Well, this should be interesting...

arclight said:
* imposes obligations on internet service providers to reduce online copyright infringement, and allows the Secretary of State to amend copyright legislation to the same end
Click to expand...

You have highlighted this sentence from the summary of the scheme, and on the surface it seems to be a good thing. But the devil is in the detail, and the detail is that it will reduce copyright protection of our images.

Once any copyright information has been removed from our files, deliberately or otherwise, they can be used by anybody, for any purpose, subject to a payment being made into a pot held by the government.

If you ever find that your image has been used, you could claim a proportion of that payment from the pot, the remainder being held by government for administrative purposes.

If at the same time there were a requirement to forbid the stripping of copyright info. from images you could perhaps argue that a fair balance had been struck, but as it is, it actually encourages it!
 
BouncyMelons said:
I think you make a fair point with your analogy Rob but the lack of any definition on what constitutes and orphaned image gives me a very clear opinion on the merits of the bill ;)

Richard, you say that stripping of an image is clearly illegal and you hope the courts would take a very dim view, but that's where my concern really lies. There will be no court redress for the photographer who has his/her work stolen, just the Home Secretary and their "after they deduct their administration costs" Somehow I cannot see photographers benfiting from a system that allocates even more of their money to the government?

Yes there is already wholesale pillaging, address that rather than give up. Fine the publishers caught doing it and fund a unit to track down copyright infringement with the proceeds. Any photographer who belives that they have been stolen from can complain to them and have their claim investigated. And award goes 50/50 to the photographer and the unit. Spot checks on publishers to make sure they can produce the copyright to the images they are using?

It's the unscrupulous publishers who should be put on the back foot here, not the photographers producing the goods.
Click to expand...

I share your concerns Ali. What seems to be missing here is a practical alternative. Copyright theft is already happening on a massive scale and unless the internet is shut down, that will continue to happen. It is already illegal, and clearly that makes sod all difference.

It happens all the time, all over - please stand up that person who has never watched a pirate DVD, listened to a bootleg CD then copied it for a friend, photocopied a document that they should not have done (either knowingly or not), or enjoyed seeing an image in a magazine that has been illegally lifted? That person doesn't exist. It's like breaking the speed limit - it might be illegal but we all do it, everyday.

Digital technology and the internet have changed everything. It's no good jumping up and down and protesting, unless we can put forward better suggestions. Digital technology ultimately made me redundant, and my wife also, so I'm generally unsympathetic to those that just whinge unproductively. Changing the world is difficult; it's far better to adapt yourself to it.

I think what is ultimately creating this problem is that photography used to be technically difficult, and photographers were basically good technicians. Today that's not good enough, everyone can do it, and the emphasis has shifted to artistic merit rather than purely practical competence. That seems right to me, copyright exists to protect the creative artist, not the garage mechanic. Change is inevitable, even if it has unfortunate side effects for some. I don't have much time for people that want to stop the clock when it suits them, but are happy to benefit from other aspects of the fundamental changes that are driving it. Particularly when they don't put forward an better ideas.
 
arclight said:
* imposes obligations on internet service providers to reduce online copyright infringement, and allows the Secretary of State to amend copyright legislation to the same end
Click to expand...

Well, there are two ways of reducing crime:

1) Increase detection and prosecution

2) Decriminalise stuff so you don't need to make any effort.

So basically thats the two parts here:

Number 1 is to increase the crack down on theft against "big business" (movies, music, software) and Number 2 is to screw everyone else, possibly by the people protected by #1.

Nice eh?
 
HoppyUK said:
Digital technology and the internet have changed everything. It's no good jumping up and down and protesting, unless we can put forward better suggestions. Digital technology ultimately made me redundant, and my wife also, so I'm generally unsympathetic to those that just whinge unproductively. Changing the world is difficult; it's far better to adapt yourself to it.

I think what is ultimately creating this problem is that photography used to be technically difficult, and photographers were basically good technicians. Today that's not good enough, everyone can do it, and the emphasis has shifted to artistic merit rather than purely practical competence. That seems right to me, copyright exists to protect the creative artist, not the garage mechanic. Change is inevitable, even if it has unfortunate side effects for some. I don't have much time for people that want to stop the clock when it suits them, but are happy to benefit from other aspects of the fundamental changes that are driving it. Particularly when they don't put forward an better ideas.
Click to expand...

