<?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/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Commercial Exploitation of Content and the Instagram Story</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/commercial-exploitation-of-content-and-the-instagram-story/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/commercial-exploitation-of-content-and-the-instagram-story/</link>
	<description>Reflections on the Web and Web 2.0</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 15:13:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Kelly (UK Web Focus)</title>
		<link>http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/commercial-exploitation-of-content-and-the-instagram-story/#comment-129685</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brian Kelly (UK Web Focus)]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2012 15:04:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/?p=12843#comment-129685</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi Julian
    I don&#039;t see how taking openly licensed content and charging for it, would restrict access to that content.  In the Instagram example, they are looking for ways to monetise the content - but the content is still owned by you - access isn&#039;t restricted.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Julian<br />
    I don&#8217;t see how taking openly licensed content and charging for it, would restrict access to that content.  In the Instagram example, they are looking for ways to monetise the content &#8211; but the content is still owned by you &#8211; access isn&#8217;t restricted.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Julian Prior</title>
		<link>http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/commercial-exploitation-of-content-and-the-instagram-story/#comment-129652</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Julian Prior]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:28:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/?p=12843#comment-129652</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Interesting post Brian even though I don&#039;t agree with your call to &quot;avoid applying discriminatory licence conditions&quot; by avoiding NC and SA licences. While not without its problems the CC-NC licence does enable content creators to make a legitimate stand against the commodification and monetisation of their work if they so wish. To me it is more discriminatory to allow commercial vendors to take openly licensed content and charge for it, thereby restricting access to that content.

Does that make me an idealist?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting post Brian even though I don&#8217;t agree with your call to &#8220;avoid applying discriminatory licence conditions&#8221; by avoiding NC and SA licences. While not without its problems the CC-NC licence does enable content creators to make a legitimate stand against the commodification and monetisation of their work if they so wish. To me it is more discriminatory to allow commercial vendors to take openly licensed content and charge for it, thereby restricting access to that content.</p>
<p>Does that make me an idealist?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Commercial Exploitation of Content and the Instagram&#160;Story &#124; Copyright compliance &#124; Scoop.it</title>
		<link>http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/commercial-exploitation-of-content-and-the-instagram-story/#comment-129648</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Commercial Exploitation of Content and the Instagram&#160;Story &#124; Copyright compliance &#124; Scoop.it]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:55:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/?p=12843#comment-129648</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] &quot;Whilst there is a growing, but by no means universal, understanding of the benefits of allowing commercial exploitation of content, moves towards licences which grant commercial companies the right to commercially exploit content uploaded to their services tend to generate anger, as we have seen from the recent changes to the terms and conditions for users of the Instagram photo-sharing service. &quot;&#160; [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] &quot;Whilst there is a growing, but by no means universal, understanding of the benefits of allowing commercial exploitation of content, moves towards licences which grant commercial companies the right to commercially exploit content uploaded to their services tend to generate anger, as we have seen from the recent changes to the terms and conditions for users of the Instagram photo-sharing service. &quot;&nbsp; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charles Oppenheim</title>
		<link>http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/commercial-exploitation-of-content-and-the-instagram-story/#comment-129647</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Charles Oppenheim]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:31:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/?p=12843#comment-129647</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Very good of Instagram to backtrack, but their proposed new terms and conditions DID make it possible for them to exploit others&#039; materials for commercial gain.  I don&#039;t buy the idea that the revised terms were not properly thought through and should have been worded better.  The revised terms were (in my view) deliberately  broadly worded and could have been used to exploit photos in the way some complained about.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very good of Instagram to backtrack, but their proposed new terms and conditions DID make it possible for them to exploit others&#8217; materials for commercial gain.  I don&#8217;t buy the idea that the revised terms were not properly thought through and should have been worded better.  The revised terms were (in my view) deliberately  broadly worded and could have been used to exploit photos in the way some complained about.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
