<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_28_2031229</id>
	<title>Court Rules Photo of Memorial Violates Copyright</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1267354980000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>WhatDoIKnow sends in a story about an appeals court ruling in a singular case that might have the effect of <a href="http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2010/02/frankgaylordip.html">narrowing "fair use" rights</a> for transformative uses of artworks. <i>"The sculptor who designed the Korean War memorial [in Washington DC] brought suit against the Postal Service after a photograph of his work was used on a postage stamp. Though first ruled protected by 'fair use,' on appeal the court <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/09-5044.pdf">ruled in favor</a> (PDF) of the sculptor, Frank Gaylord, now 85."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>WhatDoIKnow sends in a story about an appeals court ruling in a singular case that might have the effect of narrowing " fair use " rights for transformative uses of artworks .
" The sculptor who designed the Korean War memorial [ in Washington DC ] brought suit against the Postal Service after a photograph of his work was used on a postage stamp .
Though first ruled protected by 'fair use, ' on appeal the court ruled in favor ( PDF ) of the sculptor , Frank Gaylord , now 85 .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WhatDoIKnow sends in a story about an appeals court ruling in a singular case that might have the effect of narrowing "fair use" rights for transformative uses of artworks.
"The sculptor who designed the Korean War memorial [in Washington DC] brought suit against the Postal Service after a photograph of his work was used on a postage stamp.
Though first ruled protected by 'fair use,' on appeal the court ruled in favor (PDF) of the sculptor, Frank Gaylord, now 85.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309686</id>
	<title>I suppose</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267358760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>he's more obnoxious than a Reserved Gaylord.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>he 's more obnoxious than a Reserved Gaylord .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>he's more obnoxious than a Reserved Gaylord.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311184</id>
	<title>Re:A slap in the face to all American veterans.</title>
	<author>ae1294</author>
	<datestamp>1267370100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My grandfather was in Korea, and he made what's perhaps the most ultimate sacrifice short of his life: his genitals.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Um... OK, I give up. How?</p></div></div><p>A Korean whore kicked his grandfather in the nuts because he wasn't a big tipper... Honestly, who the fuck really cares exactly how or even if it and your post are nothing more than trolls (Which is my guess). The fact remains that people come back from war missing body parts all the time. Maybe it was a shell that went off, a landmine or some how a bullet. Perhaps a spider or snake bite or even some horrible VD. All of these things could happen and I'm sure most have happened. I don't think most men are going on Larry King to talk about it so even if it was just a troll message it totally failed because some place there is a grunt missing his pair because he severed his country just like I'm sure their are women now who served that are missing a breast.</p><p>War tears up both a persons flesh and their minds. It fucking sucks...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My grandfather was in Korea , and he made what 's perhaps the most ultimate sacrifice short of his life : his genitals.Um... OK , I give up .
How ? A Korean whore kicked his grandfather in the nuts because he was n't a big tipper... Honestly , who the fuck really cares exactly how or even if it and your post are nothing more than trolls ( Which is my guess ) .
The fact remains that people come back from war missing body parts all the time .
Maybe it was a shell that went off , a landmine or some how a bullet .
Perhaps a spider or snake bite or even some horrible VD .
All of these things could happen and I 'm sure most have happened .
I do n't think most men are going on Larry King to talk about it so even if it was just a troll message it totally failed because some place there is a grunt missing his pair because he severed his country just like I 'm sure their are women now who served that are missing a breast.War tears up both a persons flesh and their minds .
It fucking sucks.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My grandfather was in Korea, and he made what's perhaps the most ultimate sacrifice short of his life: his genitals.Um... OK, I give up.
How?A Korean whore kicked his grandfather in the nuts because he wasn't a big tipper... Honestly, who the fuck really cares exactly how or even if it and your post are nothing more than trolls (Which is my guess).
The fact remains that people come back from war missing body parts all the time.
Maybe it was a shell that went off, a landmine or some how a bullet.
Perhaps a spider or snake bite or even some horrible VD.
All of these things could happen and I'm sure most have happened.
I don't think most men are going on Larry King to talk about it so even if it was just a troll message it totally failed because some place there is a grunt missing his pair because he severed his country just like I'm sure their are women now who served that are missing a breast.War tears up both a persons flesh and their minds.
It fucking sucks...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31313362</id>
	<title>Re:A slap in the face to all American veterans.</title>
	<author>murpium</author>
	<datestamp>1267438380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>some place there is a grunt missing his pair because he <em> <b>severed</b> </em> his country </p></div><p>His whole country?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>some place there is a grunt missing his pair because he severed his country His whole country ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>some place there is a grunt missing his pair because he  severed  his country His whole country?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31315980</id>
	<title>Re:A slap in the face to all American veterans.</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1267458660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I have a friend that is so disgusted with our government that he now votes against every incumbent that comes up for reelection<br></i><br>The easiest way to do this is vote for a "third party" candidate. There were five or six parties running for president last election which were on the ballots in enough states to have a mathematically valid chance of winning.</p><p>There is a caveat, however -- some of these "independants" aren't so independant, and may even be incumbants. The Socialist in the last Presidential election (McKinney) held office as a Democrat, and the Libertarian (Barr) held office as a Republican. This makes it extra hard to research, as the corporate media won't cover anyone who's registered as anything but a Republican or Democrat.</p><p>The corporate world loves the two  party system, which is a good reason for everyone else to hate it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a friend that is so disgusted with our government that he now votes against every incumbent that comes up for reelectionThe easiest way to do this is vote for a " third party " candidate .
There were five or six parties running for president last election which were on the ballots in enough states to have a mathematically valid chance of winning.There is a caveat , however -- some of these " independants " are n't so independant , and may even be incumbants .
The Socialist in the last Presidential election ( McKinney ) held office as a Democrat , and the Libertarian ( Barr ) held office as a Republican .
This makes it extra hard to research , as the corporate media wo n't cover anyone who 's registered as anything but a Republican or Democrat.The corporate world loves the two party system , which is a good reason for everyone else to hate it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a friend that is so disgusted with our government that he now votes against every incumbent that comes up for reelectionThe easiest way to do this is vote for a "third party" candidate.
There were five or six parties running for president last election which were on the ballots in enough states to have a mathematically valid chance of winning.There is a caveat, however -- some of these "independants" aren't so independant, and may even be incumbants.
The Socialist in the last Presidential election (McKinney) held office as a Democrat, and the Libertarian (Barr) held office as a Republican.
This makes it extra hard to research, as the corporate media won't cover anyone who's registered as anything but a Republican or Democrat.The corporate world loves the two  party system, which is a good reason for everyone else to hate it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311382</id>
	<title>Re:A slap in the face to all American veterans.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267372020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the Post office has a big problem, as they were selling stamps with the picture on it. No fair use rights there.<br>The artist is in the right, unless the commission or contract he designed the memorial under said different.<br>Rulings on sales of reproductions of artistic content have nothing to do with fair rights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the Post office has a big problem , as they were selling stamps with the picture on it .
No fair use rights there.The artist is in the right , unless the commission or contract he designed the memorial under said different.Rulings on sales of reproductions of artistic content have nothing to do with fair rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the Post office has a big problem, as they were selling stamps with the picture on it.
No fair use rights there.The artist is in the right, unless the commission or contract he designed the memorial under said different.Rulings on sales of reproductions of artistic content have nothing to do with fair rights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31313260</id>
	<title>Re:A slap in the face to all American veterans.</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1267437180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe he has the same credibility that we have when we start telling the world how to live.  I mean, we often judge other systems as bug-fucking-crazy, then meddle with their systems.  Sometimes, if meddling doesn't satisfy us, we invade, and completely break their systems.  Credibility.  Yeah, we have lots of it.  We turn murderers and rapists out into the streets to strike again, but a "three time loser" can pull a life sentence for possessing one to many grams of lawn mower clippings.  And, retarded teens can be hit with multi-million dollar settlements for sharing a couple songs.  Fail to report your total earnings properly, and the IRS can make you homeless and destitute.  Credibility, right?</p><p>Sorry - any outsider looking in can spot some of our very worst inconsistencies.  We aren't all that credible ourselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe he has the same credibility that we have when we start telling the world how to live .
I mean , we often judge other systems as bug-fucking-crazy , then meddle with their systems .
Sometimes , if meddling does n't satisfy us , we invade , and completely break their systems .
Credibility. Yeah , we have lots of it .
We turn murderers and rapists out into the streets to strike again , but a " three time loser " can pull a life sentence for possessing one to many grams of lawn mower clippings .
And , retarded teens can be hit with multi-million dollar settlements for sharing a couple songs .
Fail to report your total earnings properly , and the IRS can make you homeless and destitute .
Credibility , right ? Sorry - any outsider looking in can spot some of our very worst inconsistencies .
We are n't all that credible ourselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe he has the same credibility that we have when we start telling the world how to live.
I mean, we often judge other systems as bug-fucking-crazy, then meddle with their systems.
Sometimes, if meddling doesn't satisfy us, we invade, and completely break their systems.
Credibility.  Yeah, we have lots of it.
We turn murderers and rapists out into the streets to strike again, but a "three time loser" can pull a life sentence for possessing one to many grams of lawn mower clippings.
And, retarded teens can be hit with multi-million dollar settlements for sharing a couple songs.
Fail to report your total earnings properly, and the IRS can make you homeless and destitute.
Credibility, right?Sorry - any outsider looking in can spot some of our very worst inconsistencies.
We aren't all that credible ourselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310206</id>
	<title>Re:Fair Use</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1267361760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fair use is determined by the four factor test and that list is not exhaustive, for example "timeshifting" which was vital to the Betamax case is not listed nor covered by any of the others. So the only one bastardizing the statutes here is you, by asserting that it can't be fair use since it's not on the list.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fair use is determined by the four factor test and that list is not exhaustive , for example " timeshifting " which was vital to the Betamax case is not listed nor covered by any of the others .
So the only one bastardizing the statutes here is you , by asserting that it ca n't be fair use since it 's not on the list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fair use is determined by the four factor test and that list is not exhaustive, for example "timeshifting" which was vital to the Betamax case is not listed nor covered by any of the others.
So the only one bastardizing the statutes here is you, by asserting that it can't be fair use since it's not on the list.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310122</id>
	<title>A slap in the face to all American veterans.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267361340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is nothing more than a huge slap in the face to all American veterans, of any conflict.</p><p>My grandfather was in Korea, and he made what's perhaps the most ultimate sacrifice short of his life: his genitals. Thankfully, he had three kids by the time he was sent over, one of them being my mother. But it still apparently left him a very changed man, more so than most veterans.</p><p>I am glad that he is no longer around, to spare him from having to hear of this disgraceful ruling. Many of his friends' names were on that monument.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is nothing more than a huge slap in the face to all American veterans , of any conflict.My grandfather was in Korea , and he made what 's perhaps the most ultimate sacrifice short of his life : his genitals .
Thankfully , he had three kids by the time he was sent over , one of them being my mother .
But it still apparently left him a very changed man , more so than most veterans.I am glad that he is no longer around , to spare him from having to hear of this disgraceful ruling .
Many of his friends ' names were on that monument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is nothing more than a huge slap in the face to all American veterans, of any conflict.My grandfather was in Korea, and he made what's perhaps the most ultimate sacrifice short of his life: his genitals.
Thankfully, he had three kids by the time he was sent over, one of them being my mother.
But it still apparently left him a very changed man, more so than most veterans.I am glad that he is no longer around, to spare him from having to hear of this disgraceful ruling.
Many of his friends' names were on that monument.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310296</id>
	<title>Yank Stamps Story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267362480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wtfayboa?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wtfayboa ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wtfayboa?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31315570</id>
	<title>Gaylord?!</title>
	<author>bluefoxlucid</author>
	<datestamp>1267457220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gay Fawker?!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gay Fawker ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gay Fawker?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309852</id>
	<title>Stupid bureaucrats</title>
	<author>Eth1csGrad1ent</author>
	<datestamp>1267359780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTA - noone actually ever paid the artist for the work, and I assume it wasn't stipulated in the rules of the competition (that the artist won) that the work, and any IP related to the work, would become public domain if he won.</p><p>Looks like a stupid oversight on behalf of the original organisers and the Postal Service for not enquiring about ownership.<br>Due diligence on the part of the Postal Service wouldn't have gone astray either.</p><p>I'm not sure where the outrage is coming from...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FTA - noone actually ever paid the artist for the work , and I assume it was n't stipulated in the rules of the competition ( that the artist won ) that the work , and any IP related to the work , would become public domain if he won.Looks like a stupid oversight on behalf of the original organisers and the Postal Service for not enquiring about ownership.Due diligence on the part of the Postal Service would n't have gone astray either.I 'm not sure where the outrage is coming from.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTA - noone actually ever paid the artist for the work, and I assume it wasn't stipulated in the rules of the competition (that the artist won) that the work, and any IP related to the work, would become public domain if he won.Looks like a stupid oversight on behalf of the original organisers and the Postal Service for not enquiring about ownership.Due diligence on the part of the Postal Service wouldn't have gone astray either.I'm not sure where the outrage is coming from...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31313474</id>
	<title>Re:A slap in the face to all American veterans.</title>
	<author>tsm\_sf</author>
	<datestamp>1267439640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>My grandfather was in Korea, and he made what's perhaps the most ultimate sacrifice short of his life: his genitals.</i> <br> <br>

Anyone else hearing Christopher Walken?</htmltext>
<tokenext>My grandfather was in Korea , and he made what 's perhaps the most ultimate sacrifice short of his life : his genitals .
Anyone else hearing Christopher Walken ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My grandfather was in Korea, and he made what's perhaps the most ultimate sacrifice short of his life: his genitals.
