<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_07_198219</id>
	<title>White House Claims Copyright On Flickr Photos</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1265535540000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"US government policy is that photos produced by federal employees as part of their job responsibilities are <a href="http://www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml">not subject to copyright in the US</a>. But Kathy Gill writes that after originally putting official White House photos in the public domain, since January the Obama White House has been asserting that <a href="http://themoderatevoice.com/62020/white-house-makes-full-copyright-claim-on-photos/">no one but 'news organizations' can use its Flickr photos</a> taken by the official White House photographer, who is a US government employee. This change appears to be a heavy-handed response to last month's controversy resulting from a billboard that implied the President endorsed The Weatherproof Garment Co. after the company used an AP photo of the president for a Times Square billboard. However a New York law <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0110/Pitchman\_in\_Chief.html?showallob\_approval-1044.html">already protects individuals from unauthorized use of their image for advertising</a>, and the billboard was quickly taken down. Gill writes, 'Whatever the reason, the assertion of these "rights" seems to be in direct contrast to official government policy and is certainly in direct contrast to reasonable expectations by the public, given that the photos are being produced with taxpayer (i.e., public) money. Ironically, the same Flickr page that claims (almost exclusive) copyright <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/4331402906/">also links to the US copyright policy statement</a>.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " US government policy is that photos produced by federal employees as part of their job responsibilities are not subject to copyright in the US .
But Kathy Gill writes that after originally putting official White House photos in the public domain , since January the Obama White House has been asserting that no one but 'news organizations ' can use its Flickr photos taken by the official White House photographer , who is a US government employee .
This change appears to be a heavy-handed response to last month 's controversy resulting from a billboard that implied the President endorsed The Weatherproof Garment Co. after the company used an AP photo of the president for a Times Square billboard .
However a New York law already protects individuals from unauthorized use of their image for advertising , and the billboard was quickly taken down .
Gill writes , 'Whatever the reason , the assertion of these " rights " seems to be in direct contrast to official government policy and is certainly in direct contrast to reasonable expectations by the public , given that the photos are being produced with taxpayer ( i.e. , public ) money .
Ironically , the same Flickr page that claims ( almost exclusive ) copyright also links to the US copyright policy statement .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "US government policy is that photos produced by federal employees as part of their job responsibilities are not subject to copyright in the US.
But Kathy Gill writes that after originally putting official White House photos in the public domain, since January the Obama White House has been asserting that no one but 'news organizations' can use its Flickr photos taken by the official White House photographer, who is a US government employee.
This change appears to be a heavy-handed response to last month's controversy resulting from a billboard that implied the President endorsed The Weatherproof Garment Co. after the company used an AP photo of the president for a Times Square billboard.
However a New York law already protects individuals from unauthorized use of their image for advertising, and the billboard was quickly taken down.
Gill writes, 'Whatever the reason, the assertion of these "rights" seems to be in direct contrast to official government policy and is certainly in direct contrast to reasonable expectations by the public, given that the photos are being produced with taxpayer (i.e., public) money.
Ironically, the same Flickr page that claims (almost exclusive) copyright also links to the US copyright policy statement.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055114</id>
	<title>Does this fall under Public Domain?</title>
	<author>rolfwind</author>
	<datestamp>1265539380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also, how do you define "news organizations"?</p><p>Trying to define them seems like an infringement of Freedom of the Press.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , how do you define " news organizations " ? Trying to define them seems like an infringement of Freedom of the Press .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, how do you define "news organizations"?Trying to define them seems like an infringement of Freedom of the Press.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055222</id>
	<title>Re:Does this fall under Public Domain?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265539920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"news organizations"</i></p><p>As defined in the politics dictionary...</p><p>Anyone who donates more than $x to the current administration or has influence over y number of<br>voters.</p><p>x is defined as an obscenely large number.<br>y is defined as an obscenely large number.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" news organizations " As defined in the politics dictionary...Anyone who donates more than $ x to the current administration or has influence over y number ofvoters.x is defined as an obscenely large number.y is defined as an obscenely large number .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"news organizations"As defined in the politics dictionary...Anyone who donates more than $x to the current administration or has influence over y number ofvoters.x is defined as an obscenely large number.y is defined as an obscenely large number.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055826</id>
	<title>Re:I'd like to claim copyright on some images</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265544000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a patent on photographing landmarks. So you owe me royalties.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a patent on photographing landmarks .
So you owe me royalties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a patent on photographing landmarks.
So you owe me royalties.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055510</id>
	<title>obama is fucking you white man</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265541840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>he's got his dick planted firmly in your ass.</htmltext>
<tokenext>he 's got his dick planted firmly in your ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>he's got his dick planted firmly in your ass.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31059196</id>
	<title>IMPEACH HIM!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265627220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Finally he can be impeached, since merely being a Stalinist Nazi hell bent on destroying FOREVER absolutely EVERYTHING that all patriotic Americans love about this country isn't technically adequate justification. With the new Republican majority in the Senate, it should be a snap.</p><p>Or something like that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally he can be impeached , since merely being a Stalinist Nazi hell bent on destroying FOREVER absolutely EVERYTHING that all patriotic Americans love about this country is n't technically adequate justification .
With the new Republican majority in the Senate , it should be a snap.Or something like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally he can be impeached, since merely being a Stalinist Nazi hell bent on destroying FOREVER absolutely EVERYTHING that all patriotic Americans love about this country isn't technically adequate justification.
With the new Republican majority in the Senate, it should be a snap.Or something like that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31056960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055704</id>
	<title>Left Something Out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265543220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It didn't mention the OBAMA White House. If t his had been BOOSH, his name would have been mentioned 50 times.</p><p>So, how is that Hopey Changey thing workin' out for you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It did n't mention the OBAMA White House .
If t his had been BOOSH , his name would have been mentioned 50 times.So , how is that Hopey Changey thing workin ' out for you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It didn't mention the OBAMA White House.
If t his had been BOOSH, his name would have been mentioned 50 times.So, how is that Hopey Changey thing workin' out for you?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31057764</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't a better idea be...</title>
	<author>sassy\_webgrrl</author>
	<datestamp>1265562480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The administration shifted from a CC license in May 2009 to an acknowledgment of their public domain status. As @dsoltesz notes, the federal government cannot copyright its works: they are public domain upon creation, so long as the creator is an employee performing job duties. There are exceptions for work performed under contract.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The administration shifted from a CC license in May 2009 to an acknowledgment of their public domain status .
As @ dsoltesz notes , the federal government can not copyright its works : they are public domain upon creation , so long as the creator is an employee performing job duties .
There are exceptions for work performed under contract .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The administration shifted from a CC license in May 2009 to an acknowledgment of their public domain status.
As @dsoltesz notes, the federal government cannot copyright its works: they are public domain upon creation, so long as the creator is an employee performing job duties.
There are exceptions for work performed under contract.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31060290</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, my Government owns it? No Problem Then!</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1265642700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Actually, this is not true. The material the US government produces is not copyrighted, it is in the public domain (domestically, anyway). This means there is NO copyright holder and therefore no possibility of any license agreement with them.</p></div><p>So how's Disney going to screw THIS up for us?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , this is not true .
The material the US government produces is not copyrighted , it is in the public domain ( domestically , anyway ) .
This means there is NO copyright holder and therefore no possibility of any license agreement with them.So how 's Disney going to screw THIS up for us ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, this is not true.
The material the US government produces is not copyrighted, it is in the public domain (domestically, anyway).
This means there is NO copyright holder and therefore no possibility of any license agreement with them.So how's Disney going to screw THIS up for us?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055974</id>
	<title>Re:Not necessarily copyright</title>
	<author>Vellmont</author>
	<datestamp>1265545140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you're spot on.  The article focuses on copyright, which as I understand is not the end-all-be-all for speech (which is what we're really talking about here, not copyright).</p><p>Talking about copyright is entirely missing the point.  The full statement from the Whitehouse is:</p><blockquote><div><p>This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions <b>that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.</b></p></div></blockquote><p>(emphasis mine)</p><p>If you want to argue about it from a legal perspective, copyright is not the right law to do so (at least if you want to have an honest discussion about it).</p><p>The first part I think I disagree with.  Why shouldn't I be able to alter the photograph in any way I see fit?  The second part seems entirely reasonable to me, and is likely covered by existing laws about endorsement.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're spot on .
The article focuses on copyright , which as I understand is not the end-all-be-all for speech ( which is what we 're really talking about here , not copyright ) .Talking about copyright is entirely missing the point .
The full statement from the Whitehouse is : This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject ( s ) of the photograph .
