will have no issue cooperating. If the file was from a stock agency, contact them and they will resolve the issue. If the ad agency cannot provide and proof, get a lawyer, threaten to sue but look for a settlement; a trial would be long a costly.</p><p>Disclosure: <a href="http://www.istockphoto.com/file\_search.php?action=file&amp;majorterms=\%7B\%22csv\%22\%3A\%22\%22\%2C\%22conjunction\%22\%3A\%22AND\%22\%7D&amp;copySpace=\%7B\%22Tolerance\%22\%3A1\%2C\%22Matrix\%22\%3A\%5B\%5D\%7D&amp;userID=752172&amp;fileTypeSizePrice=\%5B\%7B\%22type\%22\%3A\%22Image\%22\%2C\%22size\%22\%3A\%22All\%22\%2C\%22priceOption\%22\%3A\%221\%22\%7D\%2C\%7B\%22type\%22\%3A\%22Illustration+\%5BVector\%5D\%22\%2C\%22size\%22\%3A\%22Vector+Image\%22\%2C\%22priceOption\%22\%3A\%22All\%22\%7D\%2C\%7B\%22type\%22\%3A\%22Flash\%22\%2C\%22size\%22\%3A\%22Flash+Document\%22\%2C\%22priceOption\%22\%3A\%22All\%22\%7D\%2C\%7B\%22type\%22\%3A\%22Video\%22\%2C\%22size\%22\%3A\%22All\%22\%2C\%22priceOption\%22\%3A\%221\%22\%7D\%2C\%7B\%22type\%22\%3A\%22Standard+Audio\%22\%2C\%22size\%22\%3A\%22All\%22\%2C\%22priceOption\%22\%3A\%221\%22\%7D\%2C\%7B\%22type\%22\%3A\%22Pump+Audio\%22\%2C\%22size\%22\%3A\%22All\%22\%2C\%22priceOption\%22\%3A\%221\%22\%7D\%5D&amp;orientation=7&amp;filterContent=true&amp;illustrationLimit=Exactly&amp;flashLimit=Exactly&amp;collectionPayAsYouGo=1&amp;collectionSubscription=1&amp;taxonomy=Include+Premiere&amp;tempo=All&amp;audioKey=All&amp;timeSignature1=All&amp;timeSignature2=All&amp;bestmatchmix=60&amp;order=6&amp;perPage=30&amp;page=1&amp;showFileNumber=true&amp;enableLoupe=true" title="istockphoto.com">I am an exclusive contributor to iStock</a> [istockphoto.com] myself and I live in another Central European country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've read about this over a week ago and it 's very strange : There 's no way anyone can take a 600px wide pic and blow it up to 1-2 m. 2m is about 80 inches ; so that picture would have to be printed at 7.62 dpi ( ppi would be more accurate ) .
No way.The only way that pic could have been used is if the ad people had access to the original file , which is assumed to be a hi-res picture from a dSLR .
How could that happen ?
I see a few possibilities : The lady printed the high-res pic somewhere and a clerk took the pic , forged the model releases and submitted it to a microstock agency ; She uploaded the full size pic to Facebook and they used her pic .
I am not familiar with Facebook 's TOS ( do n't use it ) so I do n't know if you grant them the use of the stuff you upload ; The photographer sold the pic - again , model releases should have been required ; 'extraordinarymommy ' says she did not sign any model release .
I do n't want to accuse the photographer of anything , I 'm just stating the options.To keep things in perspective , copyright is mostly respected in all Central and East Europe - it 's not like it 's a jungle .
Stock images from sites like iStock are very cheap and of good quality .
A 12-15 Mp file costs $ 20 at iStock , that 's nothing when you have a paying customer .
There 's no NEED for anyone to steal the pic.Course of action : contact the grocery store , find out who made their ad .
Contact the ad agency .
If they got the file legitimately , they will have no issue cooperating .
If the file was from a stock agency , contact them and they will resolve the issue .
If the ad agency can not provide and proof , get a lawyer , threaten to sue but look for a settlement ; a trial would be long a costly.Disclosure : I am an exclusive contributor to iStock [ istockphoto.com ] myself and I live in another Central European country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've read about this over a week ago and it's very strange: There's no way anyone can take a 600px wide pic and blow it up to 1-2 m. 2m is about 80 inches; so that picture would have to be printed at 7.62 dpi (ppi would be more accurate).
No way.The only way that pic could have been used is if the ad people had access to the original file, which is assumed to be a hi-res picture from a dSLR.
How could that happen?
I see a few possibilities:The lady printed the high-res pic somewhere and a clerk took the pic, forged the model releases and submitted it to a microstock agency;She uploaded the full size pic to Facebook and they used her pic.
I am not familiar with Facebook's TOS (don't use it) so I don't know if you grant them the use of the stuff you upload;The photographer sold the pic - again, model releases should have been required; 'extraordinarymommy' says she did not sign any model release.