I really don't get your point here. Who decides whether a photographer is just a garage mechanic or a real artist? Or both? And I think many photographers would find your analogy quite insulting.

People with photographers interests at heart have put forward better ideas, but they have been ignored, allegedly as a result of pressure from "a large media conglomerate".
 
jerry12953 said:
Hoppy,

Where does it state that "it will clearly be illegal" to strip copyright information from images?
Click to expand...

I think it's implicit Jerry.

I don't suppose there is a law that says it is illegal to remove the price ticket from an item and walk out without paying, but you'll still get clobbered.
 
HoppyUK said:
I think it's implicit Jerry.

I don't suppose there is a law that says it is illegal to remove the price ticket from an item and walk out without paying, but you'll still get clobbered.
Click to expand...

Its not implicit.

In fact, what it outlines in this proposal is that if you are caught by the owner there is no legal comeback, just that the owner will receive a payment from the "penny pot" that the government owns and people using "orphaned" images has to pay a tiny amount into each time.

The equivalent would be a theft tax that we all pay 1p per shopping transaction into and that the stores who fall victim to shoplifting could claim 50p per item they discovered you walking out with, but you could still keep the item.
 
jerry12953 said:
Wouldn't it be clearer if the statement was included within the confines of the relevant Act? Can you think of a reason why it isn't?

footnote -if it isn't, I'm not clear on this, yet.
Click to expand...

If it needs spelling out, then it should be. It is still clearly illegal to deliberately remove the identy of an image in order to use it on the cheap.

desantnik said:
Its not implicit.

In fact, what it outlines in this proposal is that if you are caught by the owner there is no legal comeback, just that the owner will receive a payment from the "penny pot" that the government owns and people using "orphaned" images has to pay a tiny amount into each time.

The equivalent would be a theft tax that we all pay 1p per shopping transaction into and that the stores who fall victim to shoplifting could claim 50p per item they discovered you walking out with, but you could still keep the item.
Click to expand...

That's not the same thing. That refers to the use of an orphaned image, not the illegal creation of an orphan in the first place.
 
However, unless you are required by law to state where the orphaned came from and that someone is prepared to follow the chain (ie where did that website get it from, who uploaded, where did they live etc) then its largely a waste of time.

So there is no technical enforcement (attempt even) on creating orphaned images nor definition of how far you have to search in order to attempt to locate its owner.

No EXIF or watermark and its toast. Neither of those are difficult to "fix" either and no likely comeback.

Its a licence to steal, it really is.
 
jerry12953 said:
I really don't get your point here. Who decides whether a photographer is just a garage mechanic or a real artist? Or both? And I think many photographers would find your analogy quite insulting.
Click to expand...

It's the paying public that decides. If they see merit in an image that is worth paying for, they will. If they don't, they won't.

I think wedding photography is probably a good example. I've seen plenty of expensive professional weddings albums that were no more than technically competent - in focus, correctly exposed, nice colours - but today Uncle Jim with his DSLR can do that. Successful wedding photographers should be better than that and bring something unique and special to it, as indeed those at the top unquestionably do. They will continue to do well.

People with photographers interests at heart have put forward better ideas, but they have been ignored, allegedly as a result of pressure from "a large media conglomerate".
Click to expand...

Murdock is always the scapegoat, but I think it is much wider than just one man. Basically, I think the publishing industry sees a load of images that it could make good use of, but currently cannot (at least legally) because they need permission from the rights holder, who cannot be traced. Catch 22.

This seems like a waste, especially as most of the images could be descibed as 'in the public domain' and the rights holders either wouldn't mind them being more widely used, might even welcome it, and if there is any money to be had at the end of it, then that's a double bonus. I see that as being a generally good thing, on balance, that we can all benefit from as consumers.

Of course professional stock photographers won't see it like that at all, very understandably. They have lost most of their income and they have my sympathy, but that is the way of the world and, short of switching off the web, it's not going to change. So make the best of it.

EdinburghGary said:
Another nail in the coffin IMO...

One day I'll fly away....

Get out if you can folks :)

Gary.
Click to expand...

Not sure I would go that far, but if you are just a local jobbing photographer, more merely competant than creatively special, then business life is certainly not getting any easier.
 
jerry12953 said:
No you're wrong there.
Click to expand...