The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials , advertisements , emails , products , promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President , the First Family , or the White House .
( emphasis mine ) If you want to argue about it from a legal perspective , copyright is not the right law to do so ( at least if you want to have an honest discussion about it ) .The first part I think I disagree with .
Why should n't I be able to alter the photograph in any way I see fit ?
The second part seems entirely reasonable to me , and is likely covered by existing laws about endorsement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're spot on.
The article focuses on copyright, which as I understand is not the end-all-be-all for speech (which is what we're really talking about here, not copyright).Talking about copyright is entirely missing the point.
The full statement from the Whitehouse is:This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph.
The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.
(emphasis mine)If you want to argue about it from a legal perspective, copyright is not the right law to do so (at least if you want to have an honest discussion about it).The first part I think I disagree with.
Why shouldn't I be able to alter the photograph in any way I see fit?
The second part seems entirely reasonable to me, and is likely covered by existing laws about endorsement.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31056112</id>
	<title>The policy's intent is to preserve the incentive</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1265546340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the government doesn't grant itself exclusive rights to photos produced by federal employees as part of their job responsibilities, then what <em>incentive</em> will the government or its employees <em>have</em>, to produce photos as part of their job responsibilities?!  They <em>need</em> exclusive rights in order to recoup their investment without competing with knockoffs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the government does n't grant itself exclusive rights to photos produced by federal employees as part of their job responsibilities , then what incentive will the government or its employees have , to produce photos as part of their job responsibilities ? !
They need exclusive rights in order to recoup their investment without competing with knockoffs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the government doesn't grant itself exclusive rights to photos produced by federal employees as part of their job responsibilities, then what incentive will the government or its employees have, to produce photos as part of their job responsibilities?!
They need exclusive rights in order to recoup their investment without competing with knockoffs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055078</id>
	<title>fp</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265539200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>fp.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>fp.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fp.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31056382</id>
	<title>The statement says nothing of the kind</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265549400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read the flicker statement. There's no full copyright, only a 'don't use this image for commercial gain' - which is standard. Usual political BS from an obvious republican shill. Pathetic that no-one on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. fact checked for a second, instead of regurgitating the BS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read the flicker statement .
There 's no full copyright , only a 'do n't use this image for commercial gain ' - which is standard .
Usual political BS from an obvious republican shill .
Pathetic that no-one on / .
fact checked for a second , instead of regurgitating the BS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read the flicker statement.
There's no full copyright, only a 'don't use this image for commercial gain' - which is standard.
Usual political BS from an obvious republican shill.
Pathetic that no-one on /.
fact checked for a second, instead of regurgitating the BS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055640</id>
	<title>Re:It would seem...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265542620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It bugs me that I can't find it right now, but I'm certain there's a federal law prohibiting businesses from using the President's image or likeness either as an explicit or implied endorsement. So, not only does the law differ from what his administration is trying to claim, there's already a law to deal with the abuse that they're trying to curb.</p><p>I like Obama and I voted for him, but every single time I turn around, it looks like his administration is still trying to pound in nails in with a screwdriver.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It bugs me that I ca n't find it right now , but I 'm certain there 's a federal law prohibiting businesses from using the President 's image or likeness either as an explicit or implied endorsement .
So , not only does the law differ from what his administration is trying to claim , there 's already a law to deal with the abuse that they 're trying to curb.I like Obama and I voted for him , but every single time I turn around , it looks like his administration is still trying to pound in nails in with a screwdriver .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It bugs me that I can't find it right now, but I'm certain there's a federal law prohibiting businesses from using the President's image or likeness either as an explicit or implied endorsement.
So, not only does the law differ from what his administration is trying to claim, there's already a law to deal with the abuse that they're trying to curb.I like Obama and I voted for him, but every single time I turn around, it looks like his administration is still trying to pound in nails in with a screwdriver.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055776</id>
	<title>Re:Does this fall under Public Domain?</title>
	<author>Mrs. Grundy</author>
	<datestamp>1265543700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you look at the actual statement on their Flickr page (http://www.flickr.com/people/whitehouse/) you will see that they aren't making a copyright claim. They state why the photos have been uploaded (for news purposes&mdash;purposely vague I imagine) and then go on to indicate that certain uses are prohibited&mdash;basically commercial use. There are more reasons that copyright to prohibit commercial use. Appropriating a person's likeness for advertising, promotion, etc. for example is not a copyright issue, but instead comes from privacy torts. There is no reason to believe that if the White House wanted to go after someone for using an image inappropriately that they would use copyright infringement as the basis for their case. The original article misread the language and assumed the White House was claiming copyright ownership.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you look at the actual statement on their Flickr page ( http : //www.flickr.com/people/whitehouse/ ) you will see that they are n't making a copyright claim .
They state why the photos have been uploaded ( for news purposes    purposely vague I imagine ) and then go on to indicate that certain uses are prohibited    basically commercial use .
There are more reasons that copyright to prohibit commercial use .
Appropriating a person 's likeness for advertising , promotion , etc .
for example is not a copyright issue , but instead comes from privacy torts .
There is no reason to believe that if the White House wanted to go after someone for using an image inappropriately that they would use copyright infringement as the basis for their case .
The original article misread the language and assumed the White House was claiming copyright ownership .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you look at the actual statement on their Flickr page (http://www.flickr.com/people/whitehouse/) you will see that they aren't making a copyright claim.
They state why the photos have been uploaded (for news purposes—purposely vague I imagine) and then go on to indicate that certain uses are prohibited—basically commercial use.
There are more reasons that copyright to prohibit commercial use.
Appropriating a person's likeness for advertising, promotion, etc.
for example is not a copyright issue, but instead comes from privacy torts.
There is no reason to believe that if the White House wanted to go after someone for using an image inappropriately that they would use copyright infringement as the basis for their case.
The original article misread the language and assumed the White House was claiming copyright ownership.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055576</id>
	<title>So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265542260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...anybody still seriously believe that Obama is that much better than Bush on ALL fronts?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...anybody still seriously believe that Obama is that much better than Bush on ALL fronts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...anybody still seriously believe that Obama is that much better than Bush on ALL fronts?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31057058</id>
	<title>Re:Does this fall under Public Domain?</title>
	<author>sassy\_webgrrl</author>
	<datestamp>1265555820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The actual language is an assertion of copyright and is in violation of the public domain notice that is also linked.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.</p></div><p>Moreover, the issue of using a photo of person's likeness to imply an endorsement is NOT a copyright issue. As I noted in the referenced article (doesn't anyone<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/read/ the links anymore?) better language might be:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>A reminder that photographs may not be used in any manner that suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House, whether the endorsement is commercial or political in nature.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The actual language is an assertion of copyright and is in violation of the public domain notice that is also linked.This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject ( s ) of the photograph .
The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials , advertisements , emails , products , promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President , the First Family , or the White House.Moreover , the issue of using a photo of person 's likeness to imply an endorsement is NOT a copyright issue .
As I noted in the referenced article ( does n't anyone /read/ the links anymore ?
) better language might be : A reminder that photographs may not be used in any manner that suggests approval or endorsement of the President , the First Family , or the White House , whether the endorsement is commercial or political in nature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The actual language is an assertion of copyright and is in violation of the public domain notice that is also linked.This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph.
The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.Moreover, the issue of using a photo of person's likeness to imply an endorsement is NOT a copyright issue.
As I noted in the referenced article (doesn't anyone /read/ the links anymore?
) better language might be:A reminder that photographs may not be used in any manner that suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House, whether the endorsement is commercial or political in nature.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055262</id>
	<title>What qualifies as a "news organization"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265540100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"asserting that no one but 'news organizations' can use its Flickr photos taken by the official White House photographer"</p><p>Just about anyone can be a news organization right?  or are there rules like a requirement of a subscriber base of X level say 10,000...or something?</p><p>It eliminates the fake advertisement endorsements ok i suppose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" asserting that no one but 'news organizations ' can use its Flickr photos taken by the official White House photographer " Just about anyone can be a news organization right ?
or are there rules like a requirement of a subscriber base of X level say 10,000...or something ? It eliminates the fake advertisement endorsements ok i suppose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"asserting that no one but 'news organizations' can use its Flickr photos taken by the official White House photographer"Just about anyone can be a news organization right?
or are there rules like a requirement of a subscriber base of X level say 10,000...or something?It eliminates the fake advertisement endorsements ok i suppose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31057194</id>
	<title>Re:The statement says nothing of the kind</title>
	<author>sassy\_webgrrl</author>
	<datestamp>1265557200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Flickr statement appears below: note that it is an assertion of full copyright with two exceptions: news organizations and personal use of anyone included in the photo. As the article notes -- and as I have noted several times in this thread -- the issue of implied endorsement is NOT a copyright issue.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Flickr statement appears below : note that it is an assertion of full copyright with two exceptions : news organizations and personal use of anyone included in the photo .