Anyone else hearing Christopher Walken?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311248</id>
	<title>Re:A slap in the face to all American veterans.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267370580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your Q reminds me of an old joke</p><p>Army guy got his nuts shot off on the battle field<br>The doctor attending him jokes lightly "Looks like they got your ammunition"<br>The soldier replies "They would have also gotten my gun if I hadn't been thinking of my wife's sister"</p><p>Does that answer your question or do we need to draw you a picture?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your Q reminds me of an old jokeArmy guy got his nuts shot off on the battle fieldThe doctor attending him jokes lightly " Looks like they got your ammunition " The soldier replies " They would have also gotten my gun if I had n't been thinking of my wife 's sister " Does that answer your question or do we need to draw you a picture ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your Q reminds me of an old jokeArmy guy got his nuts shot off on the battle fieldThe doctor attending him jokes lightly "Looks like they got your ammunition"The soldier replies "They would have also gotten my gun if I hadn't been thinking of my wife's sister"Does that answer your question or do we need to draw you a picture?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311158</id>
	<title>Re:A slap in the face to all American veterans.</title>
	<author>tuxgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1267369860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed <br>If the sculptor wanted exclusive rights to this work in question, he should have put the thing in an art museum</p><p>To place a war memorial in a national public arena should make it public domain. <br>Whats next? Will he now go after and sue everyone that has snapped this thing with their point &amp; shoot?</p><p>I have a friend that is so disgusted with our government that he now votes against every incumbent that comes up for reelection<br>Perhaps if we all took to this strategery, we could eventually rid ourselves of this scum that has fubar'd the country</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed If the sculptor wanted exclusive rights to this work in question , he should have put the thing in an art museumTo place a war memorial in a national public arena should make it public domain .
Whats next ?
Will he now go after and sue everyone that has snapped this thing with their point &amp; shoot ? I have a friend that is so disgusted with our government that he now votes against every incumbent that comes up for reelectionPerhaps if we all took to this strategery , we could eventually rid ourselves of this scum that has fubar 'd the country</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed If the sculptor wanted exclusive rights to this work in question, he should have put the thing in an art museumTo place a war memorial in a national public arena should make it public domain.
Whats next?
Will he now go after and sue everyone that has snapped this thing with their point &amp; shoot?I have a friend that is so disgusted with our government that he now votes against every incumbent that comes up for reelectionPerhaps if we all took to this strategery, we could eventually rid ourselves of this scum that has fubar'd the country</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310098</id>
	<title>Re:It's called a "stamp" not a "photo"...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267361280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's okay to take a photo of a sculpture but it's not okay to use that photo to market your service, such as the way the USPS was trying to do with this stamp. This is part of the reason they make sure people are dead for a good long time before they honor them with a postage stamp.</p></div><p>That doesn't make any sense. If you take a picture of me, it's not as if I retain any authorship rights to my own face. The "living persons" rule does apply to images of people on U.S. stamps, but not to images of sculptures AFAIK.
<br> <br>
Now this is a quote from the findings in the ruling:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Analysis of the purpose and character of the use also includes whether the &ldquo;use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.&rdquo; 17 U.S.C.  107. The Postal Service acknowledged receiving $17 million from the sale of nearly 48 million 37-cent stamps. An estimated $5.4 million in stamps were sold to collectors in 2003. The stamp clearly has a commercial purpose. The Court of Federal Claims did not address how the commercial purpose of the stamp affected this factor of the fair use analysis.</p></div><p>This gets down to the question of what a stamp is for. Is the $5.4 million figure even relevant? All those stamp collectors can still mail letters with those stamps.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's okay to take a photo of a sculpture but it 's not okay to use that photo to market your service , such as the way the USPS was trying to do with this stamp .
This is part of the reason they make sure people are dead for a good long time before they honor them with a postage stamp.That does n't make any sense .
If you take a picture of me , it 's not as if I retain any authorship rights to my own face .
The " living persons " rule does apply to images of people on U.S. stamps , but not to images of sculptures AFAIK .
Now this is a quote from the findings in the ruling : Analysis of the purpose and character of the use also includes whether the    use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.    17 U.S.C .
107. The Postal Service acknowledged receiving $ 17 million from the sale of nearly 48 million 37-cent stamps .
An estimated $ 5.4 million in stamps were sold to collectors in 2003 .
The stamp clearly has a commercial purpose .
The Court of Federal Claims did not address how the commercial purpose of the stamp affected this factor of the fair use analysis.This gets down to the question of what a stamp is for .
Is the $ 5.4 million figure even relevant ?
All those stamp collectors can still mail letters with those stamps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's okay to take a photo of a sculpture but it's not okay to use that photo to market your service, such as the way the USPS was trying to do with this stamp.
This is part of the reason they make sure people are dead for a good long time before they honor them with a postage stamp.That doesn't make any sense.
If you take a picture of me, it's not as if I retain any authorship rights to my own face.
The "living persons" rule does apply to images of people on U.S. stamps, but not to images of sculptures AFAIK.
Now this is a quote from the findings in the ruling:Analysis of the purpose and character of the use also includes whether the “use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.” 17 U.S.C.
107. The Postal Service acknowledged receiving $17 million from the sale of nearly 48 million 37-cent stamps.
An estimated $5.4 million in stamps were sold to collectors in 2003.
The stamp clearly has a commercial purpose.
The Court of Federal Claims did not address how the commercial purpose of the stamp affected this factor of the fair use analysis.This gets down to the question of what a stamp is for.
Is the $5.4 million figure even relevant?
All those stamp collectors can still mail letters with those stamps.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311830</id>
	<title>Re:A slap in the face to all American veterans.</title>
	<author>lymond01</author>
	<datestamp>1267377120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Taking a photo of it and using it on facebook or flicker is fine.  Using it to sell stuff, in this case stamps, is not.  They should have contacted the sculptor about waiving royalties.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Taking a photo of it and using it on facebook or flicker is fine .
Using it to sell stuff , in this case stamps , is not .
They should have contacted the sculptor about waiving royalties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taking a photo of it and using it on facebook or flicker is fine.
Using it to sell stuff, in this case stamps, is not.
They should have contacted the sculptor about waiving royalties.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309940</id>
	<title>That is so typical for a gaylord.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267360320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Was the judge a gaylord too?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Was the judge a gaylord too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was the judge a gaylord too?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310402</id>
	<title>At issue is what is transformative</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267363440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about Warhol and the Cambells soup cans?</p><p>Warhol was able to make a work of art out of the Campbells soup cans, and ostensibly a stamp could be made out of Warhols work without Campbells permission, right? However just taking a photo of Warhols painting and then making a stamp out of that without Warhols permission would not be transformative, even though Warhol's paintings were a somewhat straightforward representation of the soup can. Right? No?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about Warhol and the Cambells soup cans ? Warhol was able to make a work of art out of the Campbells soup cans , and ostensibly a stamp could be made out of Warhols work without Campbells permission , right ?
However just taking a photo of Warhols painting and then making a stamp out of that without Warhols permission would not be transformative , even though Warhol 's paintings were a somewhat straightforward representation of the soup can .
Right ? No ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about Warhol and the Cambells soup cans?Warhol was able to make a work of art out of the Campbells soup cans, and ostensibly a stamp could be made out of Warhols work without Campbells permission, right?
However just taking a photo of Warhols painting and then making a stamp out of that without Warhols permission would not be transformative, even though Warhol's paintings were a somewhat straightforward representation of the soup can.
Right? No?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31313230</id>
	<title>artwork includes architecture -- end of streetview</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267436760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Architecture is artwork owned by the architect. So wouldn't this ruling limiting fair use possibly apply to images of copyrighted architectural creations, aka buildings? And if so, wouldn't all photographs that include buildings like skyline shots and google streetviews have the same problems since that imagery makes money? Could be an interesting can of worms. Or perhaps the ruling is more narrow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Architecture is artwork owned by the architect .
So would n't this ruling limiting fair use possibly apply to images of copyrighted architectural creations , aka buildings ?
And if so , would n't all photographs that include buildings like skyline shots and google streetviews have the same problems since that imagery makes money ?
Could be an interesting can of worms .
Or perhaps the ruling is more narrow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Architecture is artwork owned by the architect.
So wouldn't this ruling limiting fair use possibly apply to images of copyrighted architectural creations, aka buildings?
And if so, wouldn't all photographs that include buildings like skyline shots and google streetviews have the same problems since that imagery makes money?
Could be an interesting can of worms.
Or perhaps the ruling is more narrow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311572</id>
	<title>Re:A slap in the face to all American veterans.</title>
	<author>cusco</author>
	<datestamp>1267374300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Why are there so many cases where there is a reversal</i> <br> <br>

To a great extent it's because Federal appeals court judges are political appointees, more often than not chosen because of their partisan politics rather than any sort of legal knowledge.  No experience as a lower-court judge is necessary, for that matter a number of them have been appointed after spending all of their post-Bar Exam years lobbying or politicking rather than practicing law.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are there so many cases where there is a reversal To a great extent it 's because Federal appeals court judges are political appointees , more often than not chosen because of their partisan politics rather than any sort of legal knowledge .
No experience as a lower-court judge is necessary , for that matter a number of them have been appointed after spending all of their post-Bar Exam years lobbying or politicking rather than practicing law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are there so many cases where there is a reversal  

To a great extent it's because Federal appeals court judges are political appointees, more often than not chosen because of their partisan politics rather than any sort of legal knowledge.
No experience as a lower-court judge is necessary, for that matter a number of them have been appointed after spending all of their post-Bar Exam years lobbying or politicking rather than practicing law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310388</id>
	<title>What an ironic name</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267363320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What an ironic name, given he's such a big <a href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/251889" title="southparkstudios.com" rel="nofollow">faggot.</a> [southparkstudios.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>What an ironic name , given he 's such a big faggot .
[ southparkstudios.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What an ironic name, given he's such a big faggot.
[southparkstudios.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310818</id>
	<title>Accidental mod NT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267367220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why are you reading this? I said NT!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are you reading this ?
I said NT !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are you reading this?
I said NT!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31312144</id>
	<title>Re:Did MY Tax Dollars Pay for This?</title>
	<author>tftp</author>
	<datestamp>1267380840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Did the artist get public dollars?</i>
</p><p>
Whatever dollars the artist got, most of them probably were spent on manufacturing of the actual monument - site preparation, foundation, bronze, casting, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did the artist get public dollars ?
Whatever dollars the artist got , most of them probably were spent on manufacturing of the actual monument - site preparation , foundation , bronze , casting , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Did the artist get public dollars?
Whatever dollars the artist got, most of them probably were spent on manufacturing of the actual monument - site preparation, foundation, bronze, casting, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31323016</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>Taibhsear</author>
	<datestamp>1267441620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, but your parents can.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , but your parents can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, but your parents can.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310556</id>
	<title>Re:The postal service should just use the photo</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1267364640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wrong war.  This is the Korean War memorial.  It portrays a column of soldiers in ponchos, not a flag raising.  The Battle of Iwo Jima took place during WWII.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong war .
This is the Korean War memorial .
It portrays a column of soldiers in ponchos , not a flag raising .
The Battle of Iwo Jima took place during WWII .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong war.
This is the Korean War memorial.
It portrays a column of soldiers in ponchos, not a flag raising.
The Battle of Iwo Jima took place during WWII.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31313324</id>
	<title>Does it mean</title>
	<author>blue-slonopotam</author>
	<datestamp>1267438080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can not put a picture of my car on my website? Or is it designed for human occupancy, therefore I can?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can not put a picture of my car on my website ?
Or is it designed for human occupancy , therefore I can ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can not put a picture of my car on my website?
Or is it designed for human occupancy, therefore I can?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310532</id>
	<title>Re:Fair Use</title>
	<author>Jeremy Erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1267364460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think you understand copyright law. A finding of fair use requires that the derivative work survive the "four factor test". Mere inclusion in the category of "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" is neither neccessary nor sufficient for a finding of "fair use".</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The task is not to be simplified with bright line rules, for the statute, like the doctrine it recognizes, calls for case by case analysis. Harper &amp; Row, 471 U. S., at 560; Sony, 464 U. S., at 448, and n. 31; House Report, pp. 65-66; Senate Report, p. 62. The text employs the terms "including" and "such as" in the preamble paragraph to indicate the "illustrative and not limitative" function of the examples given,  101; see Harper &amp; Row, supra, at 561, which thus provide only general guidance about the sorts of copying that courts and Congress most commonly had found to be fair uses. Nor may the four statutory factors be treated in isolation, one from another. All are to be explored, and the results weighed together, in light of the purposes of copyright. See Leval 1110-1111; Patry &amp; Perlmutter, Fair Use Misconstrued: Profit, Presumptions, and Parody, 11 Cardozo Arts &amp; Ent. L. J. 667, 685-687 (1993) (hereinafter Patry &amp; Perlmutter).</p> </div><p> <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZO.html" title="cornell.edu">Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (92-1292), 510 U.S. 569 (1994). </a> [cornell.edu]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think you understand copyright law .
A finding of fair use requires that the derivative work survive the " four factor test " .
Mere inclusion in the category of " criticism , comment , news reporting , teaching ( including multiple copies for classroom use ) , scholarship , or research " is neither neccessary nor sufficient for a finding of " fair use " .The task is not to be simplified with bright line rules , for the statute , like the doctrine it recognizes , calls for case by case analysis .
Harper &amp; Row , 471 U. S. , at 560 ; Sony , 464 U. S. , at 448 , and n. 31 ; House Report , pp .
