<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: CLUE copyright policy summary</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.p2pnet.net/story/10679/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/10679</link>
	<description>p2pnet.net - reader powered</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:11:09 -0300</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/10679/comment-page-1#comment-131341</link>
		<dc:creator>Reader's Write</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2006 21:08:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-131341</guid>
		<description>&quot;For example, the term for photography should remain a fixed 50 years from when the picture was taken, and not 50 years from the death of the (most often unknown) photographer.&quot;

Please. Don&#039;t create more copyright confussion.

For the vast majority of old photographs laying around homes there is no sure way of knowing or proving

a. when the photo was taken.
b. who took the photo or if the alleged photographer is not so.
c. how many copies were made (too many copies can place a work in the public domain, as it may not be possible to determine if a copy is one of the legal copies or an infringing copy).
d. if the photo is already in the public domain.

Maybe only copyright registered photographs should qualify for copyright monopoly, for just a few years (10 years max?).

Note: After 10 years a photograher can still make money from his photographs by making making &quot;original&quot; copies of negatives or computer files (assuming large jpegs are not distributed), or signing the copies.   </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;For example, the term for photography should remain a fixed 50 years from when the picture was taken, and not 50 years from the death of the (most often unknown) photographer.&#8221;</p>
<p>Please. Don&#8217;t create more copyright confussion.</p>
<p>For the vast majority of old photographs laying around homes there is no sure way of knowing or proving</p>
<p>a. when the photo was taken.<br />
b. who took the photo or if the alleged photographer is not so.<br />
c. how many copies were made (too many copies can place a work in the public domain, as it may not be possible to determine if a copy is one of the legal copies or an infringing copy).<br />
d. if the photo is already in the public domain.</p>
<p>Maybe only copyright registered photographs should qualify for copyright monopoly, for just a few years (10 years max?).</p>
<p>Note: After 10 years a photograher can still make money from his photographs by making making &#8220;original&#8221; copies of negatives or computer files (assuming large jpegs are not distributed), or signing the copies.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>