As the article notes -- and as I have noted several times in this thread -- the issue of implied endorsement is NOT a copyright issue.This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject ( s ) of the photograph .
The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials , advertisements , emails , products , promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President , the First Family , or the White House</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Flickr statement appears below: note that it is an assertion of full copyright with two exceptions: news organizations and personal use of anyone included in the photo.
As the article notes -- and as I have noted several times in this thread -- the issue of implied endorsement is NOT a copyright issue.This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph.
The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31056382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31057728</id>
	<title>Re:Not necessarily copyright</title>
	<author>sassy\_webgrrl</author>
	<datestamp>1265562300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi, sjames -- there are already laws that prohibit unauthorized use of a person's image in a manner that implies an endorsement. Copyright is not the tool to use to prevent unauthorized use, as copyright does not rest with the person who are photographed. And the instance of Obama and the billboard was an AP photo, not a WH photo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi , sjames -- there are already laws that prohibit unauthorized use of a person 's image in a manner that implies an endorsement .
Copyright is not the tool to use to prevent unauthorized use , as copyright does not rest with the person who are photographed .
And the instance of Obama and the billboard was an AP photo , not a WH photo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi, sjames -- there are already laws that prohibit unauthorized use of a person's image in a manner that implies an endorsement.
Copyright is not the tool to use to prevent unauthorized use, as copyright does not rest with the person who are photographed.
And the instance of Obama and the billboard was an AP photo, not a WH photo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055436</id>
	<title>Do you like the MTV moon promos?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265541240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If so, you can thank the government. That film was in the public domain, which let a relatively poor MTV utilize it for their early spots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If so , you can thank the government .
That film was in the public domain , which let a relatively poor MTV utilize it for their early spots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If so, you can thank the government.
That film was in the public domain, which let a relatively poor MTV utilize it for their early spots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31060476</id>
	<title>Inconsistent legends?</title>
	<author>myob1776</author>
	<datestamp>1265644380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not all of the images contain the same restrictive legend.  Compare the <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/4331402906/" title="flickr.com" rel="nofollow">LaHood-Obama example</a> [flickr.com] with the <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/4317050182/in/photostream/" title="flickr.com" rel="nofollow">George H.W. Bush - Obama example</a> [flickr.com].  The first image contains this legend: "This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph."  The second image leaves out the word "only," which changes the meaning from being prohibitory to merely explanatory: "This official White House photograph is being made available for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph."

I wonder if it's a partisan thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not all of the images contain the same restrictive legend .
Compare the LaHood-Obama example [ flickr.com ] with the George H.W .
Bush - Obama example [ flickr.com ] .
The first image contains this legend : " This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject ( s ) of the photograph .
" The second image leaves out the word " only , " which changes the meaning from being prohibitory to merely explanatory : " This official White House photograph is being made available for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject ( s ) of the photograph .
" I wonder if it 's a partisan thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not all of the images contain the same restrictive legend.
Compare the LaHood-Obama example [flickr.com] with the George H.W.
Bush - Obama example [flickr.com].
The first image contains this legend: "This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph.
"  The second image leaves out the word "only," which changes the meaning from being prohibitory to merely explanatory: "This official White House photograph is being made available for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph.
"

I wonder if it's a partisan thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055800</id>
	<title>Re:Not necessarily copyright</title>
	<author>mmcxii</author>
	<datestamp>1265543880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So Obama using an axe instead of a scalpel on an issue that has hurt absolutely no one is OK with you?<br> <br>I wonder how you're going to feel when he's facing a real crisis and does the same thing.<br> <br>The bottom line is that this could have been handled better. Maybe not by Obama himself, maybe he would have needed some help but it still could have been handled better. And to be frank, I don't think we've seen the limits of how far this will go. I think there is going to be a backlash from this that is going to reach non-commercial ventures. Just wait and see.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So Obama using an axe instead of a scalpel on an issue that has hurt absolutely no one is OK with you ?
I wonder how you 're going to feel when he 's facing a real crisis and does the same thing .
The bottom line is that this could have been handled better .
Maybe not by Obama himself , maybe he would have needed some help but it still could have been handled better .
And to be frank , I do n't think we 've seen the limits of how far this will go .
I think there is going to be a backlash from this that is going to reach non-commercial ventures .
Just wait and see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Obama using an axe instead of a scalpel on an issue that has hurt absolutely no one is OK with you?
I wonder how you're going to feel when he's facing a real crisis and does the same thing.
The bottom line is that this could have been handled better.
Maybe not by Obama himself, maybe he would have needed some help but it still could have been handled better.
And to be frank, I don't think we've seen the limits of how far this will go.
I think there is going to be a backlash from this that is going to reach non-commercial ventures.
Just wait and see.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055594</id>
	<title>What did you expect...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265542320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...with Biden being a known media industry pupped, and half the white house staff coming straight out of media industry jobs?</p><p>They are known to have a distorted reality, and not care about anything else but their own money.</p><p>But hey, it&rsquo;s what people in the US wanted, after all. (Also true for most other countries in the world.) It&rsquo;s the very reason they voted for one of the (two big) straw-men parties.<br>Protip: When people say they don&rsquo;t like that, chances are very high (number of voters for both parties), that they&rsquo;re <em>lying</em> to both, you, and themselves.<br>But facts (re-voting them, again, and again, and again) are irrefutable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...with Biden being a known media industry pupped , and half the white house staff coming straight out of media industry jobs ? They are known to have a distorted reality , and not care about anything else but their own money.But hey , it    s what people in the US wanted , after all .
( Also true for most other countries in the world .
) It    s the very reason they voted for one of the ( two big ) straw-men parties.Protip : When people say they don    t like that , chances are very high ( number of voters for both parties ) , that they    re lying to both , you , and themselves.But facts ( re-voting them , again , and again , and again ) are irrefutable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...with Biden being a known media industry pupped, and half the white house staff coming straight out of media industry jobs?They are known to have a distorted reality, and not care about anything else but their own money.But hey, it’s what people in the US wanted, after all.
(Also true for most other countries in the world.
) It’s the very reason they voted for one of the (two big) straw-men parties.Protip: When people say they don’t like that, chances are very high (number of voters for both parties), that they’re lying to both, you, and themselves.But facts (re-voting them, again, and again, and again) are irrefutable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31059314</id>
	<title>Re:It would seem...</title>
	<author>Nikker</author>
	<datestamp>1265629260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The issues cited in TFA are from <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/08/obama.billboard/index.html" title="cnn.com">here</a> [cnn.com] and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/business/media/07garment.html" title="nytimes.com">here</a> [nytimes.com], both refer to a company licensing a shot of Obama while in China to create a billboard in Times Square selling a jacket identical to the one he had on at the time of the picture.  The company in question referred to their product as "The Obama Jacket" on their website under the picture mentioned above.  No where in either articles did they mention Copyright but the NY Times mentions the company in question bought the license for the photograph from them stating,<blockquote><div><p>Paul Colford, a spokesman for The A.P., said that Weatherproof had paid it the appropriate license fee for the billboard image, &ldquo;but the agreement is that it requires the licensing party, in this case the Weatherproof Garment Company, to obtain the necessary clearances &mdash; that is their obligation.&rdquo;</p></div></blockquote><p>
So it seems the issue is not really about copyright but endorsements, you can take the unedited picture and make a poster out of it, put it in Times Square but you can't put words in the mouth of the subject with out the permission of the subject, they are saying Obama endorses the jacket when they have never asked the President if he in fact does endorse it or would like to.  So the claim is not about copyright of a work but about the opinions expressed by the people represented within them.  Just because I release a picture of a person I have taken does not allow you to infer your opinions onto subject, both CNN and the Times underline this is not a First Amendment issue but</p><blockquote><div><p>"From a legal point of view, it's not legal," she said. "It is a violation of Mr. Obama's right of publicity, his right to control his appearance and his likeness"</p></div></blockquote><p>
No where in the text of either article was the word "Copyright" or even "Copy" for that matter.  Thanks to the editors for jumping the gun and proving the Slashdot editors creed "TL;DR".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The issues cited in TFA are from here [ cnn.com ] and here [ nytimes.com ] , both refer to a company licensing a shot of Obama while in China to create a billboard in Times Square selling a jacket identical to the one he had on at the time of the picture .