I don't want to accuse the photographer of anything, I'm just stating the options.To keep things in perspective, copyright is mostly respected in all Central and East Europe - it's not like it's a jungle.
Stock images from sites like iStock are very cheap and of good quality.
A 12-15 Mp file costs $20 at iStock, that's nothing when you have a paying customer.
There's no NEED for anyone to steal the pic.Course of action: contact the grocery store, find out who made their ad.
Contact the ad agency.
If they got the file legitimately, they will have no issue cooperating.
If the file was from a stock agency, contact them and they will resolve the issue.
If the ad agency cannot provide and proof, get a lawyer, threaten to sue but look for a settlement; a trial would be long a costly.Disclosure: I am an exclusive contributor to iStock [istockphoto.com] myself and I live in another Central European country.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28336471</id>
	<title>The moral is "broadcast reporters are dupes"</title>
	<author>zenyu</author>
	<datestamp>1245086280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I took one look at the picture and wondered what was up with the chiclets that appeared to have replaced that woman's teeth?</p><p>Two minutes of googling reveals this woman is a "Former TV Anchor" whose "shock" at public use of her family's image is obviously completely faked. She has now posted photos of herself with her family going through the whole 15 minutes of fame media circuit!</p><p>Her goal all along was to garner media attention for herself at the expense of her family. The "News Media" has played into her sick little hands. No wonder since she was one of them before making the career change to trophy wife so she is an easy interview. I will be demanding an apology from NPR for airing this bizarre feel good piece; cursory research should have revealed that tough questions of this little media whore were in order. (I expect this sort of thing of the "Morning Show" so they will be spared my pen.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I took one look at the picture and wondered what was up with the chiclets that appeared to have replaced that woman 's teeth ? Two minutes of googling reveals this woman is a " Former TV Anchor " whose " shock " at public use of her family 's image is obviously completely faked .
She has now posted photos of herself with her family going through the whole 15 minutes of fame media circuit ! Her goal all along was to garner media attention for herself at the expense of her family .
The " News Media " has played into her sick little hands .
No wonder since she was one of them before making the career change to trophy wife so she is an easy interview .
I will be demanding an apology from NPR for airing this bizarre feel good piece ; cursory research should have revealed that tough questions of this little media whore were in order .
( I expect this sort of thing of the " Morning Show " so they will be spared my pen .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I took one look at the picture and wondered what was up with the chiclets that appeared to have replaced that woman's teeth?Two minutes of googling reveals this woman is a "Former TV Anchor" whose "shock" at public use of her family's image is obviously completely faked.
She has now posted photos of herself with her family going through the whole 15 minutes of fame media circuit!Her goal all along was to garner media attention for herself at the expense of her family.
The "News Media" has played into her sick little hands.
No wonder since she was one of them before making the career change to trophy wife so she is an easy interview.
I will be demanding an apology from NPR for airing this bizarre feel good piece; cursory research should have revealed that tough questions of this little media whore were in order.
(I expect this sort of thing of the "Morning Show" so they will be spared my pen.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332829</id>
	<title>Re:Do it better</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1245056880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, depending on how much traffic they want for their personal blog... I know I'd take it a step further and ask the store to send back a pic of the owner with the photo and his shop to tack it to my page and claim I'm a celebrity in Prague.</p><p>Ride the meme while it lasts, I say!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , depending on how much traffic they want for their personal blog... I know I 'd take it a step further and ask the store to send back a pic of the owner with the photo and his shop to tack it to my page and claim I 'm a celebrity in Prague.Ride the meme while it lasts , I say !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, depending on how much traffic they want for their personal blog... I know I'd take it a step further and ask the store to send back a pic of the owner with the photo and his shop to tack it to my page and claim I'm a celebrity in Prague.Ride the meme while it lasts, I say!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28341575</id>
	<title>European Vacation</title>
	<author>onemorechip</author>
	<datestamp>1245065040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This happened in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European\_Vacation#Plot" title="wikipedia.org">National Lampoon's European Vacation</a> [wikipedia.org], but the Griswold's weren't so lucky about their image not being used "in an unseemly manner".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This happened in National Lampoon 's European Vacation [ wikipedia.org ] , but the Griswold 's were n't so lucky about their image not being used " in an unseemly manner " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This happened in National Lampoon's European Vacation [wikipedia.org], but the Griswold's weren't so lucky about their image not being used "in an unseemly manner".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333059</id>
	<title>Dear Mods: RTFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245060000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This entire post is wrong because the picture was not ripped off of facebook.  The woman has several websites. From TFA:<p><div class="quote"><p>I'll admit, there is an element of flattery (I think) to the whole thing.  But still, there is something creepy about knowing our family picture was stolen from one of my sites. This picture has been on my blog, used as a Christmas card and put on a few Ning Networking sites. It is also on my Facebook page (which is one of the reasons Justin recognized us) but my FB page is open only to friends.</p></div><p> My guess is that the designer did a google image search for high res images of a happy family. That's what I would do...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This entire post is wrong because the picture was not ripped off of facebook .