65-66 ; Senate Report , p. 62. The text employs the terms " including " and " such as " in the preamble paragraph to indicate the " illustrative and not limitative " function of the examples given , 101 ; see Harper &amp; Row , supra , at 561 , which thus provide only general guidance about the sorts of copying that courts and Congress most commonly had found to be fair uses .
Nor may the four statutory factors be treated in isolation , one from another .
All are to be explored , and the results weighed together , in light of the purposes of copyright .
See Leval 1110-1111 ; Patry &amp; Perlmutter , Fair Use Misconstrued : Profit , Presumptions , and Parody , 11 Cardozo Arts &amp; Ent .
L. J .
667 , 685-687 ( 1993 ) ( hereinafter Patry &amp; Perlmutter ) .
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music ( 92-1292 ) , 510 U.S. 569 ( 1994 ) .
[ cornell.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think you understand copyright law.
A finding of fair use requires that the derivative work survive the "four factor test".
Mere inclusion in the category of "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" is neither neccessary nor sufficient for a finding of "fair use".The task is not to be simplified with bright line rules, for the statute, like the doctrine it recognizes, calls for case by case analysis.
Harper &amp; Row, 471 U. S., at 560; Sony, 464 U. S., at 448, and n. 31; House Report, pp.
65-66; Senate Report, p. 62. The text employs the terms "including" and "such as" in the preamble paragraph to indicate the "illustrative and not limitative" function of the examples given,  101; see Harper &amp; Row, supra, at 561, which thus provide only general guidance about the sorts of copying that courts and Congress most commonly had found to be fair uses.
Nor may the four statutory factors be treated in isolation, one from another.
All are to be explored, and the results weighed together, in light of the purposes of copyright.
See Leval 1110-1111; Patry &amp; Perlmutter, Fair Use Misconstrued: Profit, Presumptions, and Parody, 11 Cardozo Arts &amp; Ent.
L. J.
667, 685-687 (1993) (hereinafter Patry &amp; Perlmutter).
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (92-1292), 510 U.S. 569 (1994).
[cornell.edu]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310808</id>
	<title>Re:It's called a "stamp" not a "photo"...</title>
	<author>Fnord666</author>
	<datestamp>1267367040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's okay to take a photo of a sculpture but it's not okay to use that photo to market your service, such as the way the USPS was trying to do with this stamp. This is part of the reason they make sure people are dead for a good long time before they honor them with a postage stamp.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
From the American Philatelic Society <a href="http://www.stamps.org/Kids/kid\_QA.htm" title="stamps.org">FAQ page</a> [stamps.org]:</p><blockquote><div><p>"Why does the United States of America put only dead people on stamps when other countries picture people who are still living?</p><p>

    Each of the world's stamp-issuing nations has its own set of rules governing selection of subjects for stamps. The United States does not consider putting an individual on a stamp sooner than 10 years following his or her death. The exception is former Presidents of the United States, each of whom is honored with a memorial stamp on the first birthday following their death. The United States believes the impact of a person's life cannot be assessed until it has ended and that at least 10 years after death are required to make a fair evaluation. Most historians would agree that this is a sound policy."</p></div>
</blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's okay to take a photo of a sculpture but it 's not okay to use that photo to market your service , such as the way the USPS was trying to do with this stamp .
This is part of the reason they make sure people are dead for a good long time before they honor them with a postage stamp .
From the American Philatelic Society FAQ page [ stamps.org ] : " Why does the United States of America put only dead people on stamps when other countries picture people who are still living ?
Each of the world 's stamp-issuing nations has its own set of rules governing selection of subjects for stamps .
The United States does not consider putting an individual on a stamp sooner than 10 years following his or her death .
The exception is former Presidents of the United States , each of whom is honored with a memorial stamp on the first birthday following their death .
The United States believes the impact of a person 's life can not be assessed until it has ended and that at least 10 years after death are required to make a fair evaluation .
Most historians would agree that this is a sound policy .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's okay to take a photo of a sculpture but it's not okay to use that photo to market your service, such as the way the USPS was trying to do with this stamp.
This is part of the reason they make sure people are dead for a good long time before they honor them with a postage stamp.
From the American Philatelic Society FAQ page [stamps.org]:"Why does the United States of America put only dead people on stamps when other countries picture people who are still living?
Each of the world's stamp-issuing nations has its own set of rules governing selection of subjects for stamps.
The United States does not consider putting an individual on a stamp sooner than 10 years following his or her death.
The exception is former Presidents of the United States, each of whom is honored with a memorial stamp on the first birthday following their death.
The United States believes the impact of a person's life cannot be assessed until it has ended and that at least 10 years after death are required to make a fair evaluation.
Most historians would agree that this is a sound policy.
"

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310578</id>
	<title>Go ahead, rant on.  Even though it's SCO "logic"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267364880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SCO's entire claim to having Unix copyrights is based on, "Well, they <i>should</i> have transferred."</p><p>But the copyrights in the SCO case didn't transfer because - just like this case - there was no written instrument that actually specified that the copyrights DO transfer.</p><p>Lordy, this case is almost an exact repeat of <i>CCNV v. Reid</i>, which I once had a lawyer describe to me as <i>THE</i> seminal case in US IP law.  In that case, which went to the US Supreme Court, the artist retained copyright to a statue because the group that commissioned the statue did not specify that copyright would transfer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SCO 's entire claim to having Unix copyrights is based on , " Well , they should have transferred .
" But the copyrights in the SCO case did n't transfer because - just like this case - there was no written instrument that actually specified that the copyrights DO transfer.Lordy , this case is almost an exact repeat of CCNV v. Reid , which I once had a lawyer describe to me as THE seminal case in US IP law .
In that case , which went to the US Supreme Court , the artist retained copyright to a statue because the group that commissioned the statue did not specify that copyright would transfer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SCO's entire claim to having Unix copyrights is based on, "Well, they should have transferred.
"But the copyrights in the SCO case didn't transfer because - just like this case - there was no written instrument that actually specified that the copyrights DO transfer.Lordy, this case is almost an exact repeat of CCNV v. Reid, which I once had a lawyer describe to me as THE seminal case in US IP law.
In that case, which went to the US Supreme Court, the artist retained copyright to a statue because the group that commissioned the statue did not specify that copyright would transfer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311516</id>
	<title>Contact Info</title>
	<author>xs650</author>
	<datestamp>1267373700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would call him a douchebag, except for the fact that it would be an insult to douchebags.<br><br>Welcome to the Frank Gaylord Online Sculpture Studio&amp;#8206; &amp;#8206;<br>Contact Information<br><br>Frank C. Gaylord<br>2844 Rte. 14<br>Williamstown, VT 05679<br><br>For Business Inquiries Call John Triano or e-mail at trianoj@gmail.com</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would call him a douchebag , except for the fact that it would be an insult to douchebags.Welcome to the Frank Gaylord Online Sculpture Studio       Contact InformationFrank C. Gaylord2844 Rte .
14Williamstown , VT 05679For Business Inquiries Call John Triano or e-mail at trianoj @ gmail.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would call him a douchebag, except for the fact that it would be an insult to douchebags.Welcome to the Frank Gaylord Online Sculpture Studio‎ ‎Contact InformationFrank C. Gaylord2844 Rte.
14Williamstown, VT 05679For Business Inquiries Call John Triano or e-mail at trianoj@gmail.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311940</id>
	<title>Foresight, or lack thereof</title>
	<author>galadriel</author>
	<datestamp>1267378200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They didn't <i>get permission</i> before they used the image?  What idiocy!</p><p>How many other stamps are in the same boat?  How many times did they make this mistake?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They did n't get permission before they used the image ?
What idiocy ! How many other stamps are in the same boat ?
How many times did they make this mistake ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They didn't get permission before they used the image?
What idiocy!How many other stamps are in the same boat?
How many times did they make this mistake?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310368</id>
	<title>Something from Nothing</title>
	<author>NicknamesAreStupid</author>
	<datestamp>1267363140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>When a society ceases to produce real property, the value of intangible property virtually soars.  Even our money is no longer tangible, as vastly larger sums flow through wires than through hands. Someday, free speech will not be, as the government will see it as the last bastion of tax revenues.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When a society ceases to produce real property , the value of intangible property virtually soars .
Even our money is no longer tangible , as vastly larger sums flow through wires than through hands .
Someday , free speech will not be , as the government will see it as the last bastion of tax revenues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When a society ceases to produce real property, the value of intangible property virtually soars.
Even our money is no longer tangible, as vastly larger sums flow through wires than through hands.
Someday, free speech will not be, as the government will see it as the last bastion of tax revenues.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311684</id>
	<title>Perhaps there's a personal reason?</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1267375380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, this was a stupid decision, but before everyone jumps all over the artist, consider that the man is 85 years old and is a US citizen, which means that he's likely to have serious health problems but not to have adequate health insurance. He might very well be a greedy prima donna, but he might also just be sick and desperate.</p><p>As far as the fair use issue goes, it is my personal opinion that one ought to be able to photograph everything that is in public view and to profit therefrom. Unfortunately, that is just my personal opinion, and the laws and their interpretation can and probably do differ. Of course, if I got to make the laws, most of the crap that arouses outrage on Slashdot wouldn't be an issue, but there would probably be endless bitching about the difficulty of the math, logic, and statistics sections of the voter qualification test...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , this was a stupid decision , but before everyone jumps all over the artist , consider that the man is 85 years old and is a US citizen , which means that he 's likely to have serious health problems but not to have adequate health insurance .
He might very well be a greedy prima donna , but he might also just be sick and desperate.As far as the fair use issue goes , it is my personal opinion that one ought to be able to photograph everything that is in public view and to profit therefrom .
Unfortunately , that is just my personal opinion , and the laws and their interpretation can and probably do differ .
Of course , if I got to make the laws , most of the crap that arouses outrage on Slashdot would n't be an issue , but there would probably be endless bitching about the difficulty of the math , logic , and statistics sections of the voter qualification test.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, this was a stupid decision, but before everyone jumps all over the artist, consider that the man is 85 years old and is a US citizen, which means that he's likely to have serious health problems but not to have adequate health insurance.
He might very well be a greedy prima donna, but he might also just be sick and desperate.As far as the fair use issue goes, it is my personal opinion that one ought to be able to photograph everything that is in public view and to profit therefrom.
Unfortunately, that is just my personal opinion, and the laws and their interpretation can and probably do differ.
Of course, if I got to make the laws, most of the crap that arouses outrage on Slashdot wouldn't be an issue, but there would probably be endless bitching about the difficulty of the math, logic, and statistics sections of the voter qualification test...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31321840</id>
	<title>What's there to see?</title>
	<author>hrimhari</author>
	<datestamp>1267437240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He created the sculpture. I'm pretty sure that it's fair to him to have rights over how images of the sculpture are used. Putting it on a stamp doesn't seem like an adaptation of the work but a direct use for commercial means. Where's the "fair use" issue here?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He created the sculpture .
I 'm pretty sure that it 's fair to him to have rights over how images of the sculpture are used .
Putting it on a stamp does n't seem like an adaptation of the work but a direct use for commercial means .
Where 's the " fair use " issue here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He created the sculpture.
I'm pretty sure that it's fair to him to have rights over how images of the sculpture are used.
Putting it on a stamp doesn't seem like an adaptation of the work but a direct use for commercial means.
Where's the "fair use" issue here?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309904</id>
	<title>This will get appealed again.</title>
	<author>fluffy99</author>
	<datestamp>1267360080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The underlying problem is that copyrights were improperly assigned to Gaylord in the first place.  Being under contract to the govt, those copyrights should have been assigned to the govt.  In fact the contracting officer has been and still is demanding that those improperly assigned copyrights be turned over.  The court wasn't allowed to challenge the validity of those copyrights and had to take them at face value.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The underlying problem is that copyrights were improperly assigned to Gaylord in the first place .
Being under contract to the govt , those copyrights should have been assigned to the govt .
In fact the contracting officer has been and still is demanding that those improperly assigned copyrights be turned over .
The court was n't allowed to challenge the validity of those copyrights and had to take them at face value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The underlying problem is that copyrights were improperly assigned to Gaylord in the first place.
Being under contract to the govt, those copyrights should have been assigned to the govt.
In fact the contracting officer has been and still is demanding that those improperly assigned copyrights be turned over.
The court wasn't allowed to challenge the validity of those copyrights and had to take them at face value.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309828</id>
	<title>Failed Work for Hire</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1267359600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The guy made the sculptor as a work for higher of the American people, but obviously someone signed a bad contract along the way, or, to put it another way, the artist ripped off the American people.  I guess I'll just have to add him to my piss on someone's grave tour, but in his case I should take a photo of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The guy made the sculptor as a work for higher of the American people , but obviously someone signed a bad contract along the way , or , to put it another way , the artist ripped off the American people .
I guess I 'll just have to add him to my piss on someone 's grave tour , but in his case I should take a photo of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The guy made the sculptor as a work for higher of the American people, but obviously someone signed a bad contract along the way, or, to put it another way, the artist ripped off the American people.
I guess I'll just have to add him to my piss on someone's grave tour, but in his case I should take a photo of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31316336</id>
	<title>Re:Statutory Damages...</title>
	<author>ccady</author>
	<datestamp>1267459680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One word: logarithm.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One word : logarithm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One word: logarithm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309864</id>
	<title>Fair Use</title>
	<author>sys.stdout.write</author>
	<datestamp>1267359840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the opinion...<p><div class="quote"><p>Fair use of a copyrighted work &ldquo;for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.</p></div><p>17 U.S.C.  107<br> <br>
This is the law.  This is not how the Postal Service used his copyrighted work.  As an aside, this is also not what Tenenbaum et al. did when they downloaded music.<br> <br>
We shouldn't complain when judges use restraint and don't bastardize statutes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the opinion...Fair use of a copyrighted work    for purposes such as criticism , comment , news reporting , teaching ( including multiple copies for classroom use ) , scholarship , or research , is not an infringement of copyright.17 U.S.C .