The company in question referred to their product as " The Obama Jacket " on their website under the picture mentioned above .
No where in either articles did they mention Copyright but the NY Times mentions the company in question bought the license for the photograph from them stating,Paul Colford , a spokesman for The A.P. , said that Weatherproof had paid it the appropriate license fee for the billboard image ,    but the agreement is that it requires the licensing party , in this case the Weatherproof Garment Company , to obtain the necessary clearances    that is their obligation.    So it seems the issue is not really about copyright but endorsements , you can take the unedited picture and make a poster out of it , put it in Times Square but you ca n't put words in the mouth of the subject with out the permission of the subject , they are saying Obama endorses the jacket when they have never asked the President if he in fact does endorse it or would like to .
So the claim is not about copyright of a work but about the opinions expressed by the people represented within them .
Just because I release a picture of a person I have taken does not allow you to infer your opinions onto subject , both CNN and the Times underline this is not a First Amendment issue but " From a legal point of view , it 's not legal , " she said .
" It is a violation of Mr. Obama 's right of publicity , his right to control his appearance and his likeness " No where in the text of either article was the word " Copyright " or even " Copy " for that matter .
Thanks to the editors for jumping the gun and proving the Slashdot editors creed " TL ; DR " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issues cited in TFA are from here [cnn.com] and here [nytimes.com], both refer to a company licensing a shot of Obama while in China to create a billboard in Times Square selling a jacket identical to the one he had on at the time of the picture.
The company in question referred to their product as "The Obama Jacket" on their website under the picture mentioned above.
No where in either articles did they mention Copyright but the NY Times mentions the company in question bought the license for the photograph from them stating,Paul Colford, a spokesman for The A.P., said that Weatherproof had paid it the appropriate license fee for the billboard image, “but the agreement is that it requires the licensing party, in this case the Weatherproof Garment Company, to obtain the necessary clearances — that is their obligation.”
So it seems the issue is not really about copyright but endorsements, you can take the unedited picture and make a poster out of it, put it in Times Square but you can't put words in the mouth of the subject with out the permission of the subject, they are saying Obama endorses the jacket when they have never asked the President if he in fact does endorse it or would like to.
So the claim is not about copyright of a work but about the opinions expressed by the people represented within them.
Just because I release a picture of a person I have taken does not allow you to infer your opinions onto subject, both CNN and the Times underline this is not a First Amendment issue but"From a legal point of view, it's not legal," she said.
"It is a violation of Mr. Obama's right of publicity, his right to control his appearance and his likeness"
No where in the text of either article was the word "Copyright" or even "Copy" for that matter.
Thanks to the editors for jumping the gun and proving the Slashdot editors creed "TL;DR".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055154</id>
	<title>What!?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265539500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Those commie bast...oh, wait, nevermind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those commie bast...oh , wait , nevermind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those commie bast...oh, wait, nevermind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055216</id>
	<title>It would seem...</title>
	<author>lag10</author>
	<datestamp>1265539860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That the Federal Government is overstepping its authority with these images.</p><p>To my knowledge, the Feds are only allowed to restrict image use based on its classified status.  That is, if it is a matter of national security or not.</p><p>Since the Feds are not restricting these images due to security issues, they really don't have a leg to stand on.</p><p>You know things are in a sad state of being when even the government disregards the rules of copyright.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That the Federal Government is overstepping its authority with these images.To my knowledge , the Feds are only allowed to restrict image use based on its classified status .
That is , if it is a matter of national security or not.Since the Feds are not restricting these images due to security issues , they really do n't have a leg to stand on.You know things are in a sad state of being when even the government disregards the rules of copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That the Federal Government is overstepping its authority with these images.To my knowledge, the Feds are only allowed to restrict image use based on its classified status.
That is, if it is a matter of national security or not.Since the Feds are not restricting these images due to security issues, they really don't have a leg to stand on.You know things are in a sad state of being when even the government disregards the rules of copyright.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055406</id>
	<title>Don't use Barry's photos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265541120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or else he'll have you buried in an Obama t-shirt.</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2utB1DcEIw" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2utB1DcEIw</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or else he 'll have you buried in an Obama t-shirt.http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = g2utB1DcEIw [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or else he'll have you buried in an Obama t-shirt.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2utB1DcEIw [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055678</id>
	<title>Since at least November</title>
	<author>Relic of the Future</author>
	<datestamp>1265542980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This notice has been a part of the WH photostream since at least November; <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20091106/0222346823.shtml" title="techdirt.com">Techdirt wrote about it</a> [techdirt.com], and <a href="http://leastevil.blogspot.com/2009/11/lolotics.html" title="blogspot.com">I wrote about it</a> [blogspot.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>This notice has been a part of the WH photostream since at least November ; Techdirt wrote about it [ techdirt.com ] , and I wrote about it [ blogspot.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This notice has been a part of the WH photostream since at least November; Techdirt wrote about it [techdirt.com], and I wrote about it [blogspot.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055354</id>
	<title>First pOst</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265540760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it just 0wnz.', it.  Do not share opinion in other guest and never get discuusions on has run faster Won't be shouting Kill myself like filed countersuit,</htmltext>
<tokenext>it just 0wnz .
' , it .
Do not share opinion in other guest and never get discuusions on has run faster Wo n't be shouting Kill myself like filed countersuit,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it just 0wnz.
', it.
Do not share opinion in other guest and never get discuusions on has run faster Won't be shouting Kill myself like filed countersuit,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055318</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, my Government owns it? No Problem Then!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265540520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, this is not true. The material the US government produces is not copyrighted, it is in the public domain (domestically, anyway). This means there is NO copyright holder and therefore no possibility of any license agreement with them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , this is not true .
The material the US government produces is not copyrighted , it is in the public domain ( domestically , anyway ) .
This means there is NO copyright holder and therefore no possibility of any license agreement with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, this is not true.
The material the US government produces is not copyrighted, it is in the public domain (domestically, anyway).
This means there is NO copyright holder and therefore no possibility of any license agreement with them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055832</id>
	<title>Government is a joke, so why do people want more?</title>
	<author>jackspenn</author>
	<datestamp>1265544180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>How can Obama continue to claim that he is going to run a "transparent" government?
<br> <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... when his own white house staff wants to restrict photos that by law cannot be copyrighted?
<br> <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... how TARP money that has been paid back by big banks is now going to be lent out to smaller banks.  It basically means if the US taxpayer is paid back that money will be lent to somebody else, until the entity getting money fails to pay money back, i.e. we ensure we waste 700 billion dollars.
<br> <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... how recovery.gov has tons of mistakes and hasn't been updated in months.
<br> <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... how he pretends he is open by recording White House visitors, but he conveniently leaves out lobbyists he meets with outside of White House.
<br> <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... how he promised not to hirer lobbyists, still insists he hasn't hired lobbyists, yet has 40 lobbyist on staff (they aren't counted as he gave them a special "waiver").
<br> <br>
Honestly I hate how much the President lies and how he gets a pass, merely because Bush sucked.  I agree Bush had a ton of problems, but it makes no sense to give Obama a pass on his problems.  Obama sucks also, just in different ways.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How can Obama continue to claim that he is going to run a " transparent " government ?
... when his own white house staff wants to restrict photos that by law can not be copyrighted ?
... how TARP money that has been paid back by big banks is now going to be lent out to smaller banks .
It basically means if the US taxpayer is paid back that money will be lent to somebody else , until the entity getting money fails to pay money back , i.e .
we ensure we waste 700 billion dollars .
... how recovery.gov has tons of mistakes and has n't been updated in months .
... how he pretends he is open by recording White House visitors , but he conveniently leaves out lobbyists he meets with outside of White House .
... how he promised not to hirer lobbyists , still insists he has n't hired lobbyists , yet has 40 lobbyist on staff ( they are n't counted as he gave them a special " waiver " ) .
Honestly I hate how much the President lies and how he gets a pass , merely because Bush sucked .
I agree Bush had a ton of problems , but it makes no sense to give Obama a pass on his problems .
Obama sucks also , just in different ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can Obama continue to claim that he is going to run a "transparent" government?
... when his own white house staff wants to restrict photos that by law cannot be copyrighted?
... how TARP money that has been paid back by big banks is now going to be lent out to smaller banks.
It basically means if the US taxpayer is paid back that money will be lent to somebody else, until the entity getting money fails to pay money back, i.e.
we ensure we waste 700 billion dollars.
... how recovery.gov has tons of mistakes and hasn't been updated in months.
