It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Lawyer Who Is Also A Photographer Just Deleted All Her Pinterest Boards Out Of Fear

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Pinterest basically put what they legally had to in their T&C

They are NOT protecting their users very well.



One copyright holder could theoretically sue thousands of people if they wanted too, based on the images the users PINNED.


Its up the IMAGE OWNERS to PROSECUTE the people who Illegally use their images.




posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by truthinfact
 


First of, as established, copyright has not been abused.
Secondly, no they couldn't. It wouldn't even go as far as legal action. Probably at most a takedown if copyright has been infringed. I wish retards would stop fearmongering the internet it doesn't do anyone any favoura except fox news having a story to get people worked up about.


Also, read this woman's blog. She's not a lawyer, she's a bloody photojournalist. She also takes back everything she said in the next post after receiving a phone call from the founder and calling it a date.
She seems to be an idiot that got worked up by a facebook group.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by adigregorio
reply to post by cerebralassassins
 


This is FALSE

Parody is protected under FAIR USE. If you would have watched that video I posted you would have understood.

Please, look into the law before making unfounded claims like this. A parody is NOT breaking copyright, in fact it is expressly allowed under copyright law. I will be posting direct links soon, just sayin' I have the sources. Though they are not hard to hunt down.


Parody as you have pointed out varies form nation to nation, within the e.u. for example you will be required to enter court and from there on end its open to discussion. The law in the u.s. is slightly different to how far parody and to Betwwhat extent one can copyright or alter an initial upload of a non public figure without written consent regardless of what site you in your own interpretation feel justified in doing so. That is why lawyers exist and court rooms exist. If you are sure about your claims, then feel free to upload any news network and do what ever parody of that networks on a 24/7 basis. Ill bet you within 24hrs you should have you letter in the mail and along with a quick mortgage to pay the initial lawyers fees.

See once again, i am taking things to the extreme as the internet is an open battle ground and if one decides to walk into a mine field then i myself tend to take the long and safe route of walking around, its called common sense. Again this isn't about what and how you assume the law is interpreted but rather how deep your pocket is. You do understand what i am getting at ?



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xertious
reply to post by truthinfact
 


First of, as established, copyright has not been abused.
Secondly, no they couldn't. It wouldn't even go as far as legal action. Probably at most a takedown if copyright has been infringed. I wish retards would stop fearmongering the internet it doesn't do anyone any favoura except fox news having a story to get people worked up about.


Also, read this woman's blog. She's not a lawyer, she's a bloody photojournalist. She also takes back everything she said in the next post after receiving a phone call from the founder and calling it a date.
She seems to be an idiot that got worked up by a facebook group.


Now that is interesting turn around and no i am not fear mongering at all that is if you were referring to me. Otherwise and as i continue to do is have everything written on paper before anything gets uploaded, its called common sense and second of all have you ever seen a bus load of lawyers pull into court, its a terrifying view and yes, i had the pleasure of seeing microsoft lawyers head into a greek company back in 2000 and believe me it was as if a platoon of marines beach landed in athens.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by cerebralassassins
 


Completly untrue!

I DO write parodies, ALL the time. Of course I write musical parodies, IE songs only.

But I can link you to thousands of others that do the same, Weird Al Yankovic. Ever hear of this guy?



He does these songs/videos ALL THE TIME. Has been doing them for years, got his start on Dr. Demento (Radio program that specialized in parodies). But, I am done PROVING my claims. Could you please post the laws that state parodies are illegal.

Again, you keep claiming they are illegal. You need to post the proof to your claim, or your claim is unfounded. I posted evidence, only fair that you do the same.

REGARDLESS, the "lawyer" was commenting on pictures. Which IS NOT AGAINST copyright, as I have shown already in this thread. So your whole argument is faulty, considering that no laws are being broken. Unless you are going to post the law you are claiming is being violated...

EDIT
(Almost forgot)

An appeal to probability is a justification based on probability, sometimes regarded as a logical fallacy,[citation needed] when an unwarranted assumption that something will happen, because it can happen, or when the odds of an occurrence are unrealistically played down in lieu of appropriate precaution.

en.wikipedia.org...

