<?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: What rights do I have to my photos? #!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2008/05/23/what-rights-do-i-have-to-my-photos/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2008/05/23/what-rights-do-i-have-to-my-photos/</link>
	<description>Blogging in the real world</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 15:02:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Tom Arah</title>
		<link>http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2008/05/23/what-rights-do-i-have-to-my-photos/comment-page-1/#comment-594</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom Arah</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2008 19:13:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/?p=834#comment-594</guid>
		<description>True the original terms did say &quot;non-exclusive&quot; - but that&#039;s still a large transfer of rights and as you say pretty appalling when users were signed up to it almost surreptitiously. 

However as I discuss in the follow up post if it was done openly the terms are not necessarily outrageous - in fact they could be made quite attractive.

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2008/05/30/photoshop-express-rights-and-wrongs/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>True the original terms did say &#8220;non-exclusive&#8221; &#8211; but that&#8217;s still a large transfer of rights and as you say pretty appalling when users were signed up to it almost surreptitiously. </p>
<p>However as I discuss in the follow up post if it was done openly the terms are not necessarily outrageous &#8211; in fact they could be made quite attractive.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2008/05/30/photoshop-express-rights-and-wrongs/" rel="nofollow">http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2008/05/30/photoshop-express-rights-and-wrongs/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Williamson</title>
		<link>http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2008/05/23/what-rights-do-i-have-to-my-photos/comment-page-1/#comment-552</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Williamson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 May 2008 22:04:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/?p=834#comment-552</guid>
		<description>Tom, strictly speaking you are not handing over your rights. As the originator, you retain ownership and can exploit your work. What you are doing is giving Adobe the very same right to exploit your work as though they were the originator. It&#039;s a subtle difference, but you are right to have a rant. It&#039;s outrageous.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tom, strictly speaking you are not handing over your rights. As the originator, you retain ownership and can exploit your work. What you are doing is giving Adobe the very same right to exploit your work as though they were the originator. It&#8217;s a subtle difference, but you are right to have a rant. It&#8217;s outrageous.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

