<?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: Using Flickr photographs</title>
	<atom:link href="http://james.cridland.net/blog/using-flickr-photographs/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://james.cridland.net/blog/using-flickr-photographs/</link>
	<description>Radio futurologist and beer drinker</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 11:08:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Martin Belam</title>
		<link>http://james.cridland.net/blog/using-flickr-photographs/#comment-283</link>
		<dc:creator>Martin Belam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Mar 2007 20:02:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://james.cridland.net/blog/2007/03/02/using-flickr-photographs/#comment-283</guid>
		<description>Nowe that is interesting, because I&#039;ve actually done the reverse and gradually made the Licence tighter on my Flickr photographs, to the point where they now default to &#039;all rights reserved&#039; and I have to make an effort to relax them. I found i) that people were ignoring the non-commercial bit of the license I chose, and I haven&#039;t got the time to get into an argument about it, and ii) I was concerned that I was as a default licensing things for re-use when I may not own all the rights to everything included in the image e.g. adverts / posters in the background etc</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nowe that is interesting, because I&#8217;ve actually done the reverse and gradually made the Licence tighter on my Flickr photographs, to the point where they now default to &#8216;all rights reserved&#8217; and I have to make an effort to relax them. I found i) that people were ignoring the non-commercial bit of the license I chose, and I haven&#8217;t got the time to get into an argument about it, and ii) I was concerned that I was as a default licensing things for re-use when I may not own all the rights to everything included in the image e.g. adverts / posters in the background etc</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