107 This is the law .
This is not how the Postal Service used his copyrighted work .
As an aside , this is also not what Tenenbaum et al .
did when they downloaded music .
We should n't complain when judges use restraint and do n't bastardize statutes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the opinion...Fair use of a copyrighted work “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.17 U.S.C.
107 
This is the law.
This is not how the Postal Service used his copyrighted work.
As an aside, this is also not what Tenenbaum et al.
did when they downloaded music.
We shouldn't complain when judges use restraint and don't bastardize statutes.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31324654</id>
	<title>Re:Baffled</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267449720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude, he already got paid for the job. Nearly a mil.</p><p>Now he wants MORE? Maybe he should have tried, you know, actual fucking WORKING for a living?</p><p>"IP" my hairy ass. Work for money, don't sit there and try and leech of ONE FUCKING JOB for the rest of your life.</p><p>Fucking "artists".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , he already got paid for the job .
Nearly a mil.Now he wants MORE ?
Maybe he should have tried , you know , actual fucking WORKING for a living ?
" IP " my hairy ass .
Work for money , do n't sit there and try and leech of ONE FUCKING JOB for the rest of your life.Fucking " artists " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, he already got paid for the job.
Nearly a mil.Now he wants MORE?
Maybe he should have tried, you know, actual fucking WORKING for a living?
"IP" my hairy ass.
Work for money, don't sit there and try and leech of ONE FUCKING JOB for the rest of your life.Fucking "artists".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31313198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311440</id>
	<title>Re:A slap in the face to all American veterans.</title>
	<author>SpockLogic</author>
	<datestamp>1267372680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Appeals court rulings are overturned frequently by supreme courts (google it) - if they hear the case (which the blatantly should). US postal service should be able to get there. I'm not worried but then again I'm not in the US. Why are there so many cases where there is a reversal is strange and can be infuriating.</p></div><p>Especially as the decision was 2 - 1 with a strong and well agued dissent.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Appeals court rulings are overturned frequently by supreme courts ( google it ) - if they hear the case ( which the blatantly should ) .
US postal service should be able to get there .
I 'm not worried but then again I 'm not in the US .
Why are there so many cases where there is a reversal is strange and can be infuriating.Especially as the decision was 2 - 1 with a strong and well agued dissent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Appeals court rulings are overturned frequently by supreme courts (google it) - if they hear the case (which the blatantly should).
US postal service should be able to get there.
I'm not worried but then again I'm not in the US.
Why are there so many cases where there is a reversal is strange and can be infuriating.Especially as the decision was 2 - 1 with a strong and well agued dissent.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309962</id>
	<title>Re:Fair Use</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267360440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Judicial activism is when a judge does something I don't like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Judicial activism is when a judge does something I do n't like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Judicial activism is when a judge does something I don't like.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310410</id>
	<title>Bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267363500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is just wrong.</p><p>It was commissioned by Congress. "Management of the memorial was turned over to the National Park Service, under its National Mall and Memorial Parks group. As with all National Park Service historic areas, the memorial was administratively listed on the National Register of Historic Places on the day of its dedication." (wikipedia)</p><p>I think, as the piece being commissioned by congress and the managing body by the US Park Service, the artist can go fuck himself. As an artist my self, Im possessive of my own works, but this is wrong. As a photographer, I am allowed to take someone else's work and duplicate the scene and photograph it. This is so long as I am not taking the image of their creation and claiming it to be my own. If I put the effort into it to duplicate it, and take the exact same photo, and can prove I did all that, Im in the clear. Taking a picture of a publicly commissioned art piece is my own work. Also, If I had art that was to be commissioned by congress, I wouldnt throw a hissy fit over what the government wanted to do. Theyre not even making money off it. What the hell is this guy's problem. He is known as the creator, that should be plenty enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just wrong.It was commissioned by Congress .
" Management of the memorial was turned over to the National Park Service , under its National Mall and Memorial Parks group .
As with all National Park Service historic areas , the memorial was administratively listed on the National Register of Historic Places on the day of its dedication .
" ( wikipedia ) I think , as the piece being commissioned by congress and the managing body by the US Park Service , the artist can go fuck himself .
As an artist my self , Im possessive of my own works , but this is wrong .
As a photographer , I am allowed to take someone else 's work and duplicate the scene and photograph it .
This is so long as I am not taking the image of their creation and claiming it to be my own .
If I put the effort into it to duplicate it , and take the exact same photo , and can prove I did all that , Im in the clear .
Taking a picture of a publicly commissioned art piece is my own work .
Also , If I had art that was to be commissioned by congress , I wouldnt throw a hissy fit over what the government wanted to do .
Theyre not even making money off it .
What the hell is this guy 's problem .
He is known as the creator , that should be plenty enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just wrong.It was commissioned by Congress.
"Management of the memorial was turned over to the National Park Service, under its National Mall and Memorial Parks group.
As with all National Park Service historic areas, the memorial was administratively listed on the National Register of Historic Places on the day of its dedication.
" (wikipedia)I think, as the piece being commissioned by congress and the managing body by the US Park Service, the artist can go fuck himself.
As an artist my self, Im possessive of my own works, but this is wrong.
As a photographer, I am allowed to take someone else's work and duplicate the scene and photograph it.
This is so long as I am not taking the image of their creation and claiming it to be my own.
If I put the effort into it to duplicate it, and take the exact same photo, and can prove I did all that, Im in the clear.
Taking a picture of a publicly commissioned art piece is my own work.
Also, If I had art that was to be commissioned by congress, I wouldnt throw a hissy fit over what the government wanted to do.
Theyre not even making money off it.
What the hell is this guy's problem.
He is known as the creator, that should be plenty enough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310114</id>
	<title>Re:Statutory Damages...</title>
	<author>Theaetetus</author>
	<datestamp>1267361340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>17 million sales of $.37 stamps = 46 million or so stamps actually produced.</p><p>Statutory damages can run from $750-$30,000 per copy, assuming that it wasn't a willful infringement.</p><p>That's a minimum award of $34,500,000,000 (34.5 billion) and a maximum award of 1,380,000,000,000 (1.4 trillion). Plus attorney's fees, of course. Roughly last year's federal deficit not counting off-budget spending bills.</p><p>Would anyone here care to argue that statutory damages in the U.S. are <i>not</i> way out of proportion to the scope of the infringement?</p></div><p>I would care to argue that... Mainly because you're misquoting the statute. 17 USC 504(c)(1) says: "... the copyright owner may elect... an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, <b>with respect to any one work,</b> for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $ 750 or more than $ 30,000 as the court considers just."</p><p>
It's $750-$30k <i>per work</i>, not per copy. This was specifically changed in 1976 - from the original copyright act of 1790 through the many revisions until 1976, statutory damages were per copy... usually <i>per sheet</i>, even, although damages were much lower. But still, a 500 page book would be 500 separate sheets, at 50 cents per sheet in 1790, or $250 per copy of the book.</p><p>
Anyways, this is a single work, so damages would be between $750 and $30k, or up to $150k if it was willful, but not the billion or trillion you posit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>17 million sales of $ .37 stamps = 46 million or so stamps actually produced.Statutory damages can run from $ 750- $ 30,000 per copy , assuming that it was n't a willful infringement.That 's a minimum award of $ 34,500,000,000 ( 34.5 billion ) and a maximum award of 1,380,000,000,000 ( 1.4 trillion ) .
Plus attorney 's fees , of course .
Roughly last year 's federal deficit not counting off-budget spending bills.Would anyone here care to argue that statutory damages in the U.S. are not way out of proportion to the scope of the infringement ? I would care to argue that... Mainly because you 're misquoting the statute .
17 USC 504 ( c ) ( 1 ) says : " ... the copyright owner may elect... an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action , with respect to any one work , for which any one infringer is liable individually , or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally , in a sum of not less than $ 750 or more than $ 30,000 as the court considers just .
" It 's $ 750- $ 30k per work , not per copy .
This was specifically changed in 1976 - from the original copyright act of 1790 through the many revisions until 1976 , statutory damages were per copy... usually per sheet , even , although damages were much lower .
But still , a 500 page book would be 500 separate sheets , at 50 cents per sheet in 1790 , or $ 250 per copy of the book .
Anyways , this is a single work , so damages would be between $ 750 and $ 30k , or up to $ 150k if it was willful , but not the billion or trillion you posit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>17 million sales of $.37 stamps = 46 million or so stamps actually produced.Statutory damages can run from $750-$30,000 per copy, assuming that it wasn't a willful infringement.That's a minimum award of $34,500,000,000 (34.5 billion) and a maximum award of 1,380,000,000,000 (1.4 trillion).
Plus attorney's fees, of course.
Roughly last year's federal deficit not counting off-budget spending bills.Would anyone here care to argue that statutory damages in the U.S. are not way out of proportion to the scope of the infringement?I would care to argue that... Mainly because you're misquoting the statute.
17 USC 504(c)(1) says: "... the copyright owner may elect... an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $ 750 or more than $ 30,000 as the court considers just.
"
It's $750-$30k per work, not per copy.
This was specifically changed in 1976 - from the original copyright act of 1790 through the many revisions until 1976, statutory damages were per copy... usually per sheet, even, although damages were much lower.
But still, a 500 page book would be 500 separate sheets, at 50 cents per sheet in 1790, or $250 per copy of the book.
Anyways, this is a single work, so damages would be between $750 and $30k, or up to $150k if it was willful, but not the billion or trillion you posit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309952</id>
	<title>Wasn't sculpture made from the famous photo?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267360320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Call me crazy, but wasn't the sculpture created from a photo? Hmmmm...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Call me crazy , but was n't the sculpture created from a photo ?
Hmmmm.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Call me crazy, but wasn't the sculpture created from a photo?
Hmmmm...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311376</id>
	<title>Re:A slap in the face to all American veterans.</title>
	<author>Montezumaa</author>
	<datestamp>1267371960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about the rights of the soldiers that were captures in the Memorial?  The creator profited from those guys, but it is not ok for a semi-governmental corporation to honors the men that raised the flag and the men and women of the United States Military.  This is just another example of judicial activism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the rights of the soldiers that were captures in the Memorial ?
The creator profited from those guys , but it is not ok for a semi-governmental corporation to honors the men that raised the flag and the men and women of the United States Military .
This is just another example of judicial activism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about the rights of the soldiers that were captures in the Memorial?
The creator profited from those guys, but it is not ok for a semi-governmental corporation to honors the men that raised the flag and the men and women of the United States Military.
This is just another example of judicial activism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310400</id>
	<title>Re:A slap in the face to all American veterans.</title>
	<author>dimeglio</author>
	<datestamp>1267363440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Appeals court rulings are overturned frequently by supreme courts (google it) - if they hear the case (which the blatantly should). US postal service should be able to get there. I'm not worried but then again I'm not in the US. Why are there so many cases where there is a reversal is strange and can be infuriating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Appeals court rulings are overturned frequently by supreme courts ( google it ) - if they hear the case ( which the blatantly should ) .
US postal service should be able to get there .
I 'm not worried but then again I 'm not in the US .
Why are there so many cases where there is a reversal is strange and can be infuriating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Appeals court rulings are overturned frequently by supreme courts (google it) - if they hear the case (which the blatantly should).
US postal service should be able to get there.
I'm not worried but then again I'm not in the US.
Why are there so many cases where there is a reversal is strange and can be infuriating.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31314818</id>
	<title>Re:A slap in the face to all American veterans.</title>
	<author>KwKSilver</author>
	<datestamp>1267453440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Only "artistes" and corporations have rights.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only " artistes " and corporations have rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only "artistes" and corporations have rights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310008</id>
	<title>Statutory Damages...</title>
	<author>Telephone Sanitizer</author>
	<datestamp>1267360680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>17 million sales of $.37 stamps = 46 million or so stamps actually produced.</p><p>Statutory damages can run from $750-$30,000 per copy, assuming that it wasn't a willful infringement.</p><p>That's a minimum award of $34,500,000,000 (34.5 billion) and a maximum award of 1,380,000,000,000 (1.4 trillion). Plus attorney's fees, of course. Roughly last year's federal deficit not counting off-budget spending bills.</p><p>Would anyone here care to argue that statutory damages in the U.S. are <i>not</i> way out of proportion to the scope of the infringement?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>17 million sales of $ .37 stamps = 46 million or so stamps actually produced.Statutory damages can run from $ 750- $ 30,000 per copy , assuming that it was n't a willful infringement.That 's a minimum award of $ 34,500,000,000 ( 34.5 billion ) and a maximum award of 1,380,000,000,000 ( 1.4 trillion ) .
Plus attorney 's fees , of course .
Roughly last year 's federal deficit not counting off-budget spending bills.Would anyone here care to argue that statutory damages in the U.S. are not way out of proportion to the scope of the infringement ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>17 million sales of $.37 stamps = 46 million or so stamps actually produced.Statutory damages can run from $750-$30,000 per copy, assuming that it wasn't a willful infringement.That's a minimum award of $34,500,000,000 (34.5 billion) and a maximum award of 1,380,000,000,000 (1.4 trillion).
Plus attorney's fees, of course.