The woman has several websites .
From TFA : I 'll admit , there is an element of flattery ( I think ) to the whole thing .
But still , there is something creepy about knowing our family picture was stolen from one of my sites .
This picture has been on my blog , used as a Christmas card and put on a few Ning Networking sites .
It is also on my Facebook page ( which is one of the reasons Justin recognized us ) but my FB page is open only to friends .
My guess is that the designer did a google image search for high res images of a happy family .
That 's what I would do.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This entire post is wrong because the picture was not ripped off of facebook.
The woman has several websites.
From TFA:I'll admit, there is an element of flattery (I think) to the whole thing.
But still, there is something creepy about knowing our family picture was stolen from one of my sites.
This picture has been on my blog, used as a Christmas card and put on a few Ning Networking sites.
It is also on my Facebook page (which is one of the reasons Justin recognized us) but my FB page is open only to friends.
My guess is that the designer did a google image search for high res images of a happy family.
That's what I would do...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28334121</id>
	<title>Re:Eh</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1245074820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Copyright law of life plus 70 years is too strict, sure, but that doesn't mean copyright shouldn't exist at all, especially for commercial use. There is also the issue of advertising - would you like your image to be used to endorse a company's products?</p><p>Suppose some company or perhaps even a lobbyist organisation that you strongly disagreed with decided to use your image? Maybe with a slogan suggesting that you hold some views that you do not?</p><p>This is also getting into the issue of model rights of course, so even if copyrights didn't exist, it's unclear that this should be allowed without consent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyright law of life plus 70 years is too strict , sure , but that does n't mean copyright should n't exist at all , especially for commercial use .
There is also the issue of advertising - would you like your image to be used to endorse a company 's products ? Suppose some company or perhaps even a lobbyist organisation that you strongly disagreed with decided to use your image ?
Maybe with a slogan suggesting that you hold some views that you do not ? This is also getting into the issue of model rights of course , so even if copyrights did n't exist , it 's unclear that this should be allowed without consent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copyright law of life plus 70 years is too strict, sure, but that doesn't mean copyright shouldn't exist at all, especially for commercial use.
There is also the issue of advertising - would you like your image to be used to endorse a company's products?Suppose some company or perhaps even a lobbyist organisation that you strongly disagreed with decided to use your image?
Maybe with a slogan suggesting that you hold some views that you do not?This is also getting into the issue of model rights of course, so even if copyrights didn't exist, it's unclear that this should be allowed without consent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28346229</id>
	<title>Computer Generation</title>
	<author>executivechaos</author>
	<datestamp>1245157860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Mario Bertuccio, who owns the Grazie store in Prague, admitted that he had found the photo online but <b>thought it was computer-generated</b> and promised to remove it</i>
<br> <br>
I have to admit, that's the most <i>creative</i> pile of bull excrement I've ever laid eyes on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mario Bertuccio , who owns the Grazie store in Prague , admitted that he had found the photo online but thought it was computer-generated and promised to remove it I have to admit , that 's the most creative pile of bull excrement I 've ever laid eyes on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mario Bertuccio, who owns the Grazie store in Prague, admitted that he had found the photo online but thought it was computer-generated and promised to remove it
 
I have to admit, that's the most creative pile of bull excrement I've ever laid eyes on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333011</id>
	<title>Re:The way it looks</title>
	<author>jonnyt886</author>
	<datestamp>1245059520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here, here - this story is old.
<br> <br>
Link: <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8094420.stm" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">here</a> [bbc.co.uk].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here , here - this story is old .
Link : here [ bbc.co.uk ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here, here - this story is old.
Link: here [bbc.co.uk].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332267</id>
	<title>Eh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245006120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Eh, I don't see the problem really. If our culture had instead developed along the lines of liberal copyrights, such as the creative commons licenses, rather than the restrictive copyrights that are common, I don't think anyone would care about this. It's a nice photo and wasn't being used in any malicious way. I don't see what is creepy about this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Eh , I do n't see the problem really .
If our culture had instead developed along the lines of liberal copyrights , such as the creative commons licenses , rather than the restrictive copyrights that are common , I do n't think anyone would care about this .
It 's a nice photo and was n't being used in any malicious way .
I do n't see what is creepy about this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eh, I don't see the problem really.
If our culture had instead developed along the lines of liberal copyrights, such as the creative commons licenses, rather than the restrictive copyrights that are common, I don't think anyone would care about this.
It's a nice photo and wasn't being used in any malicious way.