... how he pretends he is open by recording White House visitors, but he conveniently leaves out lobbyists he meets with outside of White House.
... how he promised not to hirer lobbyists, still insists he hasn't hired lobbyists, yet has 40 lobbyist on staff (they aren't counted as he gave them a special "waiver").
Honestly I hate how much the President lies and how he gets a pass, merely because Bush sucked.
I agree Bush had a ton of problems, but it makes no sense to give Obama a pass on his problems.
Obama sucks also, just in different ways.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055878</id>
	<title>Good thing about bloggers</title>
	<author>OrangeCatholic</author>
	<datestamp>1265544480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a good thing that "news organizations" is now defined as individual people on the Internet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a good thing that " news organizations " is now defined as individual people on the Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a good thing that "news organizations" is now defined as individual people on the Internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31056300</id>
	<title>Re:Par for the course</title>
	<author>ucblockhead</author>
	<datestamp>1265548200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>s/Democrats/elected officials/g</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>s/Democrats/elected officials/g</tokentext>
<sentencetext>s/Democrats/elected officials/g</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31057046</id>
	<title>Re:Does this fall under Public Domain?</title>
	<author>HangingChad</author>
	<datestamp>1265555640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Also, how do you define "news organizations"?</i>

</p><p>I don't see them as trying to define news organizations.  The issue seems to be commercial use of the photos for product endorsement and that's what they're trying to curtail.

</p><p>There was a time no company would disrespect the office of the president like that so I doubt it was even considered when the image use guidelines were established.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , how do you define " news organizations " ?
I do n't see them as trying to define news organizations .
The issue seems to be commercial use of the photos for product endorsement and that 's what they 're trying to curtail .
There was a time no company would disrespect the office of the president like that so I doubt it was even considered when the image use guidelines were established .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Also, how do you define "news organizations"?
I don't see them as trying to define news organizations.
The issue seems to be commercial use of the photos for product endorsement and that's what they're trying to curtail.
There was a time no company would disrespect the office of the president like that so I doubt it was even considered when the image use guidelines were established.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055186</id>
	<title>laws don't apply to the government</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265539620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>if you or break a law and get caught, we'll probably have to spend a lot of time or money dealing with the consequence and end up paying a fine or going to jail.  If government does it (like misusing tarp funds or falsely claiming copyright or tapping phones)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... nobody is fired, nobody is in jail, there's really no consequence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>if you or break a law and get caught , we 'll probably have to spend a lot of time or money dealing with the consequence and end up paying a fine or going to jail .
If government does it ( like misusing tarp funds or falsely claiming copyright or tapping phones ) .... nobody is fired , nobody is in jail , there 's really no consequence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you or break a law and get caught, we'll probably have to spend a lot of time or money dealing with the consequence and end up paying a fine or going to jail.
If government does it (like misusing tarp funds or falsely claiming copyright or tapping phones) .... nobody is fired, nobody is in jail, there's really no consequence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055854</id>
	<title>Public Domain Software</title>
	<author>Katchu</author>
	<datestamp>1265544360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Also, software created by U.S. government employees cannot be copyrighted. You can ask for source code, but that may involve an Electronic Freedom of Information Act (EFOIA) request, and you'd have to pay for the cost of providing you that information (considerably less than the cost of the software source code if you developed it). Unfortunately most software now developed for U.S. government is written by contractors (not U.S. government employees), and most contractors retain all rights to that software even though it was paid for 100\% by government money. This makes it less costly for the government to produce software.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , software created by U.S. government employees can not be copyrighted .
You can ask for source code , but that may involve an Electronic Freedom of Information Act ( EFOIA ) request , and you 'd have to pay for the cost of providing you that information ( considerably less than the cost of the software source code if you developed it ) .
Unfortunately most software now developed for U.S. government is written by contractors ( not U.S. government employees ) , and most contractors retain all rights to that software even though it was paid for 100 \ % by government money .
This makes it less costly for the government to produce software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, software created by U.S. government employees cannot be copyrighted.
You can ask for source code, but that may involve an Electronic Freedom of Information Act (EFOIA) request, and you'd have to pay for the cost of providing you that information (considerably less than the cost of the software source code if you developed it).
Unfortunately most software now developed for U.S. government is written by contractors (not U.S. government employees), and most contractors retain all rights to that software even though it was paid for 100\% by government money.
This makes it less costly for the government to produce software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055868</id>
	<title>Re:Not necessarily copyright</title>
	<author>Low Ranked Craig</author>
	<datestamp>1265544420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you think this would have prevented Chia Obama <a href="https://www.chiaobama.com/flare/next" title="chiaobama.com" rel="nofollow">https://www.chiaobama.com/flare/next</a> [chiaobama.com] or Obama Fingers <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,612684,00.html" title="spiegel.de" rel="nofollow">http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,612684,00.html</a> [spiegel.de]?  </p><p>Nothing has to be done.  In the past, most presidents have simply ignored things like this.  Obama has a very thin skin, and this is more evidence.  The president should be above such things, and for example should not be responding to talk show personalities either directly or through any staffers.  Obama apparently has not been in politics to learn how to deal with criticism properly. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you think this would have prevented Chia Obama https : //www.chiaobama.com/flare/next [ chiaobama.com ] or Obama Fingers http : //www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,612684,00.html [ spiegel.de ] ?
Nothing has to be done .
In the past , most presidents have simply ignored things like this .
Obama has a very thin skin , and this is more evidence .
The president should be above such things , and for example should not be responding to talk show personalities either directly or through any staffers .
Obama apparently has not been in politics to learn how to deal with criticism properly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you think this would have prevented Chia Obama https://www.chiaobama.com/flare/next [chiaobama.com] or Obama Fingers http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,612684,00.html [spiegel.de]?
Nothing has to be done.
In the past, most presidents have simply ignored things like this.
Obama has a very thin skin, and this is more evidence.
The president should be above such things, and for example should not be responding to talk show personalities either directly or through any staffers.
Obama apparently has not been in politics to learn how to deal with criticism properly. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31059664</id>
	<title>It's right of publicity, not copyright</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265635860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mostly, what they're trying to do is foreclose the use of White House photos in advertising. That's pretty clear. There are such things as right-of-publicity laws saying what you can and can't do with somebody's likeness, voice, or whatever -- but they're considered an offshoot of privacy laws, and they're different for every state. Not every state would recognize the Obamas has having much right to privacy at all, because they are public officials. (It's a different question for the daughters.) So the idea appears to reasonable enough -- they're simply <b>asking</b> people not to use the photos in advertisements. They cannot enforce those restrictions under any U.S. law. Yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mostly , what they 're trying to do is foreclose the use of White House photos in advertising .
That 's pretty clear .
There are such things as right-of-publicity laws saying what you can and ca n't do with somebody 's likeness , voice , or whatever -- but they 're considered an offshoot of privacy laws , and they 're different for every state .
Not every state would recognize the Obamas has having much right to privacy at all , because they are public officials .
( It 's a different question for the daughters .
) So the idea appears to reasonable enough -- they 're simply asking people not to use the photos in advertisements .
They can not enforce those restrictions under any U.S. law. Yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mostly, what they're trying to do is foreclose the use of White House photos in advertising.
That's pretty clear.
There are such things as right-of-publicity laws saying what you can and can't do with somebody's likeness, voice, or whatever -- but they're considered an offshoot of privacy laws, and they're different for every state.
Not every state would recognize the Obamas has having much right to privacy at all, because they are public officials.
(It's a different question for the daughters.
) So the idea appears to reasonable enough -- they're simply asking people not to use the photos in advertisements.
They cannot enforce those restrictions under any U.S. law. Yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055624</id>
	<title>This recalls overzealous security types</title>
	<author>smitty\_one\_each</author>
	<datestamp>1265542500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When you're perfectly free to photograph things, and security shuts you down<br>
<a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/65326/" title="pajamasmedia.com" rel="nofollow">http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/65326/</a> [pajamasmedia.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you 're perfectly free to photograph things , and security shuts you down http : //pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/65326/ [ pajamasmedia.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you're perfectly free to photograph things, and security shuts you down
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/65326/ [pajamasmedia.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055326</id>
	<title>I'd like to claim copyright on some images</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265540580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had nothing to do with creating them but since the law seems secondary and everyone is going crazy and trying to claim they own every image, I think I'd like to lay claim to a few photos I like. I want to start with all the Hubble Images. Actually make that all astro photos. I like them. I should own them. I'd also like to lay claim to all images of sunsets and sunrises. They are cool. Oh and the grand canyon. I've always wanted to visit but never gotten there so this is the next best thing. Which brings me to all images in Yosemite and Yellow Stone. Oh and all nature photos. Well all the good ones. Closer to home I'd like to claim all images of the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Opera House. (They can keep the images of Sydney Tower - they're ugly). Of course I have no basis in law or reality for that matter for such wild claims. But that doesn't seem to be stopping anyone these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had nothing to do with creating them but since the law seems secondary and everyone is going crazy and trying to claim they own every image , I think I 'd like to lay claim to a few photos I like .
