<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_12_229251</id>
	<title>Obama Photog Says "You're Both Wrong" To AP & Fairey</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1247393700000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">NewYorkCountryLawyer</a> writes <i>"In <a href="http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Documents.htm&amp;s=Fairey\_v\_AP">Fairey v. Associated Press</a>, the Associated Press said artist Shepard Fairey's painting had <a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009/03/associated-press-files-its-answer-and.html#5493431511951637110">infringed its copyrights</a> in a photo of then-President Elect Barack Obama. Fairey said <a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009/02/fairey-sues-associated-press-for.html#2271215598599675886">no, it was a 'fair use'</a>. Now, the freelance photographer who actually took the AP photo &mdash; Manuel Garcia &mdash; has <a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/#3824254555160215649">sought permission to intervene in the case</a>, saying that both  the AP and Fairey are wrong. <a href="http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Lawyer\_Copyright\_Internet\_Law/fairey\_ap\_090709GarciaInterventionMemoLaw.pdf">Garcia's motion</a> (PDF) protests that <a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009/07/photographer-moves-to-intervene-in.html">he, not AP, is the owner of the copyright in the photograph</a>, and that he never relinquished it to AP. And he argues that Fairey is not entitled to a fair use defense. According to <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20090710/0159495506.shtml">an article in TechDirt</a>, this intervention motion by Mr. Garcia represents a changed attitude on his part, and that his initial reaction to Mr. Fairey's painting was admiration, and a desire for an autographed litho. Maybe Mr. Fairey should have given him that autographed litho."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes " In Fairey v. Associated Press , the Associated Press said artist Shepard Fairey 's painting had infringed its copyrights in a photo of then-President Elect Barack Obama .
Fairey said no , it was a 'fair use' .
Now , the freelance photographer who actually took the AP photo    Manuel Garcia    has sought permission to intervene in the case , saying that both the AP and Fairey are wrong .
Garcia 's motion ( PDF ) protests that he , not AP , is the owner of the copyright in the photograph , and that he never relinquished it to AP .
And he argues that Fairey is not entitled to a fair use defense .
According to an article in TechDirt , this intervention motion by Mr. Garcia represents a changed attitude on his part , and that his initial reaction to Mr. Fairey 's painting was admiration , and a desire for an autographed litho .
Maybe Mr. Fairey should have given him that autographed litho .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Fairey v. Associated Press, the Associated Press said artist Shepard Fairey's painting had infringed its copyrights in a photo of then-President Elect Barack Obama.
Fairey said no, it was a 'fair use'.
Now, the freelance photographer who actually took the AP photo — Manuel Garcia — has sought permission to intervene in the case, saying that both  the AP and Fairey are wrong.
Garcia's motion (PDF) protests that he, not AP, is the owner of the copyright in the photograph, and that he never relinquished it to AP.
And he argues that Fairey is not entitled to a fair use defense.
According to an article in TechDirt, this intervention motion by Mr. Garcia represents a changed attitude on his part, and that his initial reaction to Mr. Fairey's painting was admiration, and a desire for an autographed litho.
Maybe Mr. Fairey should have given him that autographed litho.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28673307</id>
	<title>Re:I'm having a hard time seeing infringement</title>
	<author>LKM</author>
	<datestamp>1247516880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is not about distribution of the original work, but about the creation of a derivative work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not about distribution of the original work , but about the creation of a derivative work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not about distribution of the original work, but about the creation of a derivative work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670579</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Killer Orca</author>
	<datestamp>1247399640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Photog is also a word too; I was surprised to learn this but apparently it is quite common in photography circles. I originally thought it was a term for a photo-blog, but was informed otherwise, I'm sure it's in my comment history somewhere...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Photog is also a word too ; I was surprised to learn this but apparently it is quite common in photography circles .
I originally thought it was a term for a photo-blog , but was informed otherwise , I 'm sure it 's in my comment history somewhere.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Photog is also a word too; I was surprised to learn this but apparently it is quite common in photography circles.
I originally thought it was a term for a photo-blog, but was informed otherwise, I'm sure it's in my comment history somewhere...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28674955</id>
	<title>Re:Is this the photo of...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247493660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>similar tastes?  Michelle Obama looks like a gorilla wearing makeup next to Carla Bruni.</htmltext>
<tokenext>similar tastes ?
Michelle Obama looks like a gorilla wearing makeup next to Carla Bruni .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>similar tastes?
Michelle Obama looks like a gorilla wearing makeup next to Carla Bruni.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28672005</id>
	<title>Re:I'm having a hard time seeing infringement</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1247413320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sigh, I wish this myth would die. Technically speaking you cannot render 3 dimensions onto only 2 without making some sort of creative or editorial decision as to how the projection should work out. Factual photographs are a very specific type of photo which is aimed at preserving or relaying information rather than on expression.<br> <br>

Typically speaking the photo won't have any meaningful creative element to it and will just consist of documentary evidence. Sort of like group photos or pictures of museum pieces used for documentation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sigh , I wish this myth would die .
Technically speaking you can not render 3 dimensions onto only 2 without making some sort of creative or editorial decision as to how the projection should work out .
Factual photographs are a very specific type of photo which is aimed at preserving or relaying information rather than on expression .
Typically speaking the photo wo n't have any meaningful creative element to it and will just consist of documentary evidence .
Sort of like group photos or pictures of museum pieces used for documentation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sigh, I wish this myth would die.
Technically speaking you cannot render 3 dimensions onto only 2 without making some sort of creative or editorial decision as to how the projection should work out.
Factual photographs are a very specific type of photo which is aimed at preserving or relaying information rather than on expression.
Typically speaking the photo won't have any meaningful creative element to it and will just consist of documentary evidence.
Sort of like group photos or pictures of museum pieces used for documentation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28672081</id>
	<title>Garcia Is Consisent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247414040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Regarding this: "There's no way to square this with his original comments"</p><p>I do not believe Garcia is being inconsistent; I would probably have a similar reaction. I put almost all my photographs under the creative commons license, and I am very flattered when anyone considers my photographs good enough to use for anything. Still, I consider this part of the license absolutely essential: "you must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor". I took the energy to take and share my photograph with others, so I think the license I put it under should be respected.</p><p>Although I use a different license than Garcia, we both agree that putting something online should not be the equivalent of completely losing ownership/control of our art. Still, we are both flattered when people do want to use our art. These two beliefs are not mutually exclusive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Regarding this : " There 's no way to square this with his original comments " I do not believe Garcia is being inconsistent ; I would probably have a similar reaction .
I put almost all my photographs under the creative commons license , and I am very flattered when anyone considers my photographs good enough to use for anything .
Still , I consider this part of the license absolutely essential : " you must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor " .
I took the energy to take and share my photograph with others , so I think the license I put it under should be respected.Although I use a different license than Garcia , we both agree that putting something online should not be the equivalent of completely losing ownership/control of our art .
Still , we are both flattered when people do want to use our art .
These two beliefs are not mutually exclusive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regarding this: "There's no way to square this with his original comments"I do not believe Garcia is being inconsistent; I would probably have a similar reaction.
I put almost all my photographs under the creative commons license, and I am very flattered when anyone considers my photographs good enough to use for anything.
Still, I consider this part of the license absolutely essential: "you must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor".
I took the energy to take and share my photograph with others, so I think the license I put it under should be respected.Although I use a different license than Garcia, we both agree that putting something online should not be the equivalent of completely losing ownership/control of our art.
Still, we are both flattered when people do want to use our art.