I don't see what is creepy about this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333115</id>
	<title>Re:The way it looks</title>
	<author>Swampash</author>
	<datestamp>1245060840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I am not familiar with Facebook's TOS (don't use it) so I don't know if you grant them the use of the stuff you upload</i></p><p>Irrevocably, forever, in whatever way Facebook wants.</p><p>Anyone who posts photos to Facebook is a retard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not familiar with Facebook 's TOS ( do n't use it ) so I do n't know if you grant them the use of the stuff you uploadIrrevocably , forever , in whatever way Facebook wants.Anyone who posts photos to Facebook is a retard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not familiar with Facebook's TOS (don't use it) so I don't know if you grant them the use of the stuff you uploadIrrevocably, forever, in whatever way Facebook wants.Anyone who posts photos to Facebook is a retard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332355</id>
	<title>and now ...</title>
	<author>ImaRootofALLEVIL</author>
	<datestamp>1245007140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>it will appear on 4chan and be used in an unseemly manner</htmltext>
<tokenext>it will appear on 4chan and be used in an unseemly manner</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it will appear on 4chan and be used in an unseemly manner</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332555</id>
	<title>Photography Copyright</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1245096420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The vast majority of people don't understand copyright.  If I take a picture of you, I own the copyright on the image, not you.  Even if you pay me.  For some reason the "work for hire" system never got applied to photographers.  This is probably because photographers are typically hired on contract, not on retainer.  This is clearly as a case of a photographer selling his portfolio to a stock image reseller.  It's not unusual and the people in the picture are not entitled to anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The vast majority of people do n't understand copyright .
If I take a picture of you , I own the copyright on the image , not you .
Even if you pay me .
For some reason the " work for hire " system never got applied to photographers .
This is probably because photographers are typically hired on contract , not on retainer .
This is clearly as a case of a photographer selling his portfolio to a stock image reseller .
It 's not unusual and the people in the picture are not entitled to anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The vast majority of people don't understand copyright.
If I take a picture of you, I own the copyright on the image, not you.
Even if you pay me.
For some reason the "work for hire" system never got applied to photographers.
This is probably because photographers are typically hired on contract, not on retainer.
This is clearly as a case of a photographer selling his portfolio to a stock image reseller.
It's not unusual and the people in the picture are not entitled to anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333577</id>
	<title>Re:The way it looks</title>
	<author>thestallion</author>
	<datestamp>1245068880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think Google's Picasa also has an option for you to upload your photos in full-res without downsizing them, so it could have been downloaded from a Picasa Web Album.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Google 's Picasa also has an option for you to upload your photos in full-res without downsizing them , so it could have been downloaded from a Picasa Web Album .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Google's Picasa also has an option for you to upload your photos in full-res without downsizing them, so it could have been downloaded from a Picasa Web Album.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28334583</id>
	<title>Free</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245077760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Anything (well unless it's something I'm trying to find) you post on the internet can be found. It's common sense.</i></p><p>Anything posted on the Internet should also be totally free. It's common sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anything ( well unless it 's something I 'm trying to find ) you post on the internet can be found .
It 's common sense.Anything posted on the Internet should also be totally free .
It 's common sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anything (well unless it's something I'm trying to find) you post on the internet can be found.
It's common sense.Anything posted on the Internet should also be totally free.
It's common sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333057</id>
	<title>Misplaced outrage</title>
	<author>weave</author>
	<datestamp>1245060000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gessh, her blog is getting insane traffic levels.  Use the publicity to grow your reader base and stop whining about it.

I'm not justifying the pic theft, but if she was smart she'd turn it into an opportunity.  Loads of sites would kill for that kind of publicity and traffic boost.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gessh , her blog is getting insane traffic levels .
Use the publicity to grow your reader base and stop whining about it .
I 'm not justifying the pic theft , but if she was smart she 'd turn it into an opportunity .
Loads of sites would kill for that kind of publicity and traffic boost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gessh, her blog is getting insane traffic levels.
Use the publicity to grow your reader base and stop whining about it.
I'm not justifying the pic theft, but if she was smart she'd turn it into an opportunity.
Loads of sites would kill for that kind of publicity and traffic boost.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28334359</id>
	<title>This happened to my barbershop quartet</title>
	<author>Tom Arneberg</author>
	<datestamp>1245076320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This has happened to me, too! Most often to my quartet.
I was quite surprised to see
<a href="http://www.worth1000.com/emailthis.asp?entry=392086" title="worth1000.com" rel="nofollow">
this photo</a> [worth1000.com] of the Beatles as a barbershop quartet. Someone
hijacked
<a href="http://chipsquartet.com/pics/chips.9610.full.jpeg" title="chipsquartet.com" rel="nofollow">
this photo</a> [chipsquartet.com]
of
<a href="http://chipsquartet.com/" title="chipsquartet.com" rel="nofollow">
my quartet</a> [chipsquartet.com],
and changed the faces. Steven Colbert also used our photo on his
show (with the original faces). Do I mind? HECK NO -- all PR is
good PR!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>This has happened to me , too !
