<?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: Image Licensing on Facebook</title>
	<atom:link href="http://brianrowe.org/IMT550/2010/02/07/image-licensing-on-facebook/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://brianrowe.org/IMT550/2010/02/07/image-licensing-on-facebook/</link>
	<description>Class Blog for IMT 550, Winter 2010, @ UW Ischool</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 09:17:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Rowe</title>
		<link>http://brianrowe.org/IMT550/2010/02/07/image-licensing-on-facebook/comment-page-1/#comment-120</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Rowe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:06:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://brianrowe.org/IMT550/?p=254#comment-120</guid>
		<description>Great post, I was not aware of the Getty deal.  

What is it about this that bothers you? &quot;you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (“IP License”).&quot;

Is it the transferable/sub-licensable aspect?  Facebook obviously need some rights to your work just to display them on their website.  What is the worst case that could happen here?

How would you rework this to make it more equitable?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great post, I was not aware of the Getty deal.  </p>
<p>What is it about this that bothers you? &#8220;you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (“IP License”).&#8221;</p>
<p>Is it the transferable/sub-licensable aspect?  Facebook obviously need some rights to your work just to display them on their website.  What is the worst case that could happen here?</p>
<p>How would you rework this to make it more equitable?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