These two beliefs are not mutually exclusive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28673349</id>
	<title>Re:I'm having a hard time seeing infringement</title>
	<author>LKM</author>
	<datestamp>1247517660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clearly, photographs can have creative value. In this particular case, though, I don't think so. It's a picture of Obama's head. It's not unique, there are probably dozens or hundreds that look very similar. Furthermore, Fairey's work bears little resemblance to the original image; for a long time, it was unclear which image the original source was since there are so many similar photographs and Fairey's final result is not particular similar to the original photograph.</p><p>Your argument that Fairey would not have needed the original image if the original image had little or no creative value does not hold water. A sheet of paper doesn't hold creative value, yet you still need it if you want to create a drawing. Similarly, Fairey used the picture as a tool to create his work; he could have chosen any of the dozens of the pictures and achieved a similar result, just like you can choose any piece of paper and create a similar drawing on it. The fact that he chose this particular picture does not prove that it was special, just like the fact that you pick a certain piece of paper does not make that particular piece special.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly , photographs can have creative value .
In this particular case , though , I do n't think so .
It 's a picture of Obama 's head .
It 's not unique , there are probably dozens or hundreds that look very similar .
Furthermore , Fairey 's work bears little resemblance to the original image ; for a long time , it was unclear which image the original source was since there are so many similar photographs and Fairey 's final result is not particular similar to the original photograph.Your argument that Fairey would not have needed the original image if the original image had little or no creative value does not hold water .
A sheet of paper does n't hold creative value , yet you still need it if you want to create a drawing .
Similarly , Fairey used the picture as a tool to create his work ; he could have chosen any of the dozens of the pictures and achieved a similar result , just like you can choose any piece of paper and create a similar drawing on it .
The fact that he chose this particular picture does not prove that it was special , just like the fact that you pick a certain piece of paper does not make that particular piece special .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly, photographs can have creative value.
In this particular case, though, I don't think so.
It's a picture of Obama's head.
It's not unique, there are probably dozens or hundreds that look very similar.
Furthermore, Fairey's work bears little resemblance to the original image; for a long time, it was unclear which image the original source was since there are so many similar photographs and Fairey's final result is not particular similar to the original photograph.Your argument that Fairey would not have needed the original image if the original image had little or no creative value does not hold water.
A sheet of paper doesn't hold creative value, yet you still need it if you want to create a drawing.
Similarly, Fairey used the picture as a tool to create his work; he could have chosen any of the dozens of the pictures and achieved a similar result, just like you can choose any piece of paper and create a similar drawing on it.
The fact that he chose this particular picture does not prove that it was special, just like the fact that you pick a certain piece of paper does not make that particular piece special.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670621</id>
	<title>here is a picture or my a.ss</title>
	<author>CHRONOSS2008</author>
	<datestamp>1247399940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>free to all wihtout copyright , this is how stupid US copyright is and look how much money gets wasted while people starve and oil and power get used up over something so retarded it make sme want to look at the exorcist head spin , over and over again</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>free to all wihtout copyright , this is how stupid US copyright is and look how much money gets wasted while people starve and oil and power get used up over something so retarded it make sme want to look at the exorcist head spin , over and over again</tokentext>
<sentencetext>free to all wihtout copyright , this is how stupid US copyright is and look how much money gets wasted while people starve and oil and power get used up over something so retarded it make sme want to look at the exorcist head spin , over and over again</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670667</id>
	<title>Re:Photog?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247400540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What world do you live in where pictures have voices?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What world do you live in where pictures have voices ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What world do you live in where pictures have voices?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28672743</id>
	<title>great photo</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1247421960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>baby got barack</p><p><a href="http://blog.beliefnet.com/everydayethics/2009/07/obama-ogles-ass-nah-but-sleazy-sarkozy-sure-did.html" title="beliefnet.com">http://blog.beliefnet.com/everydayethics/2009/07/obama-ogles-ass-nah-but-sleazy-sarkozy-sure-did.html</a> [beliefnet.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>baby got barackhttp : //blog.beliefnet.com/everydayethics/2009/07/obama-ogles-ass-nah-but-sleazy-sarkozy-sure-did.html [ beliefnet.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>baby got barackhttp://blog.beliefnet.com/everydayethics/2009/07/obama-ogles-ass-nah-but-sleazy-sarkozy-sure-did.html [beliefnet.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670761</id>
	<title>Re:Photog?</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1247401380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, then it'd be downright confusing -- photo says "You're both wrong"? Though "photographer" would have been much better than a made-up abbreviation. On the other hand, "photog" abbreviation has apparently been around since about 1906...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , then it 'd be downright confusing -- photo says " You 're both wrong " ?
Though " photographer " would have been much better than a made-up abbreviation .
On the other hand , " photog " abbreviation has apparently been around since about 1906.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, then it'd be downright confusing -- photo says "You're both wrong"?
Though "photographer" would have been much better than a made-up abbreviation.
On the other hand, "photog" abbreviation has apparently been around since about 1906...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28672101</id>
	<title>Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians</title>
	<author>LihTox</author>
	<datestamp>1247414280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Al Gore received 90\% of the black vote in 2000, and John Kerry received 88\% of the black vote in 2004.  (Source: <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/10/21/black-support-for-obama-at-near-record-levels/" title="wsj.com">http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/10/21/black-support-for-obama-at-near-record-levels/</a> [wsj.com])</p><p>So your 65\% number is bullshit.</p><p>Since this is off-topic I'll say no more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Al Gore received 90 \ % of the black vote in 2000 , and John Kerry received 88 \ % of the black vote in 2004 .
( Source : http : //blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/10/21/black-support-for-obama-at-near-record-levels/ [ wsj.com ] ) So your 65 \ % number is bullshit.Since this is off-topic I 'll say no more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Al Gore received 90\% of the black vote in 2000, and John Kerry received 88\% of the black vote in 2004.
(Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/10/21/black-support-for-obama-at-near-record-levels/ [wsj.com])So your 65\% number is bullshit.Since this is off-topic I'll say no more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671227</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28678073</id>
	<title>Re:Photog?</title>
	<author>Aphoxema</author>
	<datestamp>1247505900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Photog" is the stupid new way some people say "picture taken with a camera", and when you try to tell these people they sound like idiots they defend their use of the word with the observation that they've seen plenty of other people use the word, disregarding the possibility that they also sound like idiots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Photog " is the stupid new way some people say " picture taken with a camera " , and when you try to tell these people they sound like idiots they defend their use of the word with the observation that they 've seen plenty of other people use the word , disregarding the possibility that they also sound like idiots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Photog" is the stupid new way some people say "picture taken with a camera", and when you try to tell these people they sound like idiots they defend their use of the word with the observation that they've seen plenty of other people use the word, disregarding the possibility that they also sound like idiots.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671227</id>
	<title>Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247405940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>During the election, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin.  See the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">exit-polling data</a> [cnn.com] by CNN.
<p>
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc.  These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks).  Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian.  So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern.  Only about 65\% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama.  In other words, a maximum of 65\% support by any ethnic or racial group for <b>either</b> McCain <b>or</b> Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable.  (A maximum of 65\% for McCain is okay.  So, European-American support at 55\% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.)
</p><p>
If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama.  At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
</p><p>
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals.  That claim is an outright lie.  Look at the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#NCDEM" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">exit-polling data</a> [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries.  Consider the case of North Carolina.  Again, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton.  Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical.  Yet, 95\% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton.  Why?  African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
</p><p>
Here is the bottom line.  Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America.  He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
</p><p>
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable.  Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior.  Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.  Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.  You need not defend your actions in any way.  Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>During the election , about 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin .
See the exit-polling data [ cnn.com ] by CNN .
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics , Asian-Americans , etc .
These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites ( and other non-Black folks ) .
Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian .
So , Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and , hence , serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern .
Only about 65 \ % of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama .
In other words , a maximum of 65 \ % support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and , hence , is acceptable .