Roughly last year's federal deficit not counting off-budget spending bills.Would anyone here care to argue that statutory damages in the U.S. are not way out of proportion to the scope of the infringement?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31324536</id>
	<title>Re:A slap in the face to all American veterans.</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1267449060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a horrible pun somewhere about this artist name being Gaylord and your grandfather having his genitals blown off...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a horrible pun somewhere about this artist name being Gaylord and your grandfather having his genitals blown off.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a horrible pun somewhere about this artist name being Gaylord and your grandfather having his genitals blown off...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31314476</id>
	<title>Re:A slap in the face to all American veterans.</title>
	<author>vegiVamp</author>
	<datestamp>1267451280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If he wants pictures he can damn well go and find them himself on fchan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If he wants pictures he can damn well go and find them himself on fchan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If he wants pictures he can damn well go and find them himself on fchan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310946</id>
	<title>Re:A slap in the face to all American veterans.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267368300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>My grandfather was in Korea, and he made what's perhaps the most ultimate sacrifice short of his life: his genitals.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Um... OK, I give up.  How?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My grandfather was in Korea , and he made what 's perhaps the most ultimate sacrifice short of his life : his genitals .
Um... OK , I give up .
How ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My grandfather was in Korea, and he made what's perhaps the most ultimate sacrifice short of his life: his genitals.
Um... OK, I give up.
How?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31312754</id>
	<title>Re:A slap in the face to all American veterans.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267474560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"severed his country"... that's one of the best Freudian slips I've seen recently.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" severed his country " ... that 's one of the best Freudian slips I 've seen recently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"severed his country"... that's one of the best Freudian slips I've seen recently.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31313270</id>
	<title>Re:Missing the point</title>
	<author>Teancum</author>
	<datestamp>1267437300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is not a limitation of fair use.  Fair use normally applies to <b>noncommercial, private</b> use.  The US Postal service is not using as such.  Their use is both commercial and public.  So anyone who wants to take a picture of the statues is not violating rights.  Selling the pictures for profit is violating rights.</p></div><p>While noncommercial and private use of copyrighted material is something for courts to take into consideration and is a part of the formal legal code for fair-use, it is possible to apply fair-use doctrine to items which are used in commercial and for-profit applications.</p><p>This includes mixing fair-use content with "free-license" content like the GFDL, GPL, and CC-by-SA licenses that also permit commercial reproduction.</p><p>The question here is if the sculpture is something which is in the public domain, having been purchased by and used by the federal government on government land (perhaps considered a "donation" to the government... depending on how the funds for it were raised) or if the original artist retained copyright status for this particular work of art.  That is the real issue, and something which can be ruled upon in a very narrow way that doesn't grossly impact the copyright status of other 3-D works of art.</p><p>Where this becomes groundbreaking is for a monument placed upon federal land and if the courts rule that such public monuments can have their copyright status retained by the original artist unless such rights are explicitly relinquished by that artist by some contract or some other means of recognition of that fact.</p><p>Yes, this is quite a bit different than some rapper "sampling" the music or performance from another artist, unless the sampling was done of the work performed by say the U.S. Marine Corps Band or some other group of government employees.  Such performances are usually considered to be in the public domain as they are government employees.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not a limitation of fair use .
Fair use normally applies to noncommercial , private use .
The US Postal service is not using as such .
Their use is both commercial and public .
So anyone who wants to take a picture of the statues is not violating rights .
Selling the pictures for profit is violating rights.While noncommercial and private use of copyrighted material is something for courts to take into consideration and is a part of the formal legal code for fair-use , it is possible to apply fair-use doctrine to items which are used in commercial and for-profit applications.This includes mixing fair-use content with " free-license " content like the GFDL , GPL , and CC-by-SA licenses that also permit commercial reproduction.The question here is if the sculpture is something which is in the public domain , having been purchased by and used by the federal government on government land ( perhaps considered a " donation " to the government... depending on how the funds for it were raised ) or if the original artist retained copyright status for this particular work of art .
That is the real issue , and something which can be ruled upon in a very narrow way that does n't grossly impact the copyright status of other 3-D works of art.Where this becomes groundbreaking is for a monument placed upon federal land and if the courts rule that such public monuments can have their copyright status retained by the original artist unless such rights are explicitly relinquished by that artist by some contract or some other means of recognition of that fact.Yes , this is quite a bit different than some rapper " sampling " the music or performance from another artist , unless the sampling was done of the work performed by say the U.S. Marine Corps Band or some other group of government employees .
Such performances are usually considered to be in the public domain as they are government employees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not a limitation of fair use.
Fair use normally applies to noncommercial, private use.
The US Postal service is not using as such.
Their use is both commercial and public.
So anyone who wants to take a picture of the statues is not violating rights.
Selling the pictures for profit is violating rights.While noncommercial and private use of copyrighted material is something for courts to take into consideration and is a part of the formal legal code for fair-use, it is possible to apply fair-use doctrine to items which are used in commercial and for-profit applications.This includes mixing fair-use content with "free-license" content like the GFDL, GPL, and CC-by-SA licenses that also permit commercial reproduction.The question here is if the sculpture is something which is in the public domain, having been purchased by and used by the federal government on government land (perhaps considered a "donation" to the government... depending on how the funds for it were raised) or if the original artist retained copyright status for this particular work of art.
That is the real issue, and something which can be ruled upon in a very narrow way that doesn't grossly impact the copyright status of other 3-D works of art.Where this becomes groundbreaking is for a monument placed upon federal land and if the courts rule that such public monuments can have their copyright status retained by the original artist unless such rights are explicitly relinquished by that artist by some contract or some other means of recognition of that fact.Yes, this is quite a bit different than some rapper "sampling" the music or performance from another artist, unless the sampling was done of the work performed by say the U.S. Marine Corps Band or some other group of government employees.
Such performances are usually considered to be in the public domain as they are government employees.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310072</id>
	<title>Re:Statutory Damages...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267360980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's a minimum award of $34,500,000,000 (34.5 billion) and a maximum award of 1,380,000,000,000 (1.4 trillion).</p> </div><p>No, it's a minimum award of $750 and a maximum of $30,000, assuming no willful infringement.</p><p>Statutory damages are per <em>work</em>, not per copy.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Would anyone here care to argue that statutory damages in the U.S. are not  way out of proportion to the scope of the infringement?</p></div><p>Complete non-sequitur.  Is a $30,000 penalty for a corporation misusing someone else's property too high?  Of course not.  Is the same penalty too high for a kid who is pirating music for his iPod? Almost certainly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a minimum award of $ 34,500,000,000 ( 34.5 billion ) and a maximum award of 1,380,000,000,000 ( 1.4 trillion ) .
No , it 's a minimum award of $ 750 and a maximum of $ 30,000 , assuming no willful infringement.Statutory damages are per work , not per copy.Would anyone here care to argue that statutory damages in the U.S. are not way out of proportion to the scope of the infringement ? Complete non-sequitur .
Is a $ 30,000 penalty for a corporation misusing someone else 's property too high ?
Of course not .
Is the same penalty too high for a kid who is pirating music for his iPod ?
Almost certainly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a minimum award of $34,500,000,000 (34.5 billion) and a maximum award of 1,380,000,000,000 (1.4 trillion).
No, it's a minimum award of $750 and a maximum of $30,000, assuming no willful infringement.Statutory damages are per work, not per copy.Would anyone here care to argue that statutory damages in the U.S. are not  way out of proportion to the scope of the infringement?Complete non-sequitur.
Is a $30,000 penalty for a corporation misusing someone else's property too high?
Of course not.
Is the same penalty too high for a kid who is pirating music for his iPod?
Almost certainly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310796</id>
	<title>Re:A slap in the face to all American veterans.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267366920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
"Why are there so many cases where there is a reversal is strange and can be infuriating."
</p><p>
Because the so-called legal logic in the US is rightfully called sophistry, besides legal might being the right, which is s separate problem altogether.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Why are there so many cases where there is a reversal is strange and can be infuriating .
" Because the so-called legal logic in the US is rightfully called sophistry , besides legal might being the right , which is s separate problem altogether .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
"Why are there so many cases where there is a reversal is strange and can be infuriating.
"

Because the so-called legal logic in the US is rightfully called sophistry, besides legal might being the right, which is s separate problem altogether.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31312190</id>
	<title>Re:Wasn't sculpture made from the famous photo?</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1267381380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To understand recursion, you  must first understand a hall of mirrios.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To understand recursion , you must first understand a hall of mirrios .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To understand recursion, you  must first understand a hall of mirrios.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31317612</id>
	<title>Re:This will get appealed again.</title>
	<author>Sparr0</author>
	<datestamp>1267464540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Being under contract to the govt" seems to be inaccurate.  Citation needed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Being under contract to the govt " seems to be inaccurate .
Citation needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Being under contract to the govt" seems to be inaccurate.
Citation needed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310016</id>
	<title>Re:Was this judge elected? If so, by whom?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267360740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Was this judge elected? If so, by whom?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>This was an appeals court ruling.  There was not one judge, but three.  Two ruled in Gaylord's favor.  US Federal judges are not elected.  They are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate.  They serve life terms.  Federal judges can only be removed from office for misconduct (such as taking a bribe).  That requires a trial in the Senate and super-majority votes in both houses of congress.  Congress can not remove a judge simply because they disagree with a ruling and they are loathe to even try it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Was this judge elected ?
If so , by whom ?
This was an appeals court ruling .
There was not one judge , but three .
Two ruled in Gaylord 's favor .
US Federal judges are not elected .
They are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate .
They serve life terms .
Federal judges can only be removed from office for misconduct ( such as taking a bribe ) .
That requires a trial in the Senate and super-majority votes in both houses of congress .
Congress can not remove a judge simply because they disagree with a ruling and they are loathe to even try it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was this judge elected?
If so, by whom?
This was an appeals court ruling.
There was not one judge, but three.
Two ruled in Gaylord's favor.
US Federal judges are not elected.
They are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate.
They serve life terms.
Federal judges can only be removed from office for misconduct (such as taking a bribe).
That requires a trial in the Senate and super-majority votes in both houses of congress.
Congress can not remove a judge simply because they disagree with a ruling and they are loathe to even try it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310814</id>
	<title>USA is fucked</title>
	<author>Alien Being</author>
	<datestamp>1267367160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Communism == evil godlessness ergo capitalism == sainthood.  Fuck the people who made my idea worth something.  Now they are my slaves.</p><p>Right..</p><p>Nuke DC, LA and NYC.</p><p>Floyd R. Turbo,</p><p>American</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Communism = = evil godlessness ergo capitalism = = sainthood .
Fuck the people who made my idea worth something .
Now they are my slaves.Right..Nuke DC , LA and NYC.Floyd R. Turbo,American</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Communism == evil godlessness ergo capitalism == sainthood.
Fuck the people who made my idea worth something.
Now they are my slaves.Right..Nuke DC, LA and NYC.Floyd R. Turbo,American</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311910</id>
	<title>Re:A slap in the face to all American veterans.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267377900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But it still apparently left him a very changed man, more so than most veterans.</p></div><p>Apparently?? Obviously rather. After all he not only lost his genitals, but also a very important source of hormones. Hormones that control the processes of the body and his character. On top of the mental horrors and pain.</p><p>Frankly I&rsquo;m a bit shocked that you seem to know so little about it that you would even use the word &ldquo;apparently&rdquo;... instead of being completely sure.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But it still apparently left him a very changed man , more so than most veterans.Apparently ? ?
Obviously rather .
After all he not only lost his genitals , but also a very important source of hormones .
Hormones that control the processes of the body and his character .
On top of the mental horrors and pain.Frankly I    m a bit shocked that you seem to know so little about it that you would even use the word    apparently    ... instead of being completely sure .
: /</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it still apparently left him a very changed man, more so than most veterans.Apparently??
Obviously rather.
After all he not only lost his genitals, but also a very important source of hormones.
Hormones that control the processes of the body and his character.
On top of the mental horrors and pain.Frankly I’m a bit shocked that you seem to know so little about it that you would even use the word “apparently”... instead of being completely sure.
:/
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309754</id>
	<title>Was this judge elected?  If so, by whom?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267359060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a public monument.  Get over it.  Judge apparently hadn't taken his meds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a public monument .
Get over it .
Judge apparently had n't taken his meds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a public monument.
Get over it.
Judge apparently hadn't taken his meds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311432</id>
	<title>Tear it down and build another.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267372620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then just tear it down.  Rip it up, break it into tiny little pieces and deposit the remains on that scumbag-artist's front lawn.  Build another from another artist who is more supportive of his country.</p><p>I never heard of the guy who designed the Lincoln Memorial asking for royalties from the back of every penny in circulation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then just tear it down .
Rip it up , break it into tiny little pieces and deposit the remains on that scumbag-artist 's front lawn .
Build another from another artist who is more supportive of his country.I never heard of the guy who designed the Lincoln Memorial asking for royalties from the back of every penny in circulation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then just tear it down.
Rip it up, break it into tiny little pieces and deposit the remains on that scumbag-artist's front lawn.
Build another from another artist who is more supportive of his country.I never heard of the guy who designed the Lincoln Memorial asking for royalties from the back of every penny in circulation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310398</id>
	<title>I see no "narrowing".</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1267363440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read the decision as a straightforward and reasonable interpretation of fair use.  It may clarify some points, but I don't see that it narrows fair use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read the decision as a straightforward and reasonable interpretation of fair use .
It may clarify some points , but I do n't see that it narrows fair use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read the decision as a straightforward and reasonable interpretation of fair use.