Just because they might persecute wrongfully, does not mean they will.
edit on 3/1/2012 by adigregorio because: Appealing to probability



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by adigregorio
reply to post by cerebralassassins
 


Completly untrue!

I DO write parodies, ALL the time. Of course I write musical parodies, IE songs only.

But I can link you to thousands of others that do the same, Weird Al Yankovic. Ever hear of this guy?



He does these songs/videos ALL THE TIME. Has been doing them for years, got his start on Dr. Demento (Radio program that specialized in parodies). But, I am done PROVING my claims. Could you please post the laws that state parodies are illegal.

Again, you keep claiming they are illegal. You need to post the proof to your claim, or your claim is unfounded. I posted evidence, only fair that you do the same.

REGARDLESS, the "lawyer" was commenting on pictures. Which IS NOT AGAINST copyright, as I have shown already in this thread. So your whole argument is faulty, considering that no laws are being broken. Unless you are going to post the law you are claiming is being violated...

EDIT
(Almost forgot)

An appeal to probability is a justification based on probability, sometimes regarded as a logical fallacy,[citation needed] when an unwarranted assumption that something will happen, because it can happen, or when the odds of an occurrence are unrealistically played down in lieu of appropriate precaution.

en.wikipedia.org...

Just because they might persecute wrongfully, does not mean they will.
edit on 3/1/2012 by adigregorio because: Appealing to probability


I wasn't referring to Weird Al, and yeah i know of him form the 80's no need for that, but what the article was pointing out was the use of other people's property and regardless if you think or an interpretation of the law you assume covers you or a web site T&C covers you, then you should read the fine print before you click " I Agree"

Also i pointed out earlier if i upload a personal photo within a forum and that is altered in anyway and re-uploaded into the web without my hand written consent then i have every right to set free the piranhas within the net, after all, that is why they are being employed.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by cerebralassassins
 


You do NOT have the right if it is a parody of the original.

You say you know of Weird Al, then you know he does what you are talking about ALL the time. Not just "the 80's", again if you would have watched the video you would have seen that it was much closer to the present.

Of course that wouldn't "discount" the evidence, would it?

I am still waiting for you to produce the LAW THAT IS BEING BROKEN. I have produced why it IS NOT being broken. You just say "wrong" and then post a strawman, which I have shown is FALSE (third time now?)

Do I need to pull out that Obama poster from last year? Hell that one wasn't even a parody, and it made it through this magical fake law you are spouting. Face it, this "lawyer" does not know as much about this law as she thinks she does, furthermore a "lawyer" would have read the fine print before click okay (as I pointed out in my FIRST post)

This is all a bunch of scary nonesence. Commenting on a picture is NOT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. Please, just go watch that first video I posted. The whole thing is made of Disney clips, we all know they like to snap up copyright violators, well that video has been up and running for a long time now. Because it is within those same laws that I have been explaining for a while now.

(All you have to do is read/watch. I mean you read that article, why not read the proof that shows it is a false assumption?)



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


So having read and listened to everything you posted up and your obviously far more knowledge than me given your occupation or your hobby regarding parody music and videos if i understand you correctly, i then would assume it would be okay for me to brand a clients drink as coca-cola with a parody twist and go ballistic on the net along with some national prints. Now in the event their 747 full of lawyers, lands at the airport would it be okay to direct them to you and your interpretation of what is allowed and what is isn't. If it is okay, let me know, ill draw up the papers to exclude me from being held accountable as when i die i would like to leave some sort of finances to my children and grand children.

Peace



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by cerebralassassins
So having read and listened to everything you posted up and your obviously far more knowledge than me given your occupation or your hobby regarding parody music and videos if i understand you correctly...

I do not want you to listen to me due to my professional, or unprofessional choices. Honestly, I do not want you to listen to me. I want you to listen to all of the things I posted, including the law in question. I do not need "proof by authority", there is real evidence. Real proof.


Originally posted by cerebralassassins
i then would assume it would be okay for me to brand a clients drink as coca-cola with a parody twist and go ballistic on the net along with some national prints.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Haven't we had enough of straw men?