( A maximum of 65 \ % for McCain is okay .
So , European-American support at 55 \ % for McCain is well below this threshold and , hence , is not racist .
) If African-Americans were not racist , then at most 65 \ % of them would have supported Obama .
At that level of support , McCain would have won the presidential race .
At this point , African-American supremacists ( and apologists ) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he ( 1 ) is a member of the Democratic party and ( 2 ) supports its ideals .
That claim is an outright lie .
Look at the exit-polling data [ cnn.com ] for the Democratic primaries .
Consider the case of North Carolina .
Again , about 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton .
Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats , and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical .
Yet , 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton .
Why ? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin .
Here is the bottom line .
Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America .
He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans .
African-Americans have established that expressing " racial pride " by voting on the basis of skin color is 100 \ % acceptable .
Neither the " Wall Street Journal " nor the " New York Times " complained about this racist behavior .
Therefore , in future elections , please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color .
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American .
You need not defend your actions in any way .
Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today 's moral standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>During the election, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
See the exit-polling data [cnn.com] by CNN.
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc.
These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks).
Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian.
So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern.
Only about 65\% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama.
In other words, a maximum of 65\% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable.
(A maximum of 65\% for McCain is okay.
So, European-American support at 55\% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.
)

If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama.
At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals.
That claim is an outright lie.
Look at the exit-polling data [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries.
Consider the case of North Carolina.
Again, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton.
Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical.
Yet, 95\% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton.
Why?  African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
Here is the bottom line.
Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America.
He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable.
Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior.
Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.
You need not defend your actions in any way.
Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28673171</id>
	<title>Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247428260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bet it's impossible that you interpret the statistics totally wrong mr Troll? Have a look at "Vote by Ideology" and go figure</p><p>Also, what was the percentage Al Gore received from African-Americans?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet it 's impossible that you interpret the statistics totally wrong mr Troll ?
Have a look at " Vote by Ideology " and go figureAlso , what was the percentage Al Gore received from African-Americans ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet it's impossible that you interpret the statistics totally wrong mr Troll?
Have a look at "Vote by Ideology" and go figureAlso, what was the percentage Al Gore received from African-Americans?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671227</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671577</id>
	<title>I'll tell you what this means</title>
	<author>Rude Turnip</author>
	<datestamp>1247409000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bill Clinton is going to be all over me like I was a Christmas ham! (or a chubby intern)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bill Clinton is going to be all over me like I was a Christmas ham !
( or a chubby intern )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bill Clinton is going to be all over me like I was a Christmas ham!
(or a chubby intern)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28676977</id>
	<title>Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians</title>
	<author>St.Creed</author>
	<datestamp>1247502180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In your point of view South African blacks were racist for fighting their white oppressors ('they were all white! You're just a bunch of anti-white racists'). There's a description for your point of view: it's called 'blaming the victim'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In your point of view South African blacks were racist for fighting their white oppressors ( 'they were all white !
You 're just a bunch of anti-white racists ' ) .
There 's a description for your point of view : it 's called 'blaming the victim' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In your point of view South African blacks were racist for fighting their white oppressors ('they were all white!
You're just a bunch of anti-white racists').
There's a description for your point of view: it's called 'blaming the victim'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671227</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671539</id>
	<title>Re:What are the chances...</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1247408760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems to me that showing that the painting could have been plausibly based on any of several photos would strengthen the painter's case considerably.  Doing so would indicate that what he copied was not the photographer's creative expression but mere sc&#232;nes &#224; faire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to me that showing that the painting could have been plausibly based on any of several photos would strengthen the painter 's case considerably .
Doing so would indicate that what he copied was not the photographer 's creative expression but mere sc   nes   faire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to me that showing that the painting could have been plausibly based on any of several photos would strengthen the painter's case considerably.
Doing so would indicate that what he copied was not the photographer's creative expression but mere scènes à faire.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670675</id>
	<title>Re:I'm having a hard time seeing infringement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247400600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see your point, but I still disagree with it. If you think it's so easy to snap that photo, go shoot it yourself. When you do that, <em>then</em> you may dictate the terms under which it is distributed. Not before... unless the photographer licenses the photograph for your use. Or in theory, if the photographer was a paid employee of the federal government. hahahAHahaHAHa</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see your point , but I still disagree with it .
If you think it 's so easy to snap that photo , go shoot it yourself .
When you do that , then you may dictate the terms under which it is distributed .
Not before... unless the photographer licenses the photograph for your use .
Or in theory , if the photographer was a paid employee of the federal government .
hahahAHahaHAHa</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see your point, but I still disagree with it.
If you think it's so easy to snap that photo, go shoot it yourself.
When you do that, then you may dictate the terms under which it is distributed.
Not before... unless the photographer licenses the photograph for your use.
Or in theory, if the photographer was a paid employee of the federal government.
hahahAHahaHAHa</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671981</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1247413200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, it's sort of a nickname of source for photographers. Mostly because it's more or less the shortest you can go without causing ambiguity. Photo being taken and Phot being just absurd. It's just one of those words you run into if you go to enough sites, sort of like CRP or Camera Reversus Phobia.<br> <br>

Pretty much any technical field you go into has that sort of thing that goes on mostly to speed things up and figure out who's just a poser.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , it 's sort of a nickname of source for photographers .
Mostly because it 's more or less the shortest you can go without causing ambiguity .
Photo being taken and Phot being just absurd .
It 's just one of those words you run into if you go to enough sites , sort of like CRP or Camera Reversus Phobia .
Pretty much any technical field you go into has that sort of thing that goes on mostly to speed things up and figure out who 's just a poser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, it's sort of a nickname of source for photographers.
Mostly because it's more or less the shortest you can go without causing ambiguity.
Photo being taken and Phot being just absurd.
It's just one of those words you run into if you go to enough sites, sort of like CRP or Camera Reversus Phobia.
Pretty much any technical field you go into has that sort of thing that goes on mostly to speed things up and figure out who's just a poser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28672817</id>
	<title>What was Garcia's contract with AP?</title>
	<author>nbauman</author>
	<datestamp>1247422860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In order for AP to use Manuel Garcia's photos, Garcia had to give them a written license or contract stating the rights he was giving them (first use, non-exclusive rights, all rights, domestic rights, international rights, etc.).
<p>
What was the contract that Garcia signed with AP? If he didn't sign anything, then AP wouldn't have any rights to use his work at all. If he signed over all his rights, AP owns the work. If he signed over certain rights to use them in newspapers and magazines, but kept all other rights for himself, then he owns the rights. Depending on the contract he used, he might have kept the right to make derivative merchandise.
</p><p>
Garcia's legal papers don't mention anything about the contract he signed with AP.
</p><p>
Are there any photographers out there? What are the provisions in the usual contract you sign with an agency like AP? Do you sell all rights? What rights do you keep?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In order for AP to use Manuel Garcia 's photos , Garcia had to give them a written license or contract stating the rights he was giving them ( first use , non-exclusive rights , all rights , domestic rights , international rights , etc. ) .
What was the contract that Garcia signed with AP ?
If he did n't sign anything , then AP would n't have any rights to use his work at all .
If he signed over all his rights , AP owns the work .
If he signed over certain rights to use them in newspapers and magazines , but kept all other rights for himself , then he owns the rights .
Depending on the contract he used , he might have kept the right to make derivative merchandise .
Garcia 's legal papers do n't mention anything about the contract he signed with AP .
Are there any photographers out there ?
What are the provisions in the usual contract you sign with an agency like AP ?
Do you sell all rights ?
What rights do you keep ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In order for AP to use Manuel Garcia's photos, Garcia had to give them a written license or contract stating the rights he was giving them (first use, non-exclusive rights, all rights, domestic rights, international rights, etc.).