Oh really?

jerry12953 said:
It would be even easier for a publisher to pinch your images and use them for profit. Their profit.
Click to expand...

It's pretty clear from this thread (and other threads) that it's already happening. I don't see how it will make it easier, the publisher (or whoever) still has to pay someone even if the image is actually orphaned. It just makes it less likely that the photographer will see the money. I don't see any money from my images now.

jerry12953 said:
Would you ever know it had been done?
Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't but I don't know now either.

jerry12953 said:
And if you did know, would you be happy?
Click to expand...

Couldn't care less. I'm not a photographer to make money, I do it because I enjoy it. In fact I'd rather not make money from it because it's what I do for fun and those two things rarely mix.

Also, I don't upload photos to the internet to advertise my services, I do it either so I can learn and improve or to have my ego massaged. i'm not going to stop doing that... why should I? I don't watermark my images because it's irrelevant to me if someone uses them elsewhere.

It will still be irrelevant to me when this bill is passed so as I said, zero impact.

And that is the problem isn't it? Not for me, the amateur, but for the professional. Why would a publisher pay for images from a pro when they can use mine (or any of the thousands of amateurs) images for nothing (if they're any good of course).

No-one is going to persuade the mass amateur togging public to stop uploading their pictures because it's detracting from the photography business. Surely it's incumbent on sites like Flickr to take measures to stop copyright infringement in the first place? and.... incumbent on the government to make sure they do, so as to protect an industry?
 
Similar situation in Canada but already long in the works:

The Board has the right to supervise agreements between users and licensing bodies, and issue licences when the copyright owner cannot be located.
Click to expand...

Guess where the license payment goes.

With regards to the UK Bill, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Digital photography has literally changed lives. The OP's link sums it quite well.

So it is amateurs who should worry most. Pro's tend to be careful about asserting copyright and being easy to find, because it's their livelihood. Amateurs just don't want to know about this dull legal stuff or spend hours embedding IPTC, even if they know what it is. They want to concentrate on the enjoyable bits of shooting and sharing their work, often via free services and untraceable nicknames.
Click to expand...

The simple solution is that amateurs should take more care when copyrighting their work. Plop an image watermark on there and full IPTC data. This will render the bill somewhat useless. Will this happen? Nope.
 
jontucker said:
Oh really?



It's pretty clear from this thread (and other threads) that it's already happening. I don't see how it will make it easier, the publisher (or whoever) still has to pay someone even if the image is actually orphaned. It just makes it less likely that the photographer will see the money. I don't see any money from my images now.



No, I wouldn't but I don't know now either.



Couldn't care less. I'm not a photographer to make money, I do it because I enjoy it. In fact I'd rather not make money from it because it's what I do for fun and those two things rarely mix.

Also, I don't upload photos to the internet to advertise my services, I do it either so I can learn and improve or to have my ego massaged. i'm not going to stop doing that... why should I? I don't watermark my images because it's irrelevant to me if someone uses them elsewhere.

It will still be irrelevant to me when this bill is passed so as I said, zero impact.

And that is the problem isn't it? Not for me, the amateur, but for the professional. Why would a publisher pay for images from a pro when they can use mine (or any of the thousands of amateurs) images for nothing (if they're any good of course).

No-one is going to persuade the mass amateur togging public to stop uploading their pictures because it's detracting from the photography business. Surely it's incumbent on sites like Flickr to take measures to stop copyright infringement in the first place? and.... incumbent on the government to make sure they do, so as to protect an industry?
Click to expand...

Is there a "head in the sand" smiley anywhere?
 
jontucker said:
:bat::lol:

Ok then, how is this going to affect me?
Click to expand...

It won't affect my life either, I don't make money now and I won't make money then whether images are stolen from me or not. If you couldn't are less if people take your images and reuse them then you'll be unaffected.

It's a question of "do I care if someone uses my images without my permission?" more of a principal thing.

This came up a few days ago with regard to ebay, those images I couldn't care less who uses them since they take me no effort at all. Images I might put on flickr however I think I would be ****ed at people taking them without permission
 
joescrivens said:
It won't affect my life either, I don't make money now and I won't make money then whether images are stolen from me or not. If you couldn't are less if people take your images and reuse them then you'll be unaffected.