I want to start with all the Hubble Images .
Actually make that all astro photos .
I like them .
I should own them .
I 'd also like to lay claim to all images of sunsets and sunrises .
They are cool .
Oh and the grand canyon .
I 've always wanted to visit but never gotten there so this is the next best thing .
Which brings me to all images in Yosemite and Yellow Stone .
Oh and all nature photos .
Well all the good ones .
Closer to home I 'd like to claim all images of the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Opera House .
( They can keep the images of Sydney Tower - they 're ugly ) .
Of course I have no basis in law or reality for that matter for such wild claims .
But that does n't seem to be stopping anyone these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had nothing to do with creating them but since the law seems secondary and everyone is going crazy and trying to claim they own every image, I think I'd like to lay claim to a few photos I like.
I want to start with all the Hubble Images.
Actually make that all astro photos.
I like them.
I should own them.
I'd also like to lay claim to all images of sunsets and sunrises.
They are cool.
Oh and the grand canyon.
I've always wanted to visit but never gotten there so this is the next best thing.
Which brings me to all images in Yosemite and Yellow Stone.
Oh and all nature photos.
Well all the good ones.
Closer to home I'd like to claim all images of the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Opera House.
(They can keep the images of Sydney Tower - they're ugly).
Of course I have no basis in law or reality for that matter for such wild claims.
But that doesn't seem to be stopping anyone these days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055676</id>
	<title>Not necessarily copyright</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265542980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It sounds more like Obama is tired of seeing blatant attempts to imply his (or Michelle's) endorsement of practically everything (which is a clearly deceptive practice). I doubt very much that an elementary schooler will get a visit from the secret service if they print one of those photos for a diorama.</p><p>This may not be the very best way to accomplish that, but something needed to be done. It's hard to codify that sort of thing perfectly in a simple statement. Say "may not be used for commercial advertisement" and you'll see him appearing to endorse the flat-earthers or PETA. Say not for commercial purposes and the very much commercial news outlets are ticked off. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds more like Obama is tired of seeing blatant attempts to imply his ( or Michelle 's ) endorsement of practically everything ( which is a clearly deceptive practice ) .
I doubt very much that an elementary schooler will get a visit from the secret service if they print one of those photos for a diorama.This may not be the very best way to accomplish that , but something needed to be done .
It 's hard to codify that sort of thing perfectly in a simple statement .
Say " may not be used for commercial advertisement " and you 'll see him appearing to endorse the flat-earthers or PETA .
Say not for commercial purposes and the very much commercial news outlets are ticked off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds more like Obama is tired of seeing blatant attempts to imply his (or Michelle's) endorsement of practically everything (which is a clearly deceptive practice).
I doubt very much that an elementary schooler will get a visit from the secret service if they print one of those photos for a diorama.This may not be the very best way to accomplish that, but something needed to be done.
It's hard to codify that sort of thing perfectly in a simple statement.
Say "may not be used for commercial advertisement" and you'll see him appearing to endorse the flat-earthers or PETA.
Say not for commercial purposes and the very much commercial news outlets are ticked off. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31058160</id>
	<title>Extreme Brite White</title>
	<author>hamejo</author>
	<datestamp>1265566440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Watermarking is most easily done with layers. With Photoflexer you should even be able to do that online, but there may be others that support layers.
<a href="http://www.articlesbase.com/health-articles/extreme-britewhite-review-get-free-trial-now-1815590.html" title="articlesbase.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.articlesbase.com/health-articles/extreme-britewhite-review-get-free-trial-now-1815590.html</a> [articlesbase.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Watermarking is most easily done with layers .
With Photoflexer you should even be able to do that online , but there may be others that support layers .
http : //www.articlesbase.com/health-articles/extreme-britewhite-review-get-free-trial-now-1815590.html [ articlesbase.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Watermarking is most easily done with layers.
With Photoflexer you should even be able to do that online, but there may be others that support layers.
http://www.articlesbase.com/health-articles/extreme-britewhite-review-get-free-trial-now-1815590.html [articlesbase.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055808</id>
	<title>tag please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265543880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not change.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055942</id>
	<title>Re:Not merely in contrast to "policy"</title>
	<author>StormReaver</author>
	<datestamp>1265544900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In direct contrast to law.</p></div><p>Specifically: Title 17, Section 105;</p><p>Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In direct contrast to law.Specifically : Title 17 , Section 105 ; Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government , but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment , bequest , or otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In direct contrast to law.Specifically: Title 17, Section 105;Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31057900</id>
	<title>Re:Does this fall under Public Domain?</title>
	<author>MacWiz</author>
	<datestamp>1265563740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Also, how do you define "news organizations"?</i></p><p>No offense, but forget that -- how do you define "copyright bullshit"?</p><p>This is what happens when the RIAA takes over the DOJ.</p><p>U.S. Code -- Title 17,  105. Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works</p><p>Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , how do you define " news organizations " ? No offense , but forget that -- how do you define " copyright bullshit " ? This is what happens when the RIAA takes over the DOJ.U.S .
Code -- Title 17 , 105 .
Subject matter of copyright : United States Government worksCopyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government , but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment , bequest , or otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, how do you define "news organizations"?No offense, but forget that -- how do you define "copyright bullshit"?This is what happens when the RIAA takes over the DOJ.U.S.
Code -- Title 17,  105.
Subject matter of copyright: United States Government worksCopyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055174</id>
	<title>Oh, my Government owns  it? No Problem Then!</title>
	<author>dmomo</author>
	<datestamp>1265539560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi.  I (a US Citizen) am the owner of these copyrights.  As being a such, I hereby grant permission for anyone to use this material freely.</p><p>Snark Snark.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi .
I ( a US Citizen ) am the owner of these copyrights .
As being a such , I hereby grant permission for anyone to use this material freely.Snark Snark .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi.
I (a US Citizen) am the owner of these copyrights.
As being a such, I hereby grant permission for anyone to use this material freely.Snark Snark.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055390</id>
	<title>Par for the course</title>
	<author>sictransitgloriacfa</author>
	<datestamp>1265541000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Aaaand the Democrats continue their almost-perfect record of being totally clueless and draconian on copyright issues.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Aaaand the Democrats continue their almost-perfect record of being totally clueless and draconian on copyright issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aaaand the Democrats continue their almost-perfect record of being totally clueless and draconian on copyright issues.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31056262</id>
	<title>Re:Does this fall under Public Domain?</title>
	<author>tftp</author>
	<datestamp>1265547780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>They [...] go on to indicate that certain uses are prohibited</i>
</p><p>
Don't they need an authority (like being a copyright holder) to issue licenses like that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They [ ... ] go on to indicate that certain uses are prohibited Do n't they need an authority ( like being a copyright holder ) to issue licenses like that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> They [...] go on to indicate that certain uses are prohibited

Don't they need an authority (like being a copyright holder) to issue licenses like that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31056960</id>
	<title>Re:It would seem...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265554800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"That the Federal Government is overstepping its authority with these images."</p><p>Correction, "[It would seem that Obama] is overstepping [his] authority with these images."</p><p>Or, more correctly,</p><p>"Obama is violating U.S. Law regarding these images."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" That the Federal Government is overstepping its authority with these images .
" Correction , " [ It would seem that Obama ] is overstepping [ his ] authority with these images .
" Or , more correctly , " Obama is violating U.S. Law regarding these images .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"That the Federal Government is overstepping its authority with these images.
"Correction, "[It would seem that Obama] is overstepping [his] authority with these images.