Most often to my quartet .
I was quite surprised to see this photo [ worth1000.com ] of the Beatles as a barbershop quartet .
Someone hijacked this photo [ chipsquartet.com ] of my quartet [ chipsquartet.com ] , and changed the faces .
Steven Colbert also used our photo on his show ( with the original faces ) .
Do I mind ?
HECK NO -- all PR is good PR !
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has happened to me, too!
Most often to my quartet.
I was quite surprised to see

this photo [worth1000.com] of the Beatles as a barbershop quartet.
Someone
hijacked

this photo [chipsquartet.com]
of

my quartet [chipsquartet.com],
and changed the faces.
Steven Colbert also used our photo on his
show (with the original faces).
Do I mind?
HECK NO -- all PR is
good PR!
;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28334313</id>
	<title>Re:Photography Copyright</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1245076080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Even if you pay me. For some reason the "work for hire" system never got applied to photographers. </i></p><p>Yeah - I find it shocking that even for things like wedding photos, the couple don't even own the rights to their own photos that they paid for, and would be breaking the law if they made another copy. I remember my brother getting the complete set of photos that were taken on the day of his wedding, but a large number of them had an ugly "copyright" stamped across them, the idea being he'd have to pay extra to get a proper version...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if you pay me .
For some reason the " work for hire " system never got applied to photographers .
Yeah - I find it shocking that even for things like wedding photos , the couple do n't even own the rights to their own photos that they paid for , and would be breaking the law if they made another copy .
I remember my brother getting the complete set of photos that were taken on the day of his wedding , but a large number of them had an ugly " copyright " stamped across them , the idea being he 'd have to pay extra to get a proper version.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if you pay me.
For some reason the "work for hire" system never got applied to photographers.
Yeah - I find it shocking that even for things like wedding photos, the couple don't even own the rights to their own photos that they paid for, and would be breaking the law if they made another copy.
I remember my brother getting the complete set of photos that were taken on the day of his wedding, but a large number of them had an ugly "copyright" stamped across them, the idea being he'd have to pay extra to get a proper version...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28340481</id>
	<title>And to add insult to injury...</title>
	<author>tompaulco</author>
	<datestamp>1245059400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A link to the family's photo is now prominently displayed on slashdot's front page.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A link to the family 's photo is now prominently displayed on slashdot 's front page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A link to the family's photo is now prominently displayed on slashdot's front page.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28334663</id>
	<title>Re:Really...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245078240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looking at the photo, she could have done better.  I'll bet she has some big tits too.  Hell, I'd hit it.  Maybe I should email her my number or something.  She's got some nice DSL's too.  Hells yeah.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looking at the photo , she could have done better .
I 'll bet she has some big tits too .
Hell , I 'd hit it .
Maybe I should email her my number or something .
She 's got some nice DSL 's too .
Hells yeah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looking at the photo, she could have done better.
I'll bet she has some big tits too.
Hell, I'd hit it.
Maybe I should email her my number or something.
She's got some nice DSL's too.
Hells yeah.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333407</id>
	<title>Keytar USA</title>
	<author>paimin</author>
	<datestamp>1245066480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I happen to be in the first image that comes up in the Google image search for "keytar".  Thus, I have received several snapshots from friends finding this image in random places around the world.  If I was anything other than thrilled by this fact, do you think I would be in that picture in the first place?<br>
<br>
Seriously, cameras don't steal your soul. Everyone has images of themselves posted to the internet these days, with or without their knowledge or consent.  There's not a damn thing you can do about it.  Get over it.<br>
<br>
News flash - when you appear in public, people can see you!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I happen to be in the first image that comes up in the Google image search for " keytar " .
Thus , I have received several snapshots from friends finding this image in random places around the world .
If I was anything other than thrilled by this fact , do you think I would be in that picture in the first place ?
Seriously , cameras do n't steal your soul .
Everyone has images of themselves posted to the internet these days , with or without their knowledge or consent .
There 's not a damn thing you can do about it .
Get over it .
News flash - when you appear in public , people can see you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I happen to be in the first image that comes up in the Google image search for "keytar".
Thus, I have received several snapshots from friends finding this image in random places around the world.
If I was anything other than thrilled by this fact, do you think I would be in that picture in the first place?
Seriously, cameras don't steal your soul.
Everyone has images of themselves posted to the internet these days, with or without their knowledge or consent.
There's not a damn thing you can do about it.
Get over it.