It may clarify some points, but I don't see that it narrows fair use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31312806</id>
	<title>Re:I suppose</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267475100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This "artist" deserves having ALL his work destroyed and replaced, in cases of PUBLIC WORKS like WAR MONUMENTS, by the work of artists who VALUE VETERANS.  Reading this really makes me mad!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This " artist " deserves having ALL his work destroyed and replaced , in cases of PUBLIC WORKS like WAR MONUMENTS , by the work of artists who VALUE VETERANS .
Reading this really makes me mad !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This "artist" deserves having ALL his work destroyed and replaced, in cases of PUBLIC WORKS like WAR MONUMENTS, by the work of artists who VALUE VETERANS.
Reading this really makes me mad!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31312252</id>
	<title>Re:A slap in the face to all American veterans.</title>
	<author>Eskarel</author>
	<datestamp>1267382520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just as a guess, and I'm not sure if they were used in Korea as well as Vietnam, but they have these land mines. They've got two charges, one to shoot the other up to about waist height. Can't recall the name, but that's probably the best bet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just as a guess , and I 'm not sure if they were used in Korea as well as Vietnam , but they have these land mines .
They 've got two charges , one to shoot the other up to about waist height .
Ca n't recall the name , but that 's probably the best bet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just as a guess, and I'm not sure if they were used in Korea as well as Vietnam, but they have these land mines.
They've got two charges, one to shoot the other up to about waist height.
Can't recall the name, but that's probably the best bet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310318</id>
	<title>The postal service should just use the photo</title>
	<author>FeriteCore</author>
	<datestamp>1267362600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The monument itself is based on a famous photo. The postal service should have bypassed the monument new artwork for the stamp based on the photo.</p><p>Did the sculpter pay royalties to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe\_Rosenthal" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Joe Rosenthal</a> [wikipedia.org] the photographer? Or to the AP, which employed him? If not, this is the height of hypocracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The monument itself is based on a famous photo .
The postal service should have bypassed the monument new artwork for the stamp based on the photo.Did the sculpter pay royalties to Joe Rosenthal [ wikipedia.org ] the photographer ?
Or to the AP , which employed him ?
If not , this is the height of hypocracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The monument itself is based on a famous photo.
The postal service should have bypassed the monument new artwork for the stamp based on the photo.Did the sculpter pay royalties to Joe Rosenthal [wikipedia.org] the photographer?
Or to the AP, which employed him?
If not, this is the height of hypocracy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310092</id>
	<title>Re:Statutory Damages...</title>
	<author>YesIAmAScript</author>
	<datestamp>1267361160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The damages depend on how much of the value of the stamp is derived from the picture on it. Most of the value of the stamp is tied up in what it can do for you (convince the USPS to deliver your letter/package), not the picture on front.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The damages depend on how much of the value of the stamp is derived from the picture on it .
Most of the value of the stamp is tied up in what it can do for you ( convince the USPS to deliver your letter/package ) , not the picture on front .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The damages depend on how much of the value of the stamp is derived from the picture on it.
Most of the value of the stamp is tied up in what it can do for you (convince the USPS to deliver your letter/package), not the picture on front.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311428</id>
	<title>Re:Fair Use</title>
	<author>Homburg</author>
	<datestamp>1267372560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty sure that's not right - photographing something doesn't magically remove any copyright in that thing. There is a specific exemption for architecture, and copyright in architectural works doesn't prevent people from photographing them. For every other type of copyright work, though, a photograph of it is a derivative work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure that 's not right - photographing something does n't magically remove any copyright in that thing .
There is a specific exemption for architecture , and copyright in architectural works does n't prevent people from photographing them .
For every other type of copyright work , though , a photograph of it is a derivative work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure that's not right - photographing something doesn't magically remove any copyright in that thing.
There is a specific exemption for architecture, and copyright in architectural works doesn't prevent people from photographing them.
For every other type of copyright work, though, a photograph of it is a derivative work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31312538</id>
	<title>Re:Missing the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267386120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It does not matter that the statue is public. It does not matter it was paid for public money. It does not matter the subject of the statues nor whether any of us personally had a relative that served in the Korean war. All that matters is that he never sold the rights.</p></div><p>You're right, none of that matters because no matter how you slice it the guy is still a fucking dick.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It does not matter that the statue is public .
It does not matter it was paid for public money .
It does not matter the subject of the statues nor whether any of us personally had a relative that served in the Korean war .
All that matters is that he never sold the rights.You 're right , none of that matters because no matter how you slice it the guy is still a fucking dick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It does not matter that the statue is public.
It does not matter it was paid for public money.
It does not matter the subject of the statues nor whether any of us personally had a relative that served in the Korean war.
All that matters is that he never sold the rights.You're right, none of that matters because no matter how you slice it the guy is still a fucking dick.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31312328</id>
	<title>Re:Wasn't sculpture made from the famous photo?</title>
	<author>fluffy99</author>
	<datestamp>1267383540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well actually the idea and concept was created by a team from Penn State.  The govt took the idea and contracted out to have it implemented.  The contracted company then hired Gaylord.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well actually the idea and concept was created by a team from Penn State .
The govt took the idea and contracted out to have it implemented .
The contracted company then hired Gaylord .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well actually the idea and concept was created by a team from Penn State.
The govt took the idea and contracted out to have it implemented.
The contracted company then hired Gaylord.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311142</id>
	<title>Re:A slap in the face to all American veterans.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267369680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I call bullshit.  This isn't like the Vietnam memorial which lists the names of individual troops.<br>
&nbsp; <br>Nice try,  though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I call bullshit .
This is n't like the Vietnam memorial which lists the names of individual troops .
  Nice try , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I call bullshit.
This isn't like the Vietnam memorial which lists the names of individual troops.
  Nice try,  though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31312794</id>
	<title>What it really means</title>
	<author>Endo13</author>
	<datestamp>1267474920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not people here are really getting the implications of this, and why it's so wrong.</p><p>Essentially, what this decision means is that any photo/video/painting/rendition of any kind of anything designed by a human can be considered copyright infringement, if that "derivative work" is being used to make a profit. Any building design recent enough to be under copyright is just as applicable as this war memorial. (In reality, literally *everything* would be applicable, because the creator of a work gets copyright by default unless he gives it away. This could include even things as far-fetched as landscape design, or the way some average joe mowed his lawn. Or some fence a farmer built, or even a highway. But, to keep it simple, we'll stick with buildings.) There's millions of buildings throughout the world, for which I'm 100\% certain if you checked, you'd find copyrights on the design not just by default, but in every sense of the term. That means that literally every movie, every photo, every drawing, every painting, every rendition whatsoever of any of these buildings that is used to make a profit without first getting permission or paying royalties for every single building contained in them is infringing every bit as much as the USPS is here. Think about it. That's <b>insane</b>.</p><p>Care to take a guess how many infringements there are in this item alone?<br><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000RA3ZBY?tag=freefocom05-20&amp;camp=211493&amp;creative=379997&amp;linkCode=op1&amp;creativeASIN=B000RA3ZBY&amp;adid=15664KQ5AMV47KCTWZ7H&amp;" title="amazon.com">http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000RA3ZBY?tag=freefocom05-20&amp;camp=211493&amp;creative=379997&amp;linkCode=op1&amp;creativeASIN=B000RA3ZBY&amp;adid=15664KQ5AMV47KCTWZ7H&amp;</a> [amazon.com]</p><p>This decision can't hold. The can of worms it would open is literally too massive to really comprehend.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not people here are really getting the implications of this , and why it 's so wrong.Essentially , what this decision means is that any photo/video/painting/rendition of any kind of anything designed by a human can be considered copyright infringement , if that " derivative work " is being used to make a profit .
Any building design recent enough to be under copyright is just as applicable as this war memorial .
( In reality , literally * everything * would be applicable , because the creator of a work gets copyright by default unless he gives it away .
This could include even things as far-fetched as landscape design , or the way some average joe mowed his lawn .
Or some fence a farmer built , or even a highway .
But , to keep it simple , we 'll stick with buildings .
) There 's millions of buildings throughout the world , for which I 'm 100 \ % certain if you checked , you 'd find copyrights on the design not just by default , but in every sense of the term .
That means that literally every movie , every photo , every drawing , every painting , every rendition whatsoever of any of these buildings that is used to make a profit without first getting permission or paying royalties for every single building contained in them is infringing every bit as much as the USPS is here .
Think about it .
That 's insane.Care to take a guess how many infringements there are in this item alone ? http : //www.amazon.com/dp/B000RA3ZBY ? tag = freefocom05-20&amp;camp = 211493&amp;creative = 379997&amp;linkCode = op1&amp;creativeASIN = B000RA3ZBY&amp;adid = 15664KQ5AMV47KCTWZ7H&amp; [ amazon.com ] This decision ca n't hold .
The can of worms it would open is literally too massive to really comprehend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not people here are really getting the implications of this, and why it's so wrong.Essentially, what this decision means is that any photo/video/painting/rendition of any kind of anything designed by a human can be considered copyright infringement, if that "derivative work" is being used to make a profit.
Any building design recent enough to be under copyright is just as applicable as this war memorial.
(In reality, literally *everything* would be applicable, because the creator of a work gets copyright by default unless he gives it away.
This could include even things as far-fetched as landscape design, or the way some average joe mowed his lawn.
Or some fence a farmer built, or even a highway.
But, to keep it simple, we'll stick with buildings.
) There's millions of buildings throughout the world, for which I'm 100\% certain if you checked, you'd find copyrights on the design not just by default, but in every sense of the term.
That means that literally every movie, every photo, every drawing, every painting, every rendition whatsoever of any of these buildings that is used to make a profit without first getting permission or paying royalties for every single building contained in them is infringing every bit as much as the USPS is here.
Think about it.
That's insane.Care to take a guess how many infringements there are in this item alone?http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000RA3ZBY?tag=freefocom05-20&amp;camp=211493&amp;creative=379997&amp;linkCode=op1&amp;creativeASIN=B000RA3ZBY&amp;adid=15664KQ5AMV47KCTWZ7H&amp; [amazon.com]This decision can't hold.
The can of worms it would open is literally too massive to really comprehend.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31313488</id>
	<title>Re:A slap in the face to all American veterans.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267439820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Picture please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Picture please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Picture please.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310872</id>
	<title>Bat shit crazy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267367760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Crazy ass shit going on here</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Crazy ass shit going on here</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Crazy ass shit going on here</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310826</id>
	<title>Re:It's called a "stamp" not a "photo"...</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1267367280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you take a picture of me, it's not as if I retain any authorship rights to my own face.</p></div><p>You actually do if your face is identifiable enough for people to recognize you. This is why models have to sign release forms when they pose for photographers. The photographer controls the copyright of the photo, but you still own your identity and it can't be used to market something unless you agree too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you take a picture of me , it 's not as if I retain any authorship rights to my own face.You actually do if your face is identifiable enough for people to recognize you .
This is why models have to sign release forms when they pose for photographers .
The photographer controls the copyright of the photo , but you still own your identity and it ca n't be used to market something unless you agree too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you take a picture of me, it's not as if I retain any authorship rights to my own face.You actually do if your face is identifiable enough for people to recognize you.
This is why models have to sign release forms when they pose for photographers.
The photographer controls the copyright of the photo, but you still own your identity and it can't be used to market something unless you agree too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311580</id>
	<title>Re:The postal service should just use the photo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267374360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are totally wrong and ought to post a reply admitting your error.</p><p>If you want to know about this memorial, try:</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean\_War\_Veterans\_Memorial</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are totally wrong and ought to post a reply admitting your error.If you want to know about this memorial , try : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean \ _War \ _Veterans \ _Memorial</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are totally wrong and ought to post a reply admitting your error.If you want to know about this memorial, try:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean\_War\_Veterans\_Memorial</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31312216</id>
	<title>Re:A slap in the face to all American veterans.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267381920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You guys have a habit of pushing your court decisions on the rest of the world so of course we're interested in your courts decisions and how they work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You guys have a habit of pushing your court decisions on the rest of the world so of course we 're interested in your courts decisions and how they work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You guys have a habit of pushing your court decisions on the rest of the world so of course we're interested in your courts decisions and how they work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310662</id>
	<title>Sue the sculptor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267365660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this is the equivalent of that sculptor being sued by the industrial designer of the helmets or garments.  It goes too far and should be appealed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is the equivalent of that sculptor being sued by the industrial designer of the helmets or garments .
It goes too far and should be appealed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is the equivalent of that sculptor being sued by the industrial designer of the helmets or garments.
It goes too far and should be appealed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31313536</id>
	<title>More than one designer</title>
	<author>danerthomas</author>
	<datestamp>1267440300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just to clarify things, Gaylord designed the statues but Louis Nelson designed the black granite wall portion of the memorial.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just to clarify things , Gaylord designed the statues but Louis Nelson designed the black granite wall portion of the memorial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just to clarify things, Gaylord designed the statues but Louis Nelson designed the black granite wall portion of the memorial.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311066</id>
	<title>Right decision, but subject to overrule</title>
	<author>DreadfulGrape</author>
	<datestamp>1267369140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It may very well be that a higher court will proffer a broader interpretation of "Fair Use" than what is given in United Sates Code.  But as for the specifics at hand, with respect to the law, I'd say the right decision was made.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It may very well be that a higher court will proffer a broader interpretation of " Fair Use " than what is given in United Sates Code .
But as for the specifics at hand , with respect to the law , I 'd say the right decision was made .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may very well be that a higher court will proffer a broader interpretation of "Fair Use" than what is given in United Sates Code.