What was the contract that Garcia signed with AP?
If he didn't sign anything, then AP wouldn't have any rights to use his work at all.
If he signed over all his rights, AP owns the work.
If he signed over certain rights to use them in newspapers and magazines, but kept all other rights for himself, then he owns the rights.
Depending on the contract he used, he might have kept the right to make derivative merchandise.
Garcia's legal papers don't mention anything about the contract he signed with AP.
Are there any photographers out there?
What are the provisions in the usual contract you sign with an agency like AP?
Do you sell all rights?
What rights do you keep?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28676065</id>
	<title>AP said he was a "staff photographer"</title>
	<author>NewYorkCountryLawyer</author>
	<datestamp>1247499120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I went back to AP's <a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009/03/associated-press-files-its-answer-and.html#5493431511951637110" title="blogspot.com">answer and counterclaim</a> [blogspot.com] to see what they had to say about why they felt they had the copyright to Garcia's photo. They said he was a "staff photographer".<br> <br>If I were a judge reading that, I would assume they meant that he was an employee of AP. Garcia says he is not an employee, but an independent contractor. Since his allegations are specific while theirs is vague, I would assume he is telling the truth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I went back to AP 's answer and counterclaim [ blogspot.com ] to see what they had to say about why they felt they had the copyright to Garcia 's photo .
They said he was a " staff photographer " .
If I were a judge reading that , I would assume they meant that he was an employee of AP .
Garcia says he is not an employee , but an independent contractor .
Since his allegations are specific while theirs is vague , I would assume he is telling the truth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I went back to AP's answer and counterclaim [blogspot.com] to see what they had to say about why they felt they had the copyright to Garcia's photo.
They said he was a "staff photographer".
If I were a judge reading that, I would assume they meant that he was an employee of AP.
Garcia says he is not an employee, but an independent contractor.
Since his allegations are specific while theirs is vague, I would assume he is telling the truth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670927</id>
	<title>What are the chances...</title>
	<author>Overzeetop</author>
	<datestamp>1247403120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...you could find a frame in the thousands of hours of TV coverage of Obama that has his face in this approximate pose and orientation - enough from which to base the stylization of the bust, and crop out the background to the multi-colored sky and banner bottom? Would the existence of such a frame nullify this lawsuit, or create a second one allowing one of the TV networks to sue the artist as well?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...you could find a frame in the thousands of hours of TV coverage of Obama that has his face in this approximate pose and orientation - enough from which to base the stylization of the bust , and crop out the background to the multi-colored sky and banner bottom ?
Would the existence of such a frame nullify this lawsuit , or create a second one allowing one of the TV networks to sue the artist as well ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...you could find a frame in the thousands of hours of TV coverage of Obama that has his face in this approximate pose and orientation - enough from which to base the stylization of the bust, and crop out the background to the multi-colored sky and banner bottom?
Would the existence of such a frame nullify this lawsuit, or create a second one allowing one of the TV networks to sue the artist as well?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671823</id>
	<title>Clever Fairey</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1247411400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice of him to let AP do all the leg work on the case and THEN intervene.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice of him to let AP do all the leg work on the case and THEN intervene .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice of him to let AP do all the leg work on the case and THEN intervene.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670861</id>
	<title>Re:I'm having a hard time seeing infringement</title>
	<author>rhizome</author>
	<datestamp>1247402580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Yes, the photograph is copyright, but the content - Obama looking up in a button down shirt and a tie - is so generic as to be reduced to almost "factual" information when translated into the poster.</i></p><p>All photographs are "factual" information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , the photograph is copyright , but the content - Obama looking up in a button down shirt and a tie - is so generic as to be reduced to almost " factual " information when translated into the poster.All photographs are " factual " information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, the photograph is copyright, but the content - Obama looking up in a button down shirt and a tie - is so generic as to be reduced to almost "factual" information when translated into the poster.All photographs are "factual" information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671247</id>
	<title>Re:Photog?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247406120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>or if they had dropped the entire title and put in 'This news story is immensely irrelevant'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or if they had dropped the entire title and put in 'This news story is immensely irrelevant' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or if they had dropped the entire title and put in 'This news story is immensely irrelevant'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670381</id>
	<title>Is this the photo of...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247397840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...Obama checking out some 17 year old girl's ass?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...Obama checking out some 17 year old girl 's ass ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Obama checking out some 17 year old girl's ass?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671661</id>
	<title>Re:What are the chances...</title>
	<author>WNight</author>
	<datestamp>1247409780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Neither. Any number of photographers who took identical photos would have their own copyright. Only the one whose photo was traced (if indeed one was) would have a case. If the artist looked at photos but drew his own he's likely fine, unless he took extreme attention to detail.</p><p>If this had been a frame from a video it would (more) likely fall under fair use being an insignificant part of the whole. Each still photo is individually copyrighted, borrowing one still photo is less 'fair' than one frame of a video.</p><p>Frankly any outcome of this trial/issue is counter-factual because we keep insisting you can own ideas. We should all just ignore the law extra hard for a while and hope it goes away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Neither .
Any number of photographers who took identical photos would have their own copyright .
Only the one whose photo was traced ( if indeed one was ) would have a case .
If the artist looked at photos but drew his own he 's likely fine , unless he took extreme attention to detail.If this had been a frame from a video it would ( more ) likely fall under fair use being an insignificant part of the whole .
Each still photo is individually copyrighted , borrowing one still photo is less 'fair ' than one frame of a video.Frankly any outcome of this trial/issue is counter-factual because we keep insisting you can own ideas .
We should all just ignore the law extra hard for a while and hope it goes away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Neither.
Any number of photographers who took identical photos would have their own copyright.
Only the one whose photo was traced (if indeed one was) would have a case.
If the artist looked at photos but drew his own he's likely fine, unless he took extreme attention to detail.If this had been a frame from a video it would (more) likely fall under fair use being an insignificant part of the whole.
Each still photo is individually copyrighted, borrowing one still photo is less 'fair' than one frame of a video.Frankly any outcome of this trial/issue is counter-factual because we keep insisting you can own ideas.
We should all just ignore the law extra hard for a while and hope it goes away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671167</id>
	<title>Re:I'm having a hard time seeing infringement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247405280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Photos of the President fall under a completely different system.  He is a public figure and it a way the people "own" him as a civil servant.  His photos are generally public domain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Photos of the President fall under a completely different system .
He is a public figure and it a way the people " own " him as a civil servant .
His photos are generally public domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Photos of the President fall under a completely different system.
He is a public figure and it a way the people "own" him as a civil servant.
His photos are generally public domain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670525</id>
	<title>Re:Is this the photo of...</title>
	<author>martas</author>
	<datestamp>1247399220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>i especially like sarkozy's look of approval, like he's saying "way to go barack, i can tell we have similar tastes".</htmltext>
<tokenext>i especially like sarkozy 's look of approval , like he 's saying " way to go barack , i can tell we have similar tastes " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i especially like sarkozy's look of approval, like he's saying "way to go barack, i can tell we have similar tastes".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671143</id>
	<title>Re:I'm having a hard time seeing infringement</title>
	<author>belmolis</author>
	<datestamp>1247404980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
One other point: the right of publicity is a purely negative right. The holder of the right has the power to prevent certain uses of his or her image. He or she does not have the right to license uses of his or her image that infringe on other IP rights. If a photographer takes a picture of, say, Jennifer Aniston, she can prevent that photograph from being used in an advertising campaign for hairspray or clothing. She cannot, however, unilaterally grant a license to an advertising agency. The photographer owns the copyright to the photograph must grant a license for it to be used for commercial purposes. The permission of <b>both</b> Ms. Aniston and the photographer is necessary. So, in this case, since Obama didn't take the photograph, his approval is not sufficient to allow an infringing use of the photograph if the photographer or AP, whichever owns the copyright, does not approve.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One other point : the right of publicity is a purely negative right .