It's a question of "do I care if someone uses my images without my permission?" more of a principal thing.

This came up a few days ago with regard to ebay, those images I couldn't care less who uses them since they take me no effort at all. Images I might put on flickr however I think I would be ****ed at people taking them without permission
Click to expand...

Now there you have something - the thorny matter of principle.

In financial terms, professional photographers are unlikely to gain anything from this, but they're unlikely to lose anything either as work is currently either not being used because there is cheaper stuff around, or is being ripped off anyway.

However, publishers will clearly gain directly, and we will gain from it indirectly as consumers. That doesn't seem like a bad deal to me, for me personally. But for some, who don't like the idea of their work being used a) without their express permission and control, or even knowledge, and b) to generate income for somebody else, however small, that is hard to swallow on principle even if they have actually lost nothing.
 
As I said in the other thread, you might think you do not care about people using your "amateur" images.... I am certain it depends though... if you thought that little Billy was using it for his school project then I am sure you'll be fine with that.... if your photo is used for an album cover or your family snap gets used as a supermarket advert (which has been done before! and a mobile phone company advert!) then you might not be so happy when you realise you cannot control their use or receive the tidy packet a pro would get for such work....

Would you care then?
 
HoppyUK said:
Now there you have something - the thorny matter of principle.

In financial terms, professional photographers are unlikely to gain anything from this, but they're unlikely to lose anything either as work is currently either not being used because there is cheaper stuff around, or is being ripped off anyway.

However, publishers will clearly gain directly, and we will gain from it indirectly as consumers. That doesn't seem like a bad deal to me, for me personally. But for some, who don't like the idea of their work being used a) without their express permission and control, or even knowledge, and b) to generate income for somebody else, however small, that is hard to swallow on principle even if they have actually lost nothing.
Click to expand...

It is a matter of principle, and one of the principles at stake is that images should have some monetary value. The more images that are used for no payment, the less any individual image is worth.

From what you are saying, Hoppy, you would, for example, rather a publisher got a free image to use on a book cover, because you will be able to buy that book marginally cheaper. Am I right?

I'm genuinely trying to understand where you're coming from.
 
jerry12953 said:
It may not affect you, but it will affect many pro's and many amateurs who DON'T want their pictures ripped off.

At some time in the future you may realise how you have laid yourself open to being ripped off as well.
Click to expand...

Mummy mummy, 'Farmers Weekly' used my photo without asking me - boo hoo.

If you don't want them do use it without asking you then watermark it, or only upload small res files, or don't upload them at all. Amateurs who don't want their work used without them knowing will not be affected because they have control.

It's the pro's that will be affected because there are thousands of amateurs that upload high res, un-watermarked photo's that can be used for free instead of their images being bought. They have NO control. It's their livelihoods they're worried about not the minor irritation of tommy borrowing their bucket and spade without asking.

Actually though, the more I think about it the more I agree with Hoppy. Maybe pro tog's won't lose out. If this is happening anyway then they won't be any worse off, it's just that the government at least, and maybe the publishers, will be better off.
 
jontucker said:
Mummy mummy, 'Farmers Weekly' used my photo without asking me - boo hoo.

If you don't want them do use it without asking you then watermark it, or only upload small res files, or don't upload them at all. Amateurs who don't want their work used without them knowing will not be affected because they have control.

It's the pro's that will be affected because there are thousands of amateurs that upload high res, un-watermarked photo's that can be used for free instead of their images being bought. They have NO control. It's their livelihoods they're worried about not the minor irritation of tommy borrowing their bucket and spade without asking.

Actually though, the more I think about it the more I agree with Hoppy. Maybe pro tog's won't lose out. If this is happening anyway then they won't be any worse off, it's just that the government at least, and maybe the publishers, will be better off.
Click to expand...

how about this scenario -

Boots use an image of yours they found on 2000 billboards around the UK for a new product they are launching. The product is a huge success in part to how good the advert was. Boots make a few million.

You are walking down the street and see said billboard.

You are telling me you'll look up and go: "huh, there's my image, how cool" and walk on. Maybe you'll investigate and get £30 from the government, the way you see it you are £30 better off so you aren't losing out right?

How about the millions you just made for someone else, you don't care that you didn't get any? I think I might care just a tad.
 