"Or, more correctly,"Obama is violating U.S. Law regarding these images.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055198</id>
	<title>Copyright, yes..</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1265539680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But restrictions, no.</p><p>Assuming the judges aren't paid off ahead of time, the first suit will have this nonsense struck down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But restrictions , no.Assuming the judges are n't paid off ahead of time , the first suit will have this nonsense struck down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But restrictions, no.Assuming the judges aren't paid off ahead of time, the first suit will have this nonsense struck down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31058426</id>
	<title>Something missing...</title>
	<author>P0ltergeist333</author>
	<datestamp>1265569980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems there are multiple circumstances where the photos may be protectable:</p><p>Caveats</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Other persons may have rights either in the work itself or in how the work is used, such as publicity or privacy rights.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Not all work that appears on US Government Websites is considered to be a US Government work. Check with the content curator to see whether the work is a US Government Work. Works prepared for the United States Government by independent contractors may be protected by copyright, which may be owned by the independent contractor or by the United States Government.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * The United States Government Work designation is distinct from designations that apply to works of US state and local governments. Works of state and local governments may be protected by copyright.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Copyright laws differ internationally. While a United States Government work is not protectable under United States copyright laws, the work may be protected under the copyright laws of other jurisdictions when used in other jurisdictions. Outside of the United States, the United States Government may assert copyright in United States Government works.</p><p>(from: <a href="http://www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml" title="usa.gov">http://www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml</a> [usa.gov])</p><p>I wonder if any of those caveats apply here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems there are multiple circumstances where the photos may be protectable : Caveats         * Other persons may have rights either in the work itself or in how the work is used , such as publicity or privacy rights .
        * Not all work that appears on US Government Websites is considered to be a US Government work .
Check with the content curator to see whether the work is a US Government Work .
Works prepared for the United States Government by independent contractors may be protected by copyright , which may be owned by the independent contractor or by the United States Government .
        * The United States Government Work designation is distinct from designations that apply to works of US state and local governments .
Works of state and local governments may be protected by copyright .
        * Copyright laws differ internationally .
While a United States Government work is not protectable under United States copyright laws , the work may be protected under the copyright laws of other jurisdictions when used in other jurisdictions .
Outside of the United States , the United States Government may assert copyright in United States Government works .
( from : http : //www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml [ usa.gov ] ) I wonder if any of those caveats apply here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems there are multiple circumstances where the photos may be protectable:Caveats
        * Other persons may have rights either in the work itself or in how the work is used, such as publicity or privacy rights.
        * Not all work that appears on US Government Websites is considered to be a US Government work.
Check with the content curator to see whether the work is a US Government Work.
Works prepared for the United States Government by independent contractors may be protected by copyright, which may be owned by the independent contractor or by the United States Government.
        * The United States Government Work designation is distinct from designations that apply to works of US state and local governments.
Works of state and local governments may be protected by copyright.
        * Copyright laws differ internationally.
While a United States Government work is not protectable under United States copyright laws, the work may be protected under the copyright laws of other jurisdictions when used in other jurisdictions.
Outside of the United States, the United States Government may assert copyright in United States Government works.
(from: http://www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml [usa.gov])I wonder if any of those caveats apply here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31056032</id>
	<title>Re:It would seem...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265545500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like Corporation, like government? Are we blurring the lines yet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like Corporation , like government ?
Are we blurring the lines yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like Corporation, like government?
Are we blurring the lines yet?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055122</id>
	<title>Not merely in contrast to "policy"</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1265539440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...in direct contrast to official government policy...</p><p>In direct contrast to law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; ...in direct contrast to official government policy...In direct contrast to law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; ...in direct contrast to official government policy...In direct contrast to law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31058402</id>
	<title>Re:Does this fall under Public Domain?</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1265569860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;They state why the photos have been uploaded (for news purposes--purposely vague I imagine) and then go on to indicate that certain uses are prohibited--basically commercial use.</p><p>Which they can't do, because the photos are in the public domain. They have no ability to manage the rights on them at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; They state why the photos have been uploaded ( for news purposes--purposely vague I imagine ) and then go on to indicate that certain uses are prohibited--basically commercial use.Which they ca n't do , because the photos are in the public domain .
They have no ability to manage the rights on them at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;They state why the photos have been uploaded (for news purposes--purposely vague I imagine) and then go on to indicate that certain uses are prohibited--basically commercial use.Which they can't do, because the photos are in the public domain.
They have no ability to manage the rights on them at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31057098</id>
	<title>Re:Does this fall under Public Domain?</title>
	<author>sassy\_webgrrl</author>
	<datestamp>1265556300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mark, I just looked at the site you've linked from your Slashdot profile: http://www.photo-mark.com/</p><p>Based on this link, you appear to be a photographer (unless someone is trying to impersonate you, and in that case I'm not talking to "Mark"), so I'm puzzled about your characterization of the Flickr copyright assertion made by the White House. It is true that the statement does not use the word "copyright." However, it is also true that declaring that a public domain photo can only be used by news organizations and cannot be modified is an attempt to assert "rights" - rights that we normally call "copyright."</p><p>As I've pointed out elsewhere (in this thread and in the article seeded above), the issue of using someone's likeness to imply endorsement is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/not/ a copyright issue, The person who is the subject of a photo does not have a "copyright" to the photo (rights belong to the photographer unless there are other contractual arrangements, such as being employed by the federal government, in this case) but may have "rights" (as the USA.gov explanation details).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mark , I just looked at the site you 've linked from your Slashdot profile : http : //www.photo-mark.com/Based on this link , you appear to be a photographer ( unless someone is trying to impersonate you , and in that case I 'm not talking to " Mark " ) , so I 'm puzzled about your characterization of the Flickr copyright assertion made by the White House .
It is true that the statement does not use the word " copyright .
" However , it is also true that declaring that a public domain photo can only be used by news organizations and can not be modified is an attempt to assert " rights " - rights that we normally call " copyright .
" As I 've pointed out elsewhere ( in this thread and in the article seeded above ) , the issue of using someone 's likeness to imply endorsement is /not/ a copyright issue , The person who is the subject of a photo does not have a " copyright " to the photo ( rights belong to the photographer unless there are other contractual arrangements , such as being employed by the federal government , in this case ) but may have " rights " ( as the USA.gov explanation details ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mark, I just looked at the site you've linked from your Slashdot profile: http://www.photo-mark.com/Based on this link, you appear to be a photographer (unless someone is trying to impersonate you, and in that case I'm not talking to "Mark"), so I'm puzzled about your characterization of the Flickr copyright assertion made by the White House.
It is true that the statement does not use the word "copyright.
" However, it is also true that declaring that a public domain photo can only be used by news organizations and cannot be modified is an attempt to assert "rights" - rights that we normally call "copyright.
"As I've pointed out elsewhere (in this thread and in the article seeded above), the issue of using someone's likeness to imply endorsement is /not/ a copyright issue, The person who is the subject of a photo does not have a "copyright" to the photo (rights belong to the photographer unless there are other contractual arrangements, such as being employed by the federal government, in this case) but may have "rights" (as the USA.gov explanation details).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31060168</id>
	<title>Re:Does this fall under Public Domain?</title>
	<author>djgreene</author>
	<datestamp>1265641860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This seems to fall under the public domain. Regardless of what the White House says, Federal Statutes will prevail. Here, the statutes say that works of the Federal Government are not subject to copyright. Criticism and personal or non-commercial uses are likely not going to be brought to a halt by the action of the White House on FLICKR.

Instead, the White House is asking people not to suggest false sponsorship while using the pictures. This is more of a trademark cause of action that the White House is asserting. They have every right to do this.

Slashdot says: "This change appears to be a heavy-handed response to last month's controversy resulting from a billboard that implied the President endorsed The Weatherproof Garmet Co." Seems to be a clear cut assertion of trademark rights.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems to fall under the public domain .
Regardless of what the White House says , Federal Statutes will prevail .
Here , the statutes say that works of the Federal Government are not subject to copyright .
Criticism and personal or non-commercial uses are likely not going to be brought to a halt by the action of the White House on FLICKR .
Instead , the White House is asking people not to suggest false sponsorship while using the pictures .
This is more of a trademark cause of action that the White House is asserting .
They have every right to do this .
Slashdot says : " This change appears to be a heavy-handed response to last month 's controversy resulting from a billboard that implied the President endorsed The Weatherproof Garmet Co. " Seems to be a clear cut assertion of trademark rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems to fall under the public domain.
Regardless of what the White House says, Federal Statutes will prevail.
Here, the statutes say that works of the Federal Government are not subject to copyright.
Criticism and personal or non-commercial uses are likely not going to be brought to a halt by the action of the White House on FLICKR.
Instead, the White House is asking people not to suggest false sponsorship while using the pictures.
This is more of a trademark cause of action that the White House is asserting.
They have every right to do this.