News flash - when you appear in public, people can see you!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332719</id>
	<title>Re:The way it looks</title>
	<author>Deltaspectre</author>
	<datestamp>1245098700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you read her blog post she says she accidentally posted the original high resolution picture instead of posting a thumbnailish version</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read her blog post she says she accidentally posted the original high resolution picture instead of posting a thumbnailish version</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read her blog post she says she accidentally posted the original high resolution picture instead of posting a thumbnailish version</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332789</id>
	<title>Re:For chrissakes, you're American, right?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245099480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Do it right.</i></p><p><i><a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002168937\_coffeemug03.html" title="nwsource.com">http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002168937\_coffeemug03.html</a> [nwsource.com]</i></p><p><i>Sue them.</i></p><p>While America has a law requiring a model's consent for photographs of them to be used for commercial purposes, this is not generally true in the rest of the world.  I don't claim to know anything about Czech law, but I suspect if the story you linked happened there he wouldn't have a leg to stand on.</p><p>OTOH, it seems in this case the image was also used without a copyright license, so some form of legal redress would be available.  The likely procedes, however, are probably too small to be worthwhile: single instance of copyright violation, I'd guess there's no statutory damages in Czech law so you'd have to prove actual losses, which would amount to a reasonable fee for using the photo, which would likely amount to a stock photo licence fee of about $1-500.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do it right.http : //seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002168937 \ _coffeemug03.html [ nwsource.com ] Sue them.While America has a law requiring a model 's consent for photographs of them to be used for commercial purposes , this is not generally true in the rest of the world .
I do n't claim to know anything about Czech law , but I suspect if the story you linked happened there he would n't have a leg to stand on.OTOH , it seems in this case the image was also used without a copyright license , so some form of legal redress would be available .
The likely procedes , however , are probably too small to be worthwhile : single instance of copyright violation , I 'd guess there 's no statutory damages in Czech law so you 'd have to prove actual losses , which would amount to a reasonable fee for using the photo , which would likely amount to a stock photo licence fee of about $ 1-500 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do it right.http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002168937\_coffeemug03.html [nwsource.com]Sue them.While America has a law requiring a model's consent for photographs of them to be used for commercial purposes, this is not generally true in the rest of the world.
I don't claim to know anything about Czech law, but I suspect if the story you linked happened there he wouldn't have a leg to stand on.OTOH, it seems in this case the image was also used without a copyright license, so some form of legal redress would be available.
The likely procedes, however, are probably too small to be worthwhile: single instance of copyright violation, I'd guess there's no statutory damages in Czech law so you'd have to prove actual losses, which would amount to a reasonable fee for using the photo, which would likely amount to a stock photo licence fee of about $1-500.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332239</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332965</id>
	<title>Re:Not Stolen. Nope. Not At All.</title>
	<author>martijnd</author>
	<datestamp>1245058740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not necessary the high res shot was available on her blog: </p><p><a href="http://www.extraordinarymommy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/img\_1053.jpg" title="extraordinarymommy.com">http://www.extraordinarymommy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/img\_1053.jpg</a> [extraordinarymommy.com]</p><p>Looking at the URL she is going to be to pleased about this whole brooha as she is running her own blog as a potential business.  Links from Slashdot are going to make her happy. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not necessary the high res shot was available on her blog : http : //www.extraordinarymommy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/img \ _1053.jpg [ extraordinarymommy.com ] Looking at the URL she is going to be to pleased about this whole brooha as she is running her own blog as a potential business .
Links from Slashdot are going to make her happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not necessary the high res shot was available on her blog: http://www.extraordinarymommy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/img\_1053.jpg [extraordinarymommy.com]Looking at the URL she is going to be to pleased about this whole brooha as she is running her own blog as a potential business.
Links from Slashdot are going to make her happy. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28339273</id>
	<title>Here's another similar story from sometime ago...</title>
	<author>HungWeiLo</author>
	<datestamp>1245097860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/virgin-sued-for-using-teens-photo/2007/09/21/1189881735928.html" title="theage.com.au">Virgin Mobile ad apparently stole a picture off Flickr.</a> [theage.com.au]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Virgin Mobile ad apparently stole a picture off Flickr .
[ theage.com.au ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Virgin Mobile ad apparently stole a picture off Flickr.
[theage.com.au]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332381</id>
	<title>You need a time machine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245007320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>News story. Week old.  Slashdot.  Catch up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>News story .
Week old .
Slashdot. Catch up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>News story.
Week old.
Slashdot.  Catch up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332255</id>
	<title>Actually as far as costs go</title>
	<author>deft</author>
	<datestamp>1245005940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would be amazingly hard to sue them, so finding pics of someone in another country that will more than likely never see it, is a fairly safe way to go, and zero costs, with little risks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be amazingly hard to sue them , so finding pics of someone in another country that will more than likely never see it , is a fairly safe way to go , and zero costs , with little risks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be amazingly hard to sue them, so finding pics of someone in another country that will more than likely never see it, is a fairly safe way to go, and zero costs, with little risks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332291</id>
	<title>800 800 188</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245006480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I heard they got Battletoads Wii.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I heard they got Battletoads Wii .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I heard they got Battletoads Wii.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332521</id>
	<title>The moral is</title>
	<author>SpaghettiPattern</author>
	<datestamp>1245009420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The moral is: "DO NOT POST YOUR PERSONAL LIFE ON THE INTERNET!"<br> <br>
Really, besides your loved ones, nobody gives a fsck about your personal life unless they can make a bob or two out of it.<br> <br>
Also, be unmistakeably clear to provide licensing conditions to your content.<br> <br>
Last, don't whine if you're an idiot. Then again, you're probably still in the long lasting denial phase anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The moral is : " DO NOT POST YOUR PERSONAL LIFE ON THE INTERNET !