Here we go, here's the example that I was talking about:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jun/11/smith-family-photo-czech-advertisement

Would you be happy with that then Jon if that was your family? Currently you are protected only in so far as the image is yours and therefore you can control it. With these new laws, its not yours if its not marked and can be abused as much as they want...

Oh the new bit about personal image privacy will save you? Nope, because you took the photo yourself, not a pro-tog out there papping it up.
 
joescrivens said:
how about this scenario -

Boots use an image of yours they found on 2000 billboards around the UK for a new product they are launching. The product is a huge success in part to how good the advert was. Boots make a few million.

You are walking down the street and see said billboard.

You are telling me you'll look up and go: "huh, there's my image, how cool" and walk on. Maybe you'll investigate and get £30 from the government, the way you see it you are £30 better off so you aren't losing out right?

How about the millions you just made for someone else, you don't care that you didn't get any? I think I might care just a tad.
Click to expand...

Missing my point as usual Joe! If I did care then I wouldn't be putting by images on the internet at a high enough res that they could use it on a bill board.

What I'm getting at is that it's thousands of amateurs like me that don't care, or more to the point don't think about it, that upload their images that mean the pro's can't then sell theirs.

If you are an amateur who does care, you will take measures to stop people from ripping off your photos and therefore will be unaffected by bill. The pro's however, can't do anything about not selling their work, if indeed that turns out to be the case.
 
How big do you think the Smith's family snap was? Big enough to turn into a supermarket hoarding clearly... same with the mobile phone girl....

The real point is that currently you have redress against infractions, soon you won't.
 
desantnik said:
Here we go, here's the example that I was talking about:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jun/11/smith-family-photo-czech-advertisement

Would you be happy with that then Jon if that was your family? Currently you are protected only in so far as the image is yours and therefore you can control it. With these new laws, its not yours if its not marked and can be abused as much as they want...

Oh the new bit about personal image privacy will save you? Nope, because you took the photo yourself, not a pro-tog out there papping it up.
Click to expand...

What have Mr & Mrs Smith lost exactly? Nothing. Would the shop owner have paid them if he had realised it was their photo? No, he would have used a different one for free.

Seriously, as an amateur (I know I keep saying that but it's important) I have more important things to worry about than people using a photo that I posted on the internet.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I do think this is a problem, just not for amateur toggers.
 
As if our glorious leaders hadn't already given us all a multitude of reasons to vote for anyone but them in the next election, here's one that strikes particularly close to home. We have to have an election in the next few months - make sure your vote counts ;) :thumbs:
 
King_Boru said:
The simple solution is that amateurs should take more care when copyrighting their work. Plop an image watermark on there and full IPTC data. This will render the bill somewhat useless. Will this happen? Nope.
Click to expand...

It probably won't happen because most amateurs will either not be aware their image is being stolen or are happy just to be recognised. Although saying that, I personally would be pretty annoyed for a company to profit from an image I created (even though my pics aren't up to scratch).

So I'm going to start watermarking my images (inc. the EXIF) that I post online. I know this won't stop them being stolen, but at least they can be identified.
 
jontucker said:
Missing my point as usual Joe! If I did care then I wouldn't be putting by images on the internet at a high enough res that they could use it on a bill board.

What I'm getting at is that it's thousands of amateurs like me that don't care, or more to the point don't think about it, that upload their images that mean the pro's can't then sell theirs.

If you are an amateur who does care, you will take measures to stop people from ripping off your photos and therefore will be unaffected by bill. The pro's however, can't do anything about not selling their work, if indeed that turns out to be the case.
Click to expand...

I notice you avoided the actual question.

When I post an image here for crit I want it to be good enough quality and without a watermark ruining it. How do I continue my need for wanting to share and seek advice but protect my image from people using it.
 
jontucker said:
What have Mr & Mrs Smith lost exactly? Nothing. Would the shop owner have paid them if he had realised it was their photo? No, he would have used a different one for free.
Click to expand...

The Smith's don't hold the copyright though, it belongs to Gina Kelly who is a professional photographer.

So, quite a lot of potential commercial revenue loss, and due to her client posting the image online.
 
jontucker said:
How much would Boots have paid me if I had been commissioned to take the picture in the first place?
Click to expand...

let's say, £500 for the days shoot. Worth getting a bit cheesed off at? Or you still happy to bend over?
 