The holder of the right has the power to prevent certain uses of his or her image .
He or she does not have the right to license uses of his or her image that infringe on other IP rights .
If a photographer takes a picture of , say , Jennifer Aniston , she can prevent that photograph from being used in an advertising campaign for hairspray or clothing .
She can not , however , unilaterally grant a license to an advertising agency .
The photographer owns the copyright to the photograph must grant a license for it to be used for commercial purposes .
The permission of both Ms. Aniston and the photographer is necessary .
So , in this case , since Obama did n't take the photograph , his approval is not sufficient to allow an infringing use of the photograph if the photographer or AP , whichever owns the copyright , does not approve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
One other point: the right of publicity is a purely negative right.
The holder of the right has the power to prevent certain uses of his or her image.
He or she does not have the right to license uses of his or her image that infringe on other IP rights.
If a photographer takes a picture of, say, Jennifer Aniston, she can prevent that photograph from being used in an advertising campaign for hairspray or clothing.
She cannot, however, unilaterally grant a license to an advertising agency.
The photographer owns the copyright to the photograph must grant a license for it to be used for commercial purposes.
The permission of both Ms. Aniston and the photographer is necessary.
So, in this case, since Obama didn't take the photograph, his approval is not sufficient to allow an infringing use of the photograph if the photographer or AP, whichever owns the copyright, does not approve.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28675063</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1247494260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>2 mch txtng i thk. kds r lzy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2 mch txtng i thk .
kds r lzy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2 mch txtng i thk.
kds r lzy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670379</id>
	<title>Photog?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247397780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Title would be much clearer if the g was dropped from 'Photog'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Title would be much clearer if the g was dropped from 'Photog' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Title would be much clearer if the g was dropped from 'Photog'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670939</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Strange Ranger</author>
	<datestamp>1247403240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You mean photogoober isn't having a lithotomy?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean photogoober is n't having a lithotomy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean photogoober isn't having a lithotomy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28673237</id>
	<title>Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians</title>
	<author>Profane MuthaFucka</author>
	<datestamp>1247515860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love it when conservatives talk about race. It's so<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... racist. And the large numbers of overt racist Republicans is doing a great deal to help both Democrats and liberals.</p><p>Keep on going.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love it when conservatives talk about race .
It 's so ... racist. And the large numbers of overt racist Republicans is doing a great deal to help both Democrats and liberals.Keep on going .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love it when conservatives talk about race.
It's so ... racist. And the large numbers of overt racist Republicans is doing a great deal to help both Democrats and liberals.Keep on going.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671227</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28675151</id>
	<title>Whose ass was it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247494860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whose ass was it?  i want to know who is the owner of that shiny magenta badonkadonk?  That chick looked pretty hot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whose ass was it ?
i want to know who is the owner of that shiny magenta badonkadonk ?
That chick looked pretty hot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whose ass was it?
i want to know who is the owner of that shiny magenta badonkadonk?
That chick looked pretty hot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671075</id>
	<title>Copyright is out of control</title>
	<author>The Cisco Kid</author>
	<datestamp>1247404260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Taking a a photograph of something is not an original work, for the most part. Painting a picture of it might be.</p><p>But to be honest (while leaving out entirely my position on Obama's politics themselves) I would think that Obama himself should have copyright on any images of himself, to hell with who made them.</p><p>I think this should apply in general, although photo studios certainly believe otherwise and go out of their way to tell you so. If the subject of a photo is a person, then that person should have an overriding right to use that photograph in any way they see fit, at the very least, in addition to, any rights that the photographer might have. If the photograph is of a privately owned object, then ditto for the owner of said object. If of a publicly owned object, then the photo, once released, should be public domain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Taking a a photograph of something is not an original work , for the most part .
Painting a picture of it might be.But to be honest ( while leaving out entirely my position on Obama 's politics themselves ) I would think that Obama himself should have copyright on any images of himself , to hell with who made them.I think this should apply in general , although photo studios certainly believe otherwise and go out of their way to tell you so .
If the subject of a photo is a person , then that person should have an overriding right to use that photograph in any way they see fit , at the very least , in addition to , any rights that the photographer might have .
If the photograph is of a privately owned object , then ditto for the owner of said object .
If of a publicly owned object , then the photo , once released , should be public domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taking a a photograph of something is not an original work, for the most part.
Painting a picture of it might be.But to be honest (while leaving out entirely my position on Obama's politics themselves) I would think that Obama himself should have copyright on any images of himself, to hell with who made them.I think this should apply in general, although photo studios certainly believe otherwise and go out of their way to tell you so.
If the subject of a photo is a person, then that person should have an overriding right to use that photograph in any way they see fit, at the very least, in addition to, any rights that the photographer might have.
If the photograph is of a privately owned object, then ditto for the owner of said object.
If of a publicly owned object, then the photo, once released, should be public domain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28672679</id>
	<title>Re:Photog?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247420940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Title would be much clearer if the g was dropped from 'Photog'.</i> </p><p>Oh, it's about photography<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I thought it was simply a typo with a 'g' in place of the 'n'!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Title would be much clearer if the g was dropped from 'Photog' .
Oh , it 's about photography ... I thought it was simply a typo with a 'g ' in place of the 'n ' !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Title would be much clearer if the g was dropped from 'Photog'.
Oh, it's about photography ... I thought it was simply a typo with a 'g' in place of the 'n'!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670733</id>
	<title>If only I could mod...</title>
	<author>WheelDweller</author>
	<datestamp>1247401080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd mod this response UP!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd mod this response UP !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd mod this response UP!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671481</id>
	<title>Re:I'm having a hard time seeing infringement</title>
	<author>Firehed</author>
	<datestamp>1247408400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Photographers (more often than not) are attempting to tell a specific story, and will very intentionally compose a photo accordingly. So while photos aren't lies (excluding work in photoshop), they can and do often take a small section of the truth way out of context.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Photographers ( more often than not ) are attempting to tell a specific story , and will very intentionally compose a photo accordingly .
So while photos are n't lies ( excluding work in photoshop ) , they can and do often take a small section of the truth way out of context .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Photographers (more often than not) are attempting to tell a specific story, and will very intentionally compose a photo accordingly.
So while photos aren't lies (excluding work in photoshop), they can and do often take a small section of the truth way out of context.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671403</id>
	<title>Re:I'm having a hard time seeing infringement</title>
	<author>sker</author>
	<datestamp>1247407800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;Yes, the photograph is copyright, but the content - Obama looking up in a button down shirt and a tie - is so generic as to be reduced to almost "factual" information when translated into the poster.</p><p>If that's truly the case, then why would Fairey have needed to use the photo at all? If it is generic, why did he use it? Why wouldn't he use his magic artist skillz to create some equally lifelike pose without anyone else's photo? I understand the majority of Slashdot doesn't view photography as a creative art with any intrinsic value. But, if the photo has no value then don't use it. If the original photo adds nothing at all to the "essence" of the final work  then Fairey shouldn't have needed it in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; Yes , the photograph is copyright , but the content - Obama looking up in a button down shirt and a tie - is so generic as to be reduced to almost " factual " information when translated into the poster.If that 's truly the case , then why would Fairey have needed to use the photo at all ?
If it is generic , why did he use it ?
Why would n't he use his magic artist skillz to create some equally lifelike pose without anyone else 's photo ?
I understand the majority of Slashdot does n't view photography as a creative art with any intrinsic value .
But , if the photo has no value then do n't use it .