Slashdot says: "This change appears to be a heavy-handed response to last month's controversy resulting from a billboard that implied the President endorsed The Weatherproof Garmet Co." Seems to be a clear cut assertion of trademark rights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31056274</id>
	<title>Re:Par for the course</title>
	<author>djmurdoch</author>
	<datestamp>1265547900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And Slashdot readers continue their 100\% perfect record of not questioning the summary if it says something bad about someone they don't like.</p><p>The actual claim on Flickr doesn't mention copyright at all.  It says</p><p>"This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House. "</p><p>In fewer words:</p><p>
&nbsp; - We made this available for particular purposes.<br>
&nbsp; - You may not manipulate it.<br>
&nbsp; - It may not be used in a way that suggests endorsement.</p><p>The second claim is wrong, because there's no basis for it, but the other two look correct.  But there's no mention of copyright anywhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And Slashdot readers continue their 100 \ % perfect record of not questioning the summary if it says something bad about someone they do n't like.The actual claim on Flickr does n't mention copyright at all .
It says " This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject ( s ) of the photograph .
The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials , advertisements , emails , products , promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President , the First Family , or the White House .
" In fewer words :   - We made this available for particular purposes .
  - You may not manipulate it .
  - It may not be used in a way that suggests endorsement.The second claim is wrong , because there 's no basis for it , but the other two look correct .
But there 's no mention of copyright anywhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And Slashdot readers continue their 100\% perfect record of not questioning the summary if it says something bad about someone they don't like.The actual claim on Flickr doesn't mention copyright at all.
It says"This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph.
The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.
"In fewer words:
  - We made this available for particular purposes.
  - You may not manipulate it.
  - It may not be used in a way that suggests endorsement.The second claim is wrong, because there's no basis for it, but the other two look correct.
But there's no mention of copyright anywhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055210</id>
	<title>Hah.</title>
	<author>headkase</author>
	<datestamp>1265539800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not about and never will be about copyright when it comes to government works.  It's about control.  Bend over Citizen, here come your tax dollars.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not about and never will be about copyright when it comes to government works .
It 's about control .
Bend over Citizen , here come your tax dollars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not about and never will be about copyright when it comes to government works.
It's about control.
Bend over Citizen, here come your tax dollars.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055224</id>
	<title>This will all be forgotten . . .</title>
	<author>drsmack1</author>
	<datestamp>1265539920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>. . . by slashdotters come the next presidential election.</htmltext>
<tokenext>.
. .
by slashdotters come the next presidential election .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
. .
by slashdotters come the next presidential election.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31056054</id>
	<title>Re:Not necessarily copyright</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1265545740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do note that your link to the chia figures shows them currently for sale, so I guess he shrugged it off just as you'd have him do. Note that plenty of OTHER PEOPLE have made a big deal about it, but surely you don't claim that Obama should have denied their free speech, do you?</p><p>There IS a big difference between that sort of thing and trying to imply that Obama is either personally or in his capacity as President endorsing a product. Failing to clamp down on that would have some nasty legal and political implications.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do note that your link to the chia figures shows them currently for sale , so I guess he shrugged it off just as you 'd have him do .
Note that plenty of OTHER PEOPLE have made a big deal about it , but surely you do n't claim that Obama should have denied their free speech , do you ? There IS a big difference between that sort of thing and trying to imply that Obama is either personally or in his capacity as President endorsing a product .
Failing to clamp down on that would have some nasty legal and political implications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do note that your link to the chia figures shows them currently for sale, so I guess he shrugged it off just as you'd have him do.
Note that plenty of OTHER PEOPLE have made a big deal about it, but surely you don't claim that Obama should have denied their free speech, do you?There IS a big difference between that sort of thing and trying to imply that Obama is either personally or in his capacity as President endorsing a product.
Failing to clamp down on that would have some nasty legal and political implications.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055804</id>
	<title>Wouldn't a better idea be...</title>
	<author>supersloshy</author>
	<datestamp>1265543880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...using Creative Commons <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/copyright" title="whitehouse.gov" rel="nofollow">like they already are</a> [whitehouse.gov]? Creative commons already states that on <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/" title="creativecommons.org" rel="nofollow">most of their licenses</a> [creativecommons.org] that you can't use whatever is licensed in a way that makes it seem like the copyright holder (in this case, the US government) endorse you or your derivative work (without permission, of course, like if Obama officially said that he approved of something). I mean, really, there's WAY more than only two choices, and Creative Commons just makes sense to use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...using Creative Commons like they already are [ whitehouse.gov ] ?
Creative commons already states that on most of their licenses [ creativecommons.org ] that you ca n't use whatever is licensed in a way that makes it seem like the copyright holder ( in this case , the US government ) endorse you or your derivative work ( without permission , of course , like if Obama officially said that he approved of something ) .
I mean , really , there 's WAY more than only two choices , and Creative Commons just makes sense to use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...using Creative Commons like they already are [whitehouse.gov]?
Creative commons already states that on most of their licenses [creativecommons.org] that you can't use whatever is licensed in a way that makes it seem like the copyright holder (in this case, the US government) endorse you or your derivative work (without permission, of course, like if Obama officially said that he approved of something).
I mean, really, there's WAY more than only two choices, and Creative Commons just makes sense to use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31058146</id>
	<title>Re:It would seem...</title>
	<author>shadowofwind</author>
	<datestamp>1265566320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That the Federal Government is overstepping its authority with these images.</p><p>To my knowledge, the Feds are only allowed to restrict image use based on its classified status.  That is, if it is a matter of national security or not.</p></div><p>As a side note, I think "national security" secrecy is itself very often a way of covering stuff up that people don't want in public view for other reasons.  Sometimes one reads of multi-million dollar scandals involving defense agencies squandering money.  As if the money is even a drop in the bucket.  It seems that most people have no idea what goes on.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That the Federal Government is overstepping its authority with these images.To my knowledge , the Feds are only allowed to restrict image use based on its classified status .
That is , if it is a matter of national security or not.As a side note , I think " national security " secrecy is itself very often a way of covering stuff up that people do n't want in public view for other reasons .
Sometimes one reads of multi-million dollar scandals involving defense agencies squandering money .
As if the money is even a drop in the bucket .
It seems that most people have no idea what goes on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That the Federal Government is overstepping its authority with these images.To my knowledge, the Feds are only allowed to restrict image use based on its classified status.
That is, if it is a matter of national security or not.As a side note, I think "national security" secrecy is itself very often a way of covering stuff up that people don't want in public view for other reasons.
Sometimes one reads of multi-million dollar scandals involving defense agencies squandering money.
As if the money is even a drop in the bucket.
It seems that most people have no idea what goes on.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31056114</id>
	<title>Re:Par for the course</title>
	<author>JNSL</author>
	<datestamp>1265546340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except this isn't a copyright issue. The prohibition is on image, not the picture.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except this is n't a copyright issue .
The prohibition is on image , not the picture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except this isn't a copyright issue.
The prohibition is on image, not the picture.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055764</id>
	<title>Re:Hah.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265543700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Copyright is about control as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyright is about control as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copyright is about control as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31081606</id>
	<title>Bet they'd HATE this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265731320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bey they'd HATE this...</p><p>http://pupista.blogspot.com/2010/02/presidents-office-disdains-public.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bey they 'd HATE this...http : //pupista.blogspot.com/2010/02/presidents-office-disdains-public.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bey they'd HATE this...http://pupista.blogspot.com/2010/02/presidents-office-disdains-public.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055138</id>
	<title>Schizophrenia ...</title>
	<author>samirbenabid</author>
	<datestamp>1265539440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... not only for human beings.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... not only for human beings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... not only for human beings.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_198219_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31057098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_198219_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_198219_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31058146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_198219_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31057728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_198219_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31057046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_198219_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31057058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_198219_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31059196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31056960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_198219_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31060168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_198219_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31056114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_198219_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31056262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_198219_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31056054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_198219_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31057900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_198219_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31057764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_198219_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_198219_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31056032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_198219_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31056300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_198219_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_198219_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31059314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_198219_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31056274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_198219_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31057194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31056382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_198219_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31058402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_198219_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31060290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_198219_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_198219_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_198219_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_198219_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_198219.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31056114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31056274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31056300
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_198219.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31056112
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_198219.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31056382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31057194
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_198219.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055576
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_198219.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_198219.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31057764
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_198219.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055186
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_198219.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055764
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_198219.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055854
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_198219.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31060168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31057900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31057046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055776
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31058402
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31057098
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31057058
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31056262
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_198219.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31058146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31056032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31056960
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31059196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31059314
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_198219.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31057728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055868
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31056054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055800
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_198219.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_198219.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_198219.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055318
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31060290
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_198219.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055198
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_198219.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055878
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_198219.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_198219.31055826
</commentlist>
</conversation>