But as for the specifics at hand, with respect to the law, I'd say the right decision was made.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309690</id>
	<title>isn't the memorial already in the public domain?</title>
	<author>jjoelc</author>
	<datestamp>1267358820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Silly me... I thought the point of a memorial was for it to be placed in the trust of (or outright given to) the public... That being the case, how does this decision affect other images of public art?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Silly me... I thought the point of a memorial was for it to be placed in the trust of ( or outright given to ) the public... That being the case , how does this decision affect other images of public art ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Silly me... I thought the point of a memorial was for it to be placed in the trust of (or outright given to) the public... That being the case, how does this decision affect other images of public art?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310616</id>
	<title>Interesting</title>
	<author>pubwvj</author>
	<datestamp>1267365240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting case. On the one hand it is his art and the USPO should have known better than to blatantly rip it off but on the other hand he was HIRED and paid for the art so the USGov should now hold the rights to the art and all images, representations, et cetera.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting case .
On the one hand it is his art and the USPO should have known better than to blatantly rip it off but on the other hand he was HIRED and paid for the art so the USGov should now hold the rights to the art and all images , representations , et cetera .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting case.
On the one hand it is his art and the USPO should have known better than to blatantly rip it off but on the other hand he was HIRED and paid for the art so the USGov should now hold the rights to the art and all images, representations, et cetera.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310942</id>
	<title>what a jerk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267368240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The sculptor, Frank Gaylord, now 85, is an ass. Imagine having a work of art that you created commemorated on a US postage stamp. What an honor! What PR! What is this clown's reaction? Sue.</p><p>I really hope he loses this lawsuit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The sculptor , Frank Gaylord , now 85 , is an ass .
Imagine having a work of art that you created commemorated on a US postage stamp .
What an honor !
What PR !
What is this clown 's reaction ?
Sue.I really hope he loses this lawsuit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sculptor, Frank Gaylord, now 85, is an ass.
Imagine having a work of art that you created commemorated on a US postage stamp.
What an honor!
What PR!
What is this clown's reaction?
Sue.I really hope he loses this lawsuit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311624</id>
	<title>Re:A slap in the face to all American veterans.</title>
	<author>flyneye</author>
	<datestamp>1267374780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a slap in the face of all Americans, our judiciary are proving themselves morons over and over. Our legislature are proving themselves morons over and over. We vote for all the legislators and many judges and it's making us all look like morons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a slap in the face of all Americans , our judiciary are proving themselves morons over and over .
Our legislature are proving themselves morons over and over .
We vote for all the legislators and many judges and it 's making us all look like morons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a slap in the face of all Americans, our judiciary are proving themselves morons over and over.
Our legislature are proving themselves morons over and over.
We vote for all the legislators and many judges and it's making us all look like morons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31313198</id>
	<title>Baffled</title>
	<author>WinstonWolfIT</author>
	<datestamp>1267436520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>A sculpture, even in a public place, has long been protected from being photographed. IANALBIKLBTY. The artist quite rightly took a crack at retaining his rights, and he's completely within his rights in this case. The torrent-sucking copyright-is-evil gallery ought to try to make a living from IP once or twice before going off sounding like pitchfork-waving mindless rabble.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A sculpture , even in a public place , has long been protected from being photographed .
IANALBIKLBTY. The artist quite rightly took a crack at retaining his rights , and he 's completely within his rights in this case .
The torrent-sucking copyright-is-evil gallery ought to try to make a living from IP once or twice before going off sounding like pitchfork-waving mindless rabble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A sculpture, even in a public place, has long been protected from being photographed.
IANALBIKLBTY. The artist quite rightly took a crack at retaining his rights, and he's completely within his rights in this case.
The torrent-sucking copyright-is-evil gallery ought to try to make a living from IP once or twice before going off sounding like pitchfork-waving mindless rabble.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311092</id>
	<title>Re:A slap in the face to all American veterans.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267369260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not worried but then again I'm not in the US.</p></div><p>Then what gives you any credibility to comment on how US courts work?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not worried but then again I 'm not in the US.Then what gives you any credibility to comment on how US courts work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not worried but then again I'm not in the US.Then what gives you any credibility to comment on how US courts work?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311988</id>
	<title>Missing the point</title>
	<author>UnknowingFool</author>
	<datestamp>1267378800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of people miss the entire point of the ruling.  A lot more are outraged at an artist who is merely enforcing his rights.</p><p>Mr. Gaylord was paid for the statues.  However he was paid for the physical objects of the statues.  He was not paid for the rights.  When you buy a CD, you are not paying for the rights; you are paying for the copy.  This is no different.</p><p>It does not matter that the statue is public.  It does not matter it was paid for public money.  It does not matter the subject of the statues nor whether any of us personally had a relative that served in the Korean war.  All that matters is that he never sold the rights.</p><p>As such, he does not want the statues back.  As the owner of copyrights, Mr. Gaylord controls how he wishes to license his copyrights.  He never gave the US Postal Service rights to profit from his artwork.  This is no different than a rapper "sampling" from another artist without paying them for the work.</p><p>This is not a limitation of fair use.  Fair use normally applies to <b>noncommercial, private</b> use.  The US Postal service is not using as such.  Their use is both commercial and public.  So anyone who wants to take a picture of the statues is not violating rights.  Selling the pictures for profit is violating rights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of people miss the entire point of the ruling .
A lot more are outraged at an artist who is merely enforcing his rights.Mr .
Gaylord was paid for the statues .
However he was paid for the physical objects of the statues .
He was not paid for the rights .
When you buy a CD , you are not paying for the rights ; you are paying for the copy .
This is no different.It does not matter that the statue is public .
It does not matter it was paid for public money .
It does not matter the subject of the statues nor whether any of us personally had a relative that served in the Korean war .
All that matters is that he never sold the rights.As such , he does not want the statues back .
As the owner of copyrights , Mr. Gaylord controls how he wishes to license his copyrights .
He never gave the US Postal Service rights to profit from his artwork .
This is no different than a rapper " sampling " from another artist without paying them for the work.This is not a limitation of fair use .
Fair use normally applies to noncommercial , private use .
The US Postal service is not using as such .
Their use is both commercial and public .
So anyone who wants to take a picture of the statues is not violating rights .
Selling the pictures for profit is violating rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of people miss the entire point of the ruling.
A lot more are outraged at an artist who is merely enforcing his rights.Mr.
Gaylord was paid for the statues.
However he was paid for the physical objects of the statues.
He was not paid for the rights.
When you buy a CD, you are not paying for the rights; you are paying for the copy.
This is no different.It does not matter that the statue is public.
It does not matter it was paid for public money.
It does not matter the subject of the statues nor whether any of us personally had a relative that served in the Korean war.
All that matters is that he never sold the rights.As such, he does not want the statues back.
As the owner of copyrights, Mr. Gaylord controls how he wishes to license his copyrights.
He never gave the US Postal Service rights to profit from his artwork.
This is no different than a rapper "sampling" from another artist without paying them for the work.This is not a limitation of fair use.
Fair use normally applies to noncommercial, private use.
The US Postal service is not using as such.
Their use is both commercial and public.
So anyone who wants to take a picture of the statues is not violating rights.
Selling the pictures for profit is violating rights.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310488</id>
	<title>I need a mail card from you!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267364040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, I really want  you to write me a postcard and send over to my home.</p><p>I urge it asap.</p><p>PS: don't forget to send it with that stamp, I'm quite sure it will cost more than $1,000 each in less than a century... and I surely will need money...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , I really want you to write me a postcard and send over to my home.I urge it asap.PS : do n't forget to send it with that stamp , I 'm quite sure it will cost more than $ 1,000 each in less than a century... and I surely will need money.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, I really want  you to write me a postcard and send over to my home.I urge it asap.PS: don't forget to send it with that stamp, I'm quite sure it will cost more than $1,000 each in less than a century... and I surely will need money...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310090</id>
	<title>Did MY Tax Dollars Pay for This?</title>
	<author>WED Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1267361160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is this on public land?
Did the artist get public dollars?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this on public land ?
Did the artist get public dollars ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this on public land?
Did the artist get public dollars?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31315156</id>
	<title>Re:A slap in the face to all American veterans.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267455540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He severed his genitals, not his country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He severed his genitals , not his country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He severed his genitals, not his country.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310022</id>
	<title>What a jackass</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1267360740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The guy thinks too much of himself and his work, imo. I mean something like that should be seen as given to the public rather than having some guy controlling it like it's gold. In fact I think the latest developments in copyright are making everyone think their work is much more important than it is.
<br> <br>
The government should give the memorial back to him and tell him to get bent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The guy thinks too much of himself and his work , imo .
I mean something like that should be seen as given to the public rather than having some guy controlling it like it 's gold .
In fact I think the latest developments in copyright are making everyone think their work is much more important than it is .
The government should give the memorial back to him and tell him to get bent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The guy thinks too much of himself and his work, imo.
I mean something like that should be seen as given to the public rather than having some guy controlling it like it's gold.
In fact I think the latest developments in copyright are making everyone think their work is much more important than it is.
The government should give the memorial back to him and tell him to get bent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31314152</id>
	<title>Re:Statutory Damages...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267448460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Complete non-sequitur. Is a $30,000 penalty for a corporation misusing someone else's property too high? Of course not. Is the same penalty too high for a kid who is pirating music for his iPod? Almost certainly."</p><p>Or: Is $30k too high a penalty for a profitable organisation making money from someone else's work without their permission? Probably not.<br>Is the same penalty too high for someone who makes a copy of a piece of work for their own personal use, makes no profit from the work and does not supply the work to anyone else? Most probably.</p><p>I apolgise for this post, which is essentially a derivative work of yours.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Complete non-sequitur .
Is a $ 30,000 penalty for a corporation misusing someone else 's property too high ?
Of course not .
Is the same penalty too high for a kid who is pirating music for his iPod ?
Almost certainly .
" Or : Is $ 30k too high a penalty for a profitable organisation making money from someone else 's work without their permission ?
Probably not.Is the same penalty too high for someone who makes a copy of a piece of work for their own personal use , makes no profit from the work and does not supply the work to anyone else ?
Most probably.I apolgise for this post , which is essentially a derivative work of yours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Complete non-sequitur.
Is a $30,000 penalty for a corporation misusing someone else's property too high?
Of course not.
Is the same penalty too high for a kid who is pirating music for his iPod?
Almost certainly.
"Or: Is $30k too high a penalty for a profitable organisation making money from someone else's work without their permission?
Probably not.Is the same penalty too high for someone who makes a copy of a piece of work for their own personal use, makes no profit from the work and does not supply the work to anyone else?
Most probably.I apolgise for this post, which is essentially a derivative work of yours.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310680</id>
	<title>Stupid, really.</title>
	<author>hduff</author>
	<datestamp>1267365840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If this was a privately owned piece of art and the image was used for commercial purposes. Since the artist does not own it, I think he's SOL. But if he did have a contract reserving his copyright, then the USPS is SOL. Yet, if there's any public money in the memorial, I'd say that the artist is SOL no matter what.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this was a privately owned piece of art and the image was used for commercial purposes .
Since the artist does not own it , I think he 's SOL .
But if he did have a contract reserving his copyright , then the USPS is SOL .
Yet , if there 's any public money in the memorial , I 'd say that the artist is SOL no matter what .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this was a privately owned piece of art and the image was used for commercial purposes.
Since the artist does not own it, I think he's SOL.
But if he did have a contract reserving his copyright, then the USPS is SOL.
Yet, if there's any public money in the memorial, I'd say that the artist is SOL no matter what.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31315478</id>
	<title>Re:This will get appealed again.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267456860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty weird.  I thought contracting law was pretty specific on ownership of contracted works.   You shouldn't be able to have copyright rights on contracted work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty weird .
I thought contracting law was pretty specific on ownership of contracted works .
You should n't be able to have copyright rights on contracted work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty weird.
I thought contracting law was pretty specific on ownership of contracted works.
You shouldn't be able to have copyright rights on contracted work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310162</id>
	<title>Business Opportunities</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267361640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Setting precedents opens the door to business opportunities. Just put a sign or whatever near very public and photographed places, and sue any publication that from now on include photos of those places because they are sharing your sign too. Even a grafitti could eventually do the work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Setting precedents opens the door to business opportunities .
Just put a sign or whatever near very public and photographed places , and sue any publication that from now on include photos of those places because they are sharing your sign too .
Even a grafitti could eventually do the work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Setting precedents opens the door to business opportunities.
Just put a sign or whatever near very public and photographed places, and sue any publication that from now on include photos of those places because they are sharing your sign too.
Even a grafitti could eventually do the work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310712</id>
	<title>Re:Fair Use</title>
	<author>JordanL</author>
	<datestamp>1267366200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the United States, it it legal to take photographs of anything visible from a publicly owned space. As long as you stand on the publicly owned space, ANYTHING YOU SEE can be photographed legally. Additionally, in the United States, as soon as you photograph something YOU (the photographer) own a unique copyright on that photo. <br> <br>

This case completely ignored the copyrights of the photographer, who correctly owns the IP to the PHOTO, but not the monument.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the United States , it it legal to take photographs of anything visible from a publicly owned space .
As long as you stand on the publicly owned space , ANYTHING YOU SEE can be photographed legally .
Additionally , in the United States , as soon as you photograph something YOU ( the photographer ) own a unique copyright on that photo .
This case completely ignored the copyrights of the photographer , who correctly owns the IP to the PHOTO , but not the monument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the United States, it it legal to take photographs of anything visible from a publicly owned space.
As long as you stand on the publicly owned space, ANYTHING YOU SEE can be photographed legally.
Additionally, in the United States, as soon as you photograph something YOU (the photographer) own a unique copyright on that photo.