If the original photo adds nothing at all to the " essence " of the final work then Fairey should n't have needed it in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;Yes, the photograph is copyright, but the content - Obama looking up in a button down shirt and a tie - is so generic as to be reduced to almost "factual" information when translated into the poster.If that's truly the case, then why would Fairey have needed to use the photo at all?
If it is generic, why did he use it?
Why wouldn't he use his magic artist skillz to create some equally lifelike pose without anyone else's photo?
I understand the majority of Slashdot doesn't view photography as a creative art with any intrinsic value.
But, if the photo has no value then don't use it.
If the original photo adds nothing at all to the "essence" of the final work  then Fairey shouldn't have needed it in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670571</id>
	<title>Re:Photog?</title>
	<author>slarrg</author>
	<datestamp>1247399520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Personally, I would prefer the headline "Obama Photographer Says AP and Fairey Are Both Wrong" for the same number of characters.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I would prefer the headline " Obama Photographer Says AP and Fairey Are Both Wrong " for the same number of characters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I would prefer the headline "Obama Photographer Says AP and Fairey Are Both Wrong" for the same number of characters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671669</id>
	<title>Re:Photog?</title>
	<author>crossmr</author>
	<datestamp>1247409840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That wouldn't be nearly as tabloid and sexy as the current title.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That would n't be nearly as tabloid and sexy as the current title .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That wouldn't be nearly as tabloid and sexy as the current title.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28678229</id>
	<title>Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians</title>
	<author>Aphoxema</author>
	<datestamp>1247506380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I voted for Obama because he's black and I'm white.</p><p>It's easy to assume this makes me racist or narrow minded, but consider I didn't vote for him because he was black -for him-, I did it -for everyone else-.</p><p>Anyways, racism in America is pretty watered down compared to racism in the rest of the world. Here we have a history of slavery and the occasional racially motivated murder, theft, arson, whatever. Other parts of the world have mass genocide, constant war, competent adults mutually hating each other even when they have the same-colored skin but different bloodlines, refusal of medical care, food and water... slavery appears relatively benevolent contrasted to modern racism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I voted for Obama because he 's black and I 'm white.It 's easy to assume this makes me racist or narrow minded , but consider I did n't vote for him because he was black -for him- , I did it -for everyone else-.Anyways , racism in America is pretty watered down compared to racism in the rest of the world .
Here we have a history of slavery and the occasional racially motivated murder , theft , arson , whatever .
Other parts of the world have mass genocide , constant war , competent adults mutually hating each other even when they have the same-colored skin but different bloodlines , refusal of medical care , food and water... slavery appears relatively benevolent contrasted to modern racism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I voted for Obama because he's black and I'm white.It's easy to assume this makes me racist or narrow minded, but consider I didn't vote for him because he was black -for him-, I did it -for everyone else-.Anyways, racism in America is pretty watered down compared to racism in the rest of the world.
Here we have a history of slavery and the occasional racially motivated murder, theft, arson, whatever.
Other parts of the world have mass genocide, constant war, competent adults mutually hating each other even when they have the same-colored skin but different bloodlines, refusal of medical care, food and water... slavery appears relatively benevolent contrasted to modern racism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671227</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28672213</id>
	<title>When will Obama step in...</title>
	<author>DynamiteNeon</author>
	<datestamp>1247415480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...to point out that he is actually the one with ownership over his own head and all 3 of these people are wrong?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...to point out that he is actually the one with ownership over his own head and all 3 of these people are wrong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...to point out that he is actually the one with ownership over his own head and all 3 of these people are wrong?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670829</id>
	<title>Re:Is this the photo of...</title>
	<author>fishbowl</author>
	<datestamp>1247402220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;...Obama checking out some 17 year old girl's ass?</p><p>The video tells a completely different story from that still.  Believe what you want to believe though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; ...Obama checking out some 17 year old girl 's ass ? The video tells a completely different story from that still .
Believe what you want to believe though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;...Obama checking out some 17 year old girl's ass?The video tells a completely different story from that still.
Believe what you want to believe though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28674849</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1247492700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Photog? Litho? You cannot be bothered to type those out?</i></p><p>Fixed that for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Photog ?
Litho ? You can not be bothered to type those out ? Fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Photog?
Litho? You cannot be bothered to type those out?Fixed that for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670709</id>
	<title>Re:Is this the photo of...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247400900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You just had to bring that up didn't you?  The libtards are frothing at the mouth with their "1t waz DRUDGE lies!!!!111 omg" and regurgitating AP 'stories' about how it was all made up...</p><p>I couldn't give a toss about fair use, copyrights, yadda yadda.  Just don't start painting multi-story portraits of the man on the sides of buildings, please.  He's got 7.5 years left; start getting use to the idea now because I am certain that for many of you it won't be enough time to accept that this too shall pass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You just had to bring that up did n't you ?
The libtards are frothing at the mouth with their " 1t waz DRUDGE lies ! ! !
! 111 omg " and regurgitating AP 'stories ' about how it was all made up...I could n't give a toss about fair use , copyrights , yadda yadda .
Just do n't start painting multi-story portraits of the man on the sides of buildings , please .
He 's got 7.5 years left ; start getting use to the idea now because I am certain that for many of you it wo n't be enough time to accept that this too shall pass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You just had to bring that up didn't you?
The libtards are frothing at the mouth with their "1t waz DRUDGE lies!!!
!111 omg" and regurgitating AP 'stories' about how it was all made up...I couldn't give a toss about fair use, copyrights, yadda yadda.
Just don't start painting multi-story portraits of the man on the sides of buildings, please.
He's got 7.5 years left; start getting use to the idea now because I am certain that for many of you it won't be enough time to accept that this too shall pass.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28673079</id>
	<title>Hope for copyright reform?</title>
	<author>Qrlx</author>
	<datestamp>1247426940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the photographer is due something.  But by the time the courts have figured out exactly what that is, the lawyers will have used up all the money.</p><p>Arbitration seems like a worthy alternative to the courts.</p><p>Since it's a famous picture of him, maybe the President could spend a few hours looking over those law books and sorting out some of this Intellectual Property mess we find ourselves in.  Look at it another way, if Barack Obama can somehow be personally dragged into this vortex the way John Q. Downloader has been, maybe there finally will finally be some... Change.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the photographer is due something .
But by the time the courts have figured out exactly what that is , the lawyers will have used up all the money.Arbitration seems like a worthy alternative to the courts.Since it 's a famous picture of him , maybe the President could spend a few hours looking over those law books and sorting out some of this Intellectual Property mess we find ourselves in .
Look at it another way , if Barack Obama can somehow be personally dragged into this vortex the way John Q. Downloader has been , maybe there finally will finally be some... Change. : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the photographer is due something.
But by the time the courts have figured out exactly what that is, the lawyers will have used up all the money.Arbitration seems like a worthy alternative to the courts.Since it's a famous picture of him, maybe the President could spend a few hours looking over those law books and sorting out some of this Intellectual Property mess we find ourselves in.