JasonRS said:
The Smith's don't hold the copyright though, it belongs to Gina Kelly who is a professional photographer.

So, quite a lot of potential commercial revenue loss, and due to her client posting the image online.
Click to expand...

You are right and that proves my point, the pro suffers due to the amateur.
 
joescrivens said:
let's say, £500 for the days shoot. Worth getting a bit cheesed off at? Or you still happy to bend over?
Click to expand...

So you want to know if I would be upset at losing 500 quid that I never had and would never get because if Boots wanted to pay 500 quid they would have used a pro photographer. The answer is still no.

If I was a pro who lost the 500 quid I would have made that day because they used an amateurs image for free, and every 500 quids that I would have made every day for the same reason, then yes, I would be mighty ****ed.
 
jontucker said:
So you want to know if I would be upset at losing 500 quid that I never had and would never get because if Boots wanted to pay 500 quid they would have used a pro photographer. The answer is still no.

If I was a pro who lost the 500 quid I would have made that day because they used an amateurs image for free, and every 500 quids that I would have made every day for the same reason, then yes, I would be mighty ****ed.
Click to expand...

priceless!

I have a feeling you are one of those people who get conned quite a lot and don't even realise it. :lol:
 
joescrivens said:
priceless!

I have a feeling you are one of those people who get conned quite a lot and don't even realise it. :lol:
Click to expand...

On the contrary, Joe. I post my un-watermarked photos on the internet in the full knowledge that someone, somewhere may be using them with me knowing (and I mean now, not when this bill comes in) and no, I don't care if they do. If I start caring at any point it's very easy for me to prevent that from happening.

However, if my photo's are taking away business that a pro togger might get if I didn't post them, there is NOTHING that the pro's can do to prevent that, both now, and if the bill is passed.
 
jontucker said:
On the contrary, Joe. I post my un-watermarked photos on the internet in the full knowledge that someone, somewhere may be using them with me knowing (and I mean now, not when this bill comes in) and no, I don't care if they do. If I start caring at any point it's very easy for me to prevent that from happening.

However, if my photo's are taking away business that a pro togger might get if I didn't post them, there is NOTHING that the pro's can do to prevent that, both now, and if the bill is passed.
Click to expand...

I think the shortsighted part of your argument is that you claim that amateur photographers in general won't be affected. You aren't talking just about you. Your argument isn't that jontucker won't be affected, where you are quite within your rights to think exactly how you want. You claim it's only pro toggers that are affected by this bill.

How about me, I'm an amateur photographer. I don't want anyone taking my photos I have put effort into without my permission, so you are saying thats ok, put a watermark on and low res.

But I want to share my pic on TP for crit, a big watermark and low res means the members won't see my image properly and I won't get the crit I want.

So I'm affected because now I have to choose. If i want proper sharing and crit I have to accept that my images are up for grabs. If I don't want them to be up for grabs I have to sacrifice proper sharing and crit.

How do I get around that?

Thats how an amateur photographer is affected and thats why your argument is folly.
 
joescrivens said:
I think the shortsighted part of your argument is that you claim that amateur photographers in general won't be affected. You aren't talking just about you. Your argument isn't that jontucker won't be affected, where you are quite within your rights to think exactly how you want. You claim it's only pro toggers that are affected by this bill.

How about me, I'm an amateur photographer. I don't want anyone taking my photos I have put effort into without my permission, so you are saying thats ok, put a watermark on and low res.

But I want to share my pic on TP for crit, a big watermark and low res means the members won't see my image properly and I won't get the crit I want.

So I'm affected because now I have to choose. If i want proper sharing and crit I have to accept that my images are up for grabs. If I don't want them to be up for grabs I have to sacrifice proper sharing and crit.

How do I get around that?

Thats how an amateur photographer is affected and thats why your argument is folly.
Click to expand...

Come on Joe, that is at most a minor inconvenience. Put it on a scale of 1 to 10 against someone who has lost their livelihood. Anyway, what makes you think people aren't using your photos now?

It wasn't that long ago that there wasn't an internet to post your pictures on at all and it's ever evolving - you have to roll with the punches and adapt. Unfortunately that means for some people that they have to find some other means of earning a living. Which is sad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top