" Really , besides your loved ones , nobody gives a fsck about your personal life unless they can make a bob or two out of it .
Also , be unmistakeably clear to provide licensing conditions to your content .
Last , do n't whine if you 're an idiot .
Then again , you 're probably still in the long lasting denial phase anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The moral is: "DO NOT POST YOUR PERSONAL LIFE ON THE INTERNET!
" 
Really, besides your loved ones, nobody gives a fsck about your personal life unless they can make a bob or two out of it.
Also, be unmistakeably clear to provide licensing conditions to your content.
Last, don't whine if you're an idiot.
Then again, you're probably still in the long lasting denial phase anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333207</id>
	<title>Re:The way it looks</title>
	<author>gaspyy</author>
	<datestamp>1245062820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently she added that after I read her original post. I don't know how Facebook handles upload, i.e. if you upload the high-res, does it resize it and keeps the original or discards it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently she added that after I read her original post .
I do n't know how Facebook handles upload , i.e .
if you upload the high-res , does it resize it and keeps the original or discards it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently she added that after I read her original post.
I don't know how Facebook handles upload, i.e.
if you upload the high-res, does it resize it and keeps the original or discards it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333575</id>
	<title>Hilarious!</title>
	<author>Any Web Loco</author>
	<datestamp>1245068820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anyone else love the counterpoint of "For chrissakes, you're American, right?" and "Instead, do the adult thing"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone else love the counterpoint of " For chrissakes , you 're American , right ?
" and " Instead , do the adult thing " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone else love the counterpoint of "For chrissakes, you're American, right?
" and "Instead, do the adult thing"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28334769</id>
	<title>But what was the camera?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245078900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh come on, are we supposed to be geeks here or what?</p><p>Why aren't we asking what camera was used?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh come on , are we supposed to be geeks here or what ? Why are n't we asking what camera was used ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh come on, are we supposed to be geeks here or what?Why aren't we asking what camera was used?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28335477</id>
	<title>By the way...</title>
	<author>raguirre</author>
	<datestamp>1245082320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's a <a href="http://vtr.com/" title="vtr.com" rel="nofollow">chilean cable provider</a> [vtr.com] which seems to have been inspired by the Slashdot logo.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a chilean cable provider [ vtr.com ] which seems to have been inspired by the Slashdot logo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a chilean cable provider [vtr.com] which seems to have been inspired by the Slashdot logo.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332839</id>
	<title>Re:Eh</title>
	<author>Moraelin</author>
	<datestamp>1245056940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think there's anything about copyright laws in not wanting your photos used by everyone and their pervert uncle without permission. Duly noted, in this case no big harm was done, but I can easily imagine a few uses where you probably wouldn't go "eh, creative commons all the way" about your photos.</p><p>As a still mild example, a case on The Register a couple of years ago involved a family discovering their daughter's photos -- which apparently they did realease under some kind of cretive commons license which allowed that -- being plastered all over the town on some "ditch your girlfriend by SMS" ads. If you don't see how being the poster girl for a "ditch your girlfriend" campaign can be stressful, I dare say you don't remember high school too well.</p><p>Or what if I used your photo in some glowing testimonial about herbal viagra or penis enlargement pills? I'm sure that'll be some fun talks all around. Or in some drug rehab ad? Kleptomaniacs Anonymous? Disgruntled employee of the month? I'm sure that'll be fun when HR runs into that before your next job interview. You might not even know they did. Or an ad for a gay sex hotline? Now that will be fun in the bible belt.</p><p>If nothing else, at some point or another, your image or reputation might actually be important. Having some control over how it's used is just common sense. It has nothing to do with copyright culture, but just with the fact that libel -- even vaguely implied, like associating your image with something you don't want to be associated with -- can and does cause real harm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think there 's anything about copyright laws in not wanting your photos used by everyone and their pervert uncle without permission .
Duly noted , in this case no big harm was done , but I can easily imagine a few uses where you probably would n't go " eh , creative commons all the way " about your photos.As a still mild example , a case on The Register a couple of years ago involved a family discovering their daughter 's photos -- which apparently they did realease under some kind of cretive commons license which allowed that -- being plastered all over the town on some " ditch your girlfriend by SMS " ads .