Look at it another way, if Barack Obama can somehow be personally dragged into this vortex the way John Q. Downloader has been, maybe there finally will finally be some... Change. :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671805</id>
	<title>Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247411340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This might be interesting if it were the first time I'd read it here.</p><p>But posting it in every Obama-related article is just obnoxious, and perhaps racist itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This might be interesting if it were the first time I 'd read it here.But posting it in every Obama-related article is just obnoxious , and perhaps racist itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This might be interesting if it were the first time I'd read it here.But posting it in every Obama-related article is just obnoxious, and perhaps racist itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671227</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670657</id>
	<title>Re:I'm having a hard time seeing infringement</title>
	<author>jdwilso2</author>
	<datestamp>1247400360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's even more simple than that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... everyone's greedy and copyright law is completely broken.</p><p>the IP industry wants it both ways and only when it supports larger corporations rather than individuals<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>contrast this with the recent wikipedia issue of the UKs national portrait gallery claiming copyright on photos taken of portraits that are in the public domain</p><p><a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/07/11/1239244/UKs-National-Portrait-Gallery-Threatens-To-Sue-Wikipedia-User" title="slashdot.org">http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/07/11/1239244/UKs-National-Portrait-Gallery-Threatens-To-Sue-Wikipedia-User</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>the real issue is that copyright law protects the entity with the largest legal budget.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's even more simple than that ... everyone 's greedy and copyright law is completely broken.the IP industry wants it both ways and only when it supports larger corporations rather than individuals ...contrast this with the recent wikipedia issue of the UKs national portrait gallery claiming copyright on photos taken of portraits that are in the public domainhttp : //yro.slashdot.org/story/09/07/11/1239244/UKs-National-Portrait-Gallery-Threatens-To-Sue-Wikipedia-User [ slashdot.org ] the real issue is that copyright law protects the entity with the largest legal budget .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's even more simple than that ... everyone's greedy and copyright law is completely broken.the IP industry wants it both ways and only when it supports larger corporations rather than individuals ...contrast this with the recent wikipedia issue of the UKs national portrait gallery claiming copyright on photos taken of portraits that are in the public domainhttp://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/07/11/1239244/UKs-National-Portrait-Gallery-Threatens-To-Sue-Wikipedia-User [slashdot.org]the real issue is that copyright law protects the entity with the largest legal budget.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670557</id>
	<title>Re:I'm having a hard time seeing infringement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247399400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>One other thing. If someone takes a picture of me and only me, shouldn't I have some say in what happens to the picture? I know that there have been instances where car companies have stopped fan made calenders from being distributed (i forget the case law as to who won though), so shouldn't people have rights over their likenesses? If Obama says that the use of his picture is cool, it should be cool.
<br> <br>We could even use this to "protect the children" in that the subjects could step forth and demand damages. That angle alone should get 90\% of washington behind it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One other thing .
If someone takes a picture of me and only me , should n't I have some say in what happens to the picture ?
I know that there have been instances where car companies have stopped fan made calenders from being distributed ( i forget the case law as to who won though ) , so should n't people have rights over their likenesses ?
If Obama says that the use of his picture is cool , it should be cool .
We could even use this to " protect the children " in that the subjects could step forth and demand damages .
That angle alone should get 90 \ % of washington behind it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One other thing.
If someone takes a picture of me and only me, shouldn't I have some say in what happens to the picture?
I know that there have been instances where car companies have stopped fan made calenders from being distributed (i forget the case law as to who won though), so shouldn't people have rights over their likenesses?
If Obama says that the use of his picture is cool, it should be cool.
We could even use this to "protect the children" in that the subjects could step forth and demand damages.
That angle alone should get 90\% of washington behind it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671765</id>
	<title>Re:Is this the photo of...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247410860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This whole... "President Erkle did this, that, Breaking News: he farted yesterday, last night he put his shoes on, next week he's going to Knucklehead, Illinois for meetings with...." Just give us results dude. That's your effin' job. Enjoy any upskirt you like Erkle..., stop complaining about the guy that came before, ditch the teleprompt and get some, at least SOME shit done. 2012's next week in political time. And what does this have to do with the price of MS Office in China anyway?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This whole... " President Erkle did this , that , Breaking News : he farted yesterday , last night he put his shoes on , next week he 's going to Knucklehead , Illinois for meetings with.... " Just give us results dude .
That 's your effin ' job .
Enjoy any upskirt you like Erkle... , stop complaining about the guy that came before , ditch the teleprompt and get some , at least SOME shit done .
2012 's next week in political time .
And what does this have to do with the price of MS Office in China anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This whole... "President Erkle did this, that, Breaking News: he farted yesterday, last night he put his shoes on, next week he's going to Knucklehead, Illinois for meetings with...." Just give us results dude.
That's your effin' job.
Enjoy any upskirt you like Erkle..., stop complaining about the guy that came before, ditch the teleprompt and get some, at least SOME shit done.
2012's next week in political time.
And what does this have to do with the price of MS Office in China anyway?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28678529</id>
	<title>Re:Copyright is out of control</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247507520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>None of that will ever work or make any sense to anyone. If I take a picture of my family at Disneyland, now who owns the picture? I shot the photo, but you say that doesn't make it mine. Well my wife and daughter are the subjects of the photo so maybe they co-own the copyright? Then again, there are about 20 other random people in the frame so I suppose I should collect their info to claim their portion of ownership. Now that I look at it again there is a Mickey Mouse character clearly visible and what seems to be a very identifiable part of the theme park so I better mail pieces of this work to Disney so they know they own some new photos.</p><p>So what next then, hotels and resorts asking for memory cards as guests depart to make sure there are no pictures of their property they need to 'retrieve ownership' of? Not to mention the fact that what you are suggesting would basically ask every professional photographer to work for free since they wouldn't own any of their own work and last time I checked selling something you didn't own wasn't a good business practice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>None of that will ever work or make any sense to anyone .
If I take a picture of my family at Disneyland , now who owns the picture ?
I shot the photo , but you say that does n't make it mine .
Well my wife and daughter are the subjects of the photo so maybe they co-own the copyright ?
Then again , there are about 20 other random people in the frame so I suppose I should collect their info to claim their portion of ownership .
Now that I look at it again there is a Mickey Mouse character clearly visible and what seems to be a very identifiable part of the theme park so I better mail pieces of this work to Disney so they know they own some new photos.So what next then , hotels and resorts asking for memory cards as guests depart to make sure there are no pictures of their property they need to 'retrieve ownership ' of ?
Not to mention the fact that what you are suggesting would basically ask every professional photographer to work for free since they would n't own any of their own work and last time I checked selling something you did n't own was n't a good business practice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>None of that will ever work or make any sense to anyone.
If I take a picture of my family at Disneyland, now who owns the picture?
I shot the photo, but you say that doesn't make it mine.
Well my wife and daughter are the subjects of the photo so maybe they co-own the copyright?
Then again, there are about 20 other random people in the frame so I suppose I should collect their info to claim their portion of ownership.
Now that I look at it again there is a Mickey Mouse character clearly visible and what seems to be a very identifiable part of the theme park so I better mail pieces of this work to Disney so they know they own some new photos.So what next then, hotels and resorts asking for memory cards as guests depart to make sure there are no pictures of their property they need to 'retrieve ownership' of?
Not to mention the fact that what you are suggesting would basically ask every professional photographer to work for free since they wouldn't own any of their own work and last time I checked selling something you didn't own wasn't a good business practice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671695</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>HeadlessNotAHorseman</author>
	<datestamp>1247410020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;Photog? Litho? You can't be bothered to type those out?</p><p>No, he's just a raphist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; Photog ?
Litho ? You ca n't be bothered to type those out ? No , he 's just a raphist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;Photog?
Litho? You can't be bothered to type those out?No, he's just a raphist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670435</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>PotatoSan</author>
	<datestamp>1247398440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Photog? Litho? You can't be bothered to type those out?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Photog ?
Litho ? You ca n't be bothered to type those out ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Photog?
Litho? You can't be bothered to type those out?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671371</id>
	<title>And he wasn't "then President-Elect"</title>
	<author>pcountry</author>
	<datestamp>1247407500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... Obama became President elect on the first Tuesday in Nov. 2008, when he was elected president. The photo was from the previous April.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... Obama became President elect on the first Tuesday in Nov. 2008 , when he was elected president .
The photo was from the previous April .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... Obama became President elect on the first Tuesday in Nov. 2008, when he was elected president.