This case completely ignored the copyrights of the photographer, who correctly owns the IP to the PHOTO, but not the monument.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310810</id>
	<title>Vets sue Gaylord</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267367040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about all of the Korean vets sue Frank Gaylord for intruding on their IP.  After all, they FOUGHT the war.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about all of the Korean vets sue Frank Gaylord for intruding on their IP .
After all , they FOUGHT the war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about all of the Korean vets sue Frank Gaylord for intruding on their IP.
After all, they FOUGHT the war.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309818</id>
	<title>It's called a "stamp" not a "photo"...</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1267359540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's okay to take a photo of a sculpture but it's not okay to use that photo to market your service, such as the way the USPS was trying to do with this stamp. This is part of the reason they make sure people are dead for a good long time before they honor them with a postage stamp.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's okay to take a photo of a sculpture but it 's not okay to use that photo to market your service , such as the way the USPS was trying to do with this stamp .
This is part of the reason they make sure people are dead for a good long time before they honor them with a postage stamp .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's okay to take a photo of a sculpture but it's not okay to use that photo to market your service, such as the way the USPS was trying to do with this stamp.
This is part of the reason they make sure people are dead for a good long time before they honor them with a postage stamp.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310298</id>
	<title>This is stupid -- sculptures were not "copied"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267362480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the Post Office were making 3D sculptures that duplicated the ones in the memorial and selling them, I could understand.  But this is a PICTURE of the sculpture.  The sculptures are not being duplicated.</p><p>If this ruling stands people won't even be able to take a picture of a building or a car without violating copyright.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the Post Office were making 3D sculptures that duplicated the ones in the memorial and selling them , I could understand .
But this is a PICTURE of the sculpture .
The sculptures are not being duplicated.If this ruling stands people wo n't even be able to take a picture of a building or a car without violating copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the Post Office were making 3D sculptures that duplicated the ones in the memorial and selling them, I could understand.
But this is a PICTURE of the sculpture.
The sculptures are not being duplicated.If this ruling stands people won't even be able to take a picture of a building or a car without violating copyright.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31315572</id>
	<title>Same thing happened here</title>
	<author>Pflipp</author>
	<datestamp>1267457280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same thing happened here a long time ago:</p><p>The Erasmus bridge in Rotterdam cannot be used for commercial means without permission of the city -- or the architect, whoever won that fight -- but neither were willing to give away their 'rights' to the city's landscape!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same thing happened here a long time ago : The Erasmus bridge in Rotterdam can not be used for commercial means without permission of the city -- or the architect , whoever won that fight -- but neither were willing to give away their 'rights ' to the city 's landscape !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same thing happened here a long time ago:The Erasmus bridge in Rotterdam cannot be used for commercial means without permission of the city -- or the architect, whoever won that fight -- but neither were willing to give away their 'rights' to the city's landscape!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311360</id>
	<title>Re:A slap in the face to all American veterans.</title>
	<author>the\_womble</author>
	<datestamp>1267371780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am sure someone will make a claim to the rights to pictures of similar things in your country - if no-one else the government will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am sure someone will make a claim to the rights to pictures of similar things in your country - if no-one else the government will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am sure someone will make a claim to the rights to pictures of similar things in your country - if no-one else the government will.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31320800</id>
	<title>Okay I am down to a couple of solutions</title>
	<author>PortHaven</author>
	<datestamp>1267476780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. This was done clearly as a work-for-hire. Therefore the ownership and rights should belong to the U.S. government, and by extension "We the People"</p><p>2. We shove his arse on the top of the statue.</p><p>3. We lock him in a room with 500 Korean war vets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
This was done clearly as a work-for-hire .
Therefore the ownership and rights should belong to the U.S. government , and by extension " We the People " 2 .
We shove his arse on the top of the statue.3 .
We lock him in a room with 500 Korean war vets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
This was done clearly as a work-for-hire.
Therefore the ownership and rights should belong to the U.S. government, and by extension "We the People"2.
We shove his arse on the top of the statue.3.
We lock him in a room with 500 Korean war vets.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31314966</id>
	<title>Public war memorial = public domain.</title>
	<author>DABANSHEE</author>
	<datestamp>1267454400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why US Mail/USPS didn't claim the war memorial was public domain is beyond me. I assume it was built on public land at public expence (either financed directly by govt using tax money or by public subscription), &amp; the designer was paid for the commision.</p><p>When creators/designers/artists are paid directly by their employer or a 3rd party who commissioned the work, then it's not unuseal for the 3rd party to end up with the IP rights to the work (in this cas the govt/public I assume).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why US Mail/USPS did n't claim the war memorial was public domain is beyond me .
I assume it was built on public land at public expence ( either financed directly by govt using tax money or by public subscription ) , &amp; the designer was paid for the commision.When creators/designers/artists are paid directly by their employer or a 3rd party who commissioned the work , then it 's not unuseal for the 3rd party to end up with the IP rights to the work ( in this cas the govt/public I assume ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why US Mail/USPS didn't claim the war memorial was public domain is beyond me.
I assume it was built on public land at public expence (either financed directly by govt using tax money or by public subscription), &amp; the designer was paid for the commision.When creators/designers/artists are paid directly by their employer or a 3rd party who commissioned the work, then it's not unuseal for the 3rd party to end up with the IP rights to the work (in this cas the govt/public I assume).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31314470</id>
	<title>Re:A slap in the face to all American veterans.</title>
	<author>QuantumRiff</author>
	<datestamp>1267451220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have a friend that is so disgusted with our government that he now votes against every incumbent that comes up for reelection<br>Perhaps if we all took to this strategy, we could eventually rid ourselves of this scum that has fubar'd the country</p></div><p>I have been voting with this strategy since about 2000 or so..  Vote out any incumbent, and if possible, vote for anyone that doesn't have a D or R next to their name..  Heck, even the wackos at some of the weird political parties at least stick to their beliefs..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a friend that is so disgusted with our government that he now votes against every incumbent that comes up for reelectionPerhaps if we all took to this strategy , we could eventually rid ourselves of this scum that has fubar 'd the countryI have been voting with this strategy since about 2000 or so.. Vote out any incumbent , and if possible , vote for anyone that does n't have a D or R next to their name.. Heck , even the wackos at some of the weird political parties at least stick to their beliefs. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a friend that is so disgusted with our government that he now votes against every incumbent that comes up for reelectionPerhaps if we all took to this strategy, we could eventually rid ourselves of this scum that has fubar'd the countryI have been voting with this strategy since about 2000 or so..  Vote out any incumbent, and if possible, vote for anyone that doesn't have a D or R next to their name..  Heck, even the wackos at some of the weird political parties at least stick to their beliefs..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31313066</id>
	<title>Re:It's called a "stamp" not a "photo"...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267434780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, it looks like the government screwed up on this one. It seems the picture only shows the work of the artist, and if the picture showed the whole monument with rice paddies and all, then it'd be fair use. It also seems that the USPS did try to claim it as a work for hire, and the contract with the third party was invalid. Seems to me the lawyers here screwed up, and lots of things, that should not have slipped through the cracks, did. The judge here just seemed to be more pissed off at the USPS for expecting him to fix their mistakes. Of course, that's the "beauty" of the US legal system. It's not about right or wrong it's about whether you've done everything according to procedure or not. My only beef here is that the judge and the USPS lawyers seem to miss the point this is a work made for the people, and no copyright should have been granted and this certainly should have been a work for hire. Period.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it looks like the government screwed up on this one .
It seems the picture only shows the work of the artist , and if the picture showed the whole monument with rice paddies and all , then it 'd be fair use .
It also seems that the USPS did try to claim it as a work for hire , and the contract with the third party was invalid .
Seems to me the lawyers here screwed up , and lots of things , that should not have slipped through the cracks , did .
The judge here just seemed to be more pissed off at the USPS for expecting him to fix their mistakes .
Of course , that 's the " beauty " of the US legal system .
It 's not about right or wrong it 's about whether you 've done everything according to procedure or not .
My only beef here is that the judge and the USPS lawyers seem to miss the point this is a work made for the people , and no copyright should have been granted and this certainly should have been a work for hire .
Period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it looks like the government screwed up on this one.
It seems the picture only shows the work of the artist, and if the picture showed the whole monument with rice paddies and all, then it'd be fair use.
It also seems that the USPS did try to claim it as a work for hire, and the contract with the third party was invalid.
Seems to me the lawyers here screwed up, and lots of things, that should not have slipped through the cracks, did.
The judge here just seemed to be more pissed off at the USPS for expecting him to fix their mistakes.
Of course, that's the "beauty" of the US legal system.
It's not about right or wrong it's about whether you've done everything according to procedure or not.
My only beef here is that the judge and the USPS lawyers seem to miss the point this is a work made for the people, and no copyright should have been granted and this certainly should have been a work for hire.
Period.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311112</id>
	<title>Re:A slap in the face to all American veterans.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267369440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, Anonymous Coward, you did two things wrong.</p><p>1) You made your post by clicking the Reply link a highly-ranked earlier post despite your post having nothing to do with the parent. If I had mod points, I would mod you Off-Topic.</p><p>2) No one is denying or disparaging your grandfather, his sacrifice, or the war in general. The court ruling had zip, zero, zilch to do with the Korean War. It had everything to do with copyright, however, and in this case I think I agree with the court. A Post Office employee can't walk into a museum, take a picture of a copyrighted painting, and then sell it on a stamp without paying royalties to the artist. Neither can they do the same to a sculpture. To pass the "transformative" test, the photo would have to be a lot more than just <tt>$original\_sculpture + $snow</tt>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , Anonymous Coward , you did two things wrong.1 ) You made your post by clicking the Reply link a highly-ranked earlier post despite your post having nothing to do with the parent .
If I had mod points , I would mod you Off-Topic.2 ) No one is denying or disparaging your grandfather , his sacrifice , or the war in general .
The court ruling had zip , zero , zilch to do with the Korean War .
It had everything to do with copyright , however , and in this case I think I agree with the court .
A Post Office employee ca n't walk into a museum , take a picture of a copyrighted painting , and then sell it on a stamp without paying royalties to the artist .
Neither can they do the same to a sculpture .
To pass the " transformative " test , the photo would have to be a lot more than just $ original \ _sculpture + $ snow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, Anonymous Coward, you did two things wrong.1) You made your post by clicking the Reply link a highly-ranked earlier post despite your post having nothing to do with the parent.
If I had mod points, I would mod you Off-Topic.2) No one is denying or disparaging your grandfather, his sacrifice, or the war in general.
The court ruling had zip, zero, zilch to do with the Korean War.
It had everything to do with copyright, however, and in this case I think I agree with the court.
A Post Office employee can't walk into a museum, take a picture of a copyrighted painting, and then sell it on a stamp without paying royalties to the artist.
Neither can they do the same to a sculpture.
To pass the "transformative" test, the photo would have to be a lot more than just $original\_sculpture + $snow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31314404</id>
	<title>Re:A slap in the face to all American veterans.</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1267450740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>now votes against every incumbent that comes up for reelection</p></div><p>I'm glad to know that there are other people doing this.  Also, if there's no good senate/house candidates (as is usually the case) just vote the minority party in.  The government that governs least governs best.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>now votes against every incumbent that comes up for reelectionI 'm glad to know that there are other people doing this .
Also , if there 's no good senate/house candidates ( as is usually the case ) just vote the minority party in .
The government that governs least governs best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>now votes against every incumbent that comes up for reelectionI'm glad to know that there are other people doing this.
Also, if there's no good senate/house candidates (as is usually the case) just vote the minority party in.
The government that governs least governs best.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311752</id>
	<title>Solution</title>
	<author>Stormy Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1267375980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why don't we comission a new Korean War Memorial sculpture, smash Mr. Gaylord's sculpture to bits and then mail him the pieces?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't we comission a new Korean War Memorial sculpture , smash Mr. Gaylord 's sculpture to bits and then mail him the pieces ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't we comission a new Korean War Memorial sculpture, smash Mr. Gaylord's sculpture to bits and then mail him the pieces?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311400</id>
	<title>Interesting</title>
	<author>spagma</author>
	<datestamp>1267372260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wouldn't this mean then that I can copyright myself, and sue anyone that takes a picture of me?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't this mean then that I can copyright myself , and sue anyone that takes a picture of me ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't this mean then that I can copyright myself, and sue anyone that takes a picture of me?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31313066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31314818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31324536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31312144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31314470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31312216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31313270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31312538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31312806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31316336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31314152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31313198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31324654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31314404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31315156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31314476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31323016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31315478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31312328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31312190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31314966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31313260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31313474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31315980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31317612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31313362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31312754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31312252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_2031229_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31313488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_2031229.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31315478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31317612
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_2031229.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31323016
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_2031229.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310398
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_2031229.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310072
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31314152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31316336
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_2031229.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310016
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_2031229.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311432
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_2031229.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310298
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_2031229.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31313198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31324654
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_2031229.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311580
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_2031229.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310368
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_2031229.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_2031229.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31320800
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_2031229.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31312806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310122
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311158
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31315980
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31314404
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31314470
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311624
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311376
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31314818
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311910
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31313474
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31314966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311112
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311382
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311142
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311830
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310400
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311440
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311572
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311360
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310796
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311092
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31313260
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31312216
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310946
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31312252
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311248
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31314476
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31313488
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311184
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31313362
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31315156
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31312754
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31324536
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_2031229.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310810
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_2031229.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31312144
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_2031229.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_2031229.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310818
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_2031229.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_2031229.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31313270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31312538
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_2031229.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310712
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31311428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310206
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_2031229.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310162
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_2031229.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309690
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_2031229.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310098
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31310826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31313066
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_2031229.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31309952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31312328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_2031229.31312190
</commentlist>
</conversation>