If you do n't see how being the poster girl for a " ditch your girlfriend " campaign can be stressful , I dare say you do n't remember high school too well.Or what if I used your photo in some glowing testimonial about herbal viagra or penis enlargement pills ?
I 'm sure that 'll be some fun talks all around .
Or in some drug rehab ad ?
Kleptomaniacs Anonymous ?
Disgruntled employee of the month ?
I 'm sure that 'll be fun when HR runs into that before your next job interview .
You might not even know they did .
Or an ad for a gay sex hotline ?
Now that will be fun in the bible belt.If nothing else , at some point or another , your image or reputation might actually be important .
Having some control over how it 's used is just common sense .
It has nothing to do with copyright culture , but just with the fact that libel -- even vaguely implied , like associating your image with something you do n't want to be associated with -- can and does cause real harm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think there's anything about copyright laws in not wanting your photos used by everyone and their pervert uncle without permission.
Duly noted, in this case no big harm was done, but I can easily imagine a few uses where you probably wouldn't go "eh, creative commons all the way" about your photos.As a still mild example, a case on The Register a couple of years ago involved a family discovering their daughter's photos -- which apparently they did realease under some kind of cretive commons license which allowed that -- being plastered all over the town on some "ditch your girlfriend by SMS" ads.
If you don't see how being the poster girl for a "ditch your girlfriend" campaign can be stressful, I dare say you don't remember high school too well.Or what if I used your photo in some glowing testimonial about herbal viagra or penis enlargement pills?
I'm sure that'll be some fun talks all around.
Or in some drug rehab ad?
Kleptomaniacs Anonymous?
Disgruntled employee of the month?
I'm sure that'll be fun when HR runs into that before your next job interview.
You might not even know they did.
Or an ad for a gay sex hotline?
Now that will be fun in the bible belt.If nothing else, at some point or another, your image or reputation might actually be important.
Having some control over how it's used is just common sense.
It has nothing to do with copyright culture, but just with the fact that libel -- even vaguely implied, like associating your image with something you don't want to be associated with -- can and does cause real harm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333959</id>
	<title>Overused clipart</title>
	<author>British</author>
	<datestamp>1245073200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's funny when you see the SAME clip art being used on multiple products. You have probably seen the "chick with red vinyl pants turning her hair to the side" picture if you have seen a Coby portable DVD player. I saw the same image being used at a Sam Goody(on a wall poster) as well as a cardboard display for free AOL CDs. I have yet to find the original.</p><p>Heck, I've seen familiar clip art images on Tim &amp; Eric Awesome show, from Hemera Photo Objects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's funny when you see the SAME clip art being used on multiple products .
You have probably seen the " chick with red vinyl pants turning her hair to the side " picture if you have seen a Coby portable DVD player .
I saw the same image being used at a Sam Goody ( on a wall poster ) as well as a cardboard display for free AOL CDs .
I have yet to find the original.Heck , I 've seen familiar clip art images on Tim &amp; Eric Awesome show , from Hemera Photo Objects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's funny when you see the SAME clip art being used on multiple products.
You have probably seen the "chick with red vinyl pants turning her hair to the side" picture if you have seen a Coby portable DVD player.
I saw the same image being used at a Sam Goody(on a wall poster) as well as a cardboard display for free AOL CDs.
I have yet to find the original.Heck, I've seen familiar clip art images on Tim &amp; Eric Awesome show, from Hemera Photo Objects.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_193227_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28337995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_193227_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_193227_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_193227_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332267
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_193227_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28334559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332267
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_193227_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332593
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_193227_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28334313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_193227_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_193227_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28336471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_193227_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_193227_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_193227_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28334663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332205
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_193227_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_193227_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_193227_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332267
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_193227_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28338423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_193227_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28340081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_193227_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_193227_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28334715
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_193227_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28335503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_193227_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_193227_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28340221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_193227_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_193227_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28334087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_193227_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_193227_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_193227_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28334583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332205
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_193227_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28342679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_193227_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_193227_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_193227_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28334389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_193227_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_193227_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_193227_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332267
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_193227_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28334121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332267
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_193227.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332205
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28334663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28334583
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_193227.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28334769
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_193227.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332957
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_193227.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332605
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28340081
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333115
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332719
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333207
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333131
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333577
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333011
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_193227.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332255
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_193227.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332997
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_193227.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332555
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28334313
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332713
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_193227.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332965
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332665
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28334389
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332577
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333059
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333051
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_193227.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332267
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332347
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332881
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28334559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28334121
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332839
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_193227.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28337995
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_193227.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333027
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_193227.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333057
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_193227.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332521
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28336471
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332963
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28335503
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28334715
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_193227.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333005
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28342679
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333619
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_193227.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332329
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_193227.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332239
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332789
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28334087
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332553
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28332829
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28333575
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28338423
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_193227.28340221
</commentlist>
</conversation>