The photo was from the previous April.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671011</id>
	<title>Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247403840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>During the election, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin.  See the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">exit-polling data</a> [cnn.com] by CNN.
<p>
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc.  These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks).  Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian.  So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern.  Only about 65\% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama.  In other words, a maximum of 65\% support by any ethnic or racial group for <b>either</b> McCain <b>or</b> Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable.  (A maximum of 65\% for McCain is okay.  So, European-American support at 55\% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.)
</p><p>
If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama.  At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
</p><p>
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals.  That claim is an outright lie.  Look at the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#NCDEM" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">exit-polling data</a> [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries.  Consider the case of North Carolina.  Again, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton.  Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical.  Yet, 95\% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton.  Why?  African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
</p><p>
Here is the bottom line.  Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America.  He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
</p><p>
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable.  Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior.  Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.  Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.  You need not defend your actions in any way.  Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>During the election , about 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin .
See the exit-polling data [ cnn.com ] by CNN .
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics , Asian-Americans , etc .
These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites ( and other non-Black folks ) .
Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian .
So , Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and , hence , serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern .
Only about 65 \ % of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama .
In other words , a maximum of 65 \ % support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and , hence , is acceptable .
( A maximum of 65 \ % for McCain is okay .
So , European-American support at 55 \ % for McCain is well below this threshold and , hence , is not racist .
) If African-Americans were not racist , then at most 65 \ % of them would have supported Obama .
At that level of support , McCain would have won the presidential race .
At this point , African-American supremacists ( and apologists ) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he ( 1 ) is a member of the Democratic party and ( 2 ) supports its ideals .
That claim is an outright lie .
Look at the exit-polling data [ cnn.com ] for the Democratic primaries .
Consider the case of North Carolina .
Again , about 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton .
Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats , and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical .
Yet , 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton .
Why ? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin .
Here is the bottom line .
Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America .
He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans .
African-Americans have established that expressing " racial pride " by voting on the basis of skin color is 100 \ % acceptable .
Neither the " Wall Street Journal " nor the " New York Times " complained about this racist behavior .
Therefore , in future elections , please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color .
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American .
You need not defend your actions in any way .
Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today 's moral standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>During the election, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
See the exit-polling data [cnn.com] by CNN.
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc.
These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks).
Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian.
So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern.
Only about 65\% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama.
In other words, a maximum of 65\% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable.
(A maximum of 65\% for McCain is okay.
So, European-American support at 55\% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.
)

If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama.
At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals.
That claim is an outright lie.
Look at the exit-polling data [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries.
Consider the case of North Carolina.
Again, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton.
Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical.
Yet, 95\% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton.
Why?  African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
Here is the bottom line.
Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America.
He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable.
Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior.
Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.
You need not defend your actions in any way.
Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670461</id>
	<title>I'm having a hard time seeing infringement</title>
	<author>Overzeetop</author>
	<datestamp>1247398740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, lets say that this isn't Obama, since the personality and timeliness of the subject appear to be clouding the issue. I'm presuming that the timliness of an image, since the copyright lasts for over a century, isn't salient (someone will doubtless correct me if I'm wrong).</p><p>Let's say this is the picture of the Hellers Bakery. Let's say it's a photo of a street flower vendor, and someone takes an anonymous photo off the net and decides to base a work of art on it. It might look like this <a href="http://www.josephcraigenglish.com/SidewalkFlowers.jpg" title="josephcraigenglish.com">http://www.josephcraigenglish.com/SidewalkFlowers.jpg</a> [josephcraigenglish.com] and the artist would be required to create the hundred-plus silk screens and choose the colors to create a particular mood.   How about if it were more generic? Say, a photo of the Capitol, posterized down to 8 colors with a red-white-and-blue sky?</p><p>Having seen the photo and the print for the first time today (but having hear about it previously), I'm calling bullshit on the AP and Garcia. Yes, the photograph is copyright, but the content - Obama looking up in a button down shirt and a tie - is so generic as to be reduced to almost "factual" information when translated into the poster.</p><p>I fear that the court will rule in favor or either the AP or Garcia. If they do, it will be just one more proof that the system is broken, and is stifling rather than promoting and enabling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , lets say that this is n't Obama , since the personality and timeliness of the subject appear to be clouding the issue .
I 'm presuming that the timliness of an image , since the copyright lasts for over a century , is n't salient ( someone will doubtless correct me if I 'm wrong ) .Let 's say this is the picture of the Hellers Bakery .
Let 's say it 's a photo of a street flower vendor , and someone takes an anonymous photo off the net and decides to base a work of art on it .
It might look like this http : //www.josephcraigenglish.com/SidewalkFlowers.jpg [ josephcraigenglish.com ] and the artist would be required to create the hundred-plus silk screens and choose the colors to create a particular mood .
How about if it were more generic ?
Say , a photo of the Capitol , posterized down to 8 colors with a red-white-and-blue sky ? Having seen the photo and the print for the first time today ( but having hear about it previously ) , I 'm calling bullshit on the AP and Garcia .
Yes , the photograph is copyright , but the content - Obama looking up in a button down shirt and a tie - is so generic as to be reduced to almost " factual " information when translated into the poster.I fear that the court will rule in favor or either the AP or Garcia .
If they do , it will be just one more proof that the system is broken , and is stifling rather than promoting and enabling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, lets say that this isn't Obama, since the personality and timeliness of the subject appear to be clouding the issue.
I'm presuming that the timliness of an image, since the copyright lasts for over a century, isn't salient (someone will doubtless correct me if I'm wrong).Let's say this is the picture of the Hellers Bakery.
Let's say it's a photo of a street flower vendor, and someone takes an anonymous photo off the net and decides to base a work of art on it.
It might look like this http://www.josephcraigenglish.com/SidewalkFlowers.jpg [josephcraigenglish.com] and the artist would be required to create the hundred-plus silk screens and choose the colors to create a particular mood.
How about if it were more generic?
Say, a photo of the Capitol, posterized down to 8 colors with a red-white-and-blue sky?Having seen the photo and the print for the first time today (but having hear about it previously), I'm calling bullshit on the AP and Garcia.
Yes, the photograph is copyright, but the content - Obama looking up in a button down shirt and a tie - is so generic as to be reduced to almost "factual" information when translated into the poster.I fear that the court will rule in favor or either the AP or Garcia.
If they do, it will be just one more proof that the system is broken, and is stifling rather than promoting and enabling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_229251_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_229251_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671227
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_229251_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_229251_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_229251_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28673171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671227
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_229251_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28675063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_229251_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28672743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_229251_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28672005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_229251_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_229251_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_229251_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_229251_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_229251_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_229251_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28672101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671227
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_229251_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28678529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_229251_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_229251_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28674849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_229251_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_229251_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28672679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_229251_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_229251_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28678229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671227
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_229251_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28673237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671227
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_229251_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_229251_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_229251_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28674955
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_229251_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_229251_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_229251_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28673349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_229251_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_229251_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28678073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_229251_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28676977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671227
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_229251_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_229251_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_229251_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_229251_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28673307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_229251.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28672081
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_229251.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671075
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28678529
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_229251.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670525
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671011
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28674955
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28672743
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671765
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670621
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670829
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_229251.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670927
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671539
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671661
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_229251.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670461
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670675
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28673307
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670861
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671481
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28672005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670557
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671167
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671143
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671403
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28673349
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670657
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_229251.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670379
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670667
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670571
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671227
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28673237
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28673171
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671805
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28678229
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28676977
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28672101
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28678073
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28672679
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_229251.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670733
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28674849
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28675063
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28670579
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28671981
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_229251.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_229251.28675151
</commentlist>
</conversation>