A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]

en.wikipedia.org...

1) Commenting on a picture, and mimicing a product line are two different things.

2) Making a picture stating what you listed, well that is protected under copyright law (parody)

Remember those 4 "rules"? If you read everything I posted, you would realize your strawman senario would:

1: Purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial or non-profit nature
(Commercial, check!)
2: Nature of copyrighted work
(Both are drinks, check)
3: Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
(Passes this one, since it is just a similar can)
4: Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work
(Would cause confusion due to similar can, check)

As you can see, if you had read the "rules" you would have seen your strawman for what it is, straw...man.

I know you have not watched the video, because you would have pointed out the real flaw in "fair use". Of course, I am not going to do your homework for you.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


You know very well that if i followed write down to crossing the t's and dotting the i's i can rightfully be dragged into a court room regardless of what you or what wiki mentions. That is how the system works, who ever said life is fair and noone ever said that the court system is full proof. So and as history has shown no matter what you may present to me as documented proof it purely boils down to who has the deepest pocket.

Thats how the system works

Thats how the government works

Thats how democracy works

Like it or loath it, its simply reality.

As for mimicking a product line for my own use, well let look at the recent flood of law suits going on between Microsoft and other venture companies in a tsunami of patent/copyright wars. Have you looked into which firms have been hired to represent them, Some graphic image of David and Goliath come into mind, but sadly this aint a myth story you would read to a five year old, but rather a reality check that deals with hundreds of billions. Would you want to place your neck on the chopping block ? . I know i wouldn't and by no means am i going to antagonize such sleeping giants. In short, you shouldn't antagonize such sleeping giants for when they are awake it usually takes a cool decade for them to settle back down again.
edit on 2-3-2012 by cerebralassassins because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by cerebralassassins
 


And still you continue to ignore every shred of evidence I have brought forth.

I am now of the opinion that you are "upset" because the truth does not follow with what you thought was the truth. The person that said life wasn't fair, followed it up with "The truth hurts."

It is fairly apparent to me that you do not wish to debate, only spout. Alas, I am not a fountain, so a spout does me no good.

Like I said, and still stress. The "lawyer" based her assumption on faulty evidence. As I have shown (several times now) Pinterest is far from copyright violations. This is just a scary nonsense story.

Until someone posts a law stating otherwise (also asked several times now) what I have said is the truth. Anything else is just a faulty opinion.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 



As i have said in the beginning what ever i upload into Pinterest has always been signed by the original creator and i do not leave anything to chance. No matter how hard or what ever evidence you put forth, it simply will not change my stand on it.

Why am i so against what ever you put forth, well a solid 3+ years ago i was dragged into court for a so called copyright infringement and the bottom line in court was simple enough no matter what was being said and stated.

" Did you have any form of " hand written or digital email stating you had the authority to reproduce and distribute X content within the internet " .

That's a question the judge asked , you obviously know what my answer was... obviously No.

That was it, 45 minutes later your cerebral here was finalizing finances to be transferred for loosing the case. So no, i care not what you put forth in a forum within here and the same applies to any person within any site that assumes or lives by a fantasy that a court room and internet law is fair. It isn't it simply is, who has the deepest pockets...fair enough...

P.S.
I am in no way attacking you, on the contrary i enjoyed our discussion within here and due to the face that we didn't see eye to eye strengthens what this site is all about. Simply discuss and interact with other users. On a side, i honestly enjoyed our virtual interaction.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 



Seriously, it looks like she is not a very good lawyer. I mean, I can see this crap and I only have my armchair degree.


And in there lies the danger. Applying layman logic to the twisted world of legal realities may uncover situations that seem improbable, unfair, or illogical, but this is why these people STUDY to be a lawyer. Whether you and your armchair degree believe she is a good lawyer or not has zero value.

Im not being rude, I agree with a lot of what you say, however, in reality what you say it is not the reality. it's only common sense.

Therefore given the situation, do you not think it prudent to to cease advocating to others a legal position that could be questionable, Based on nothing more than an untrained understanding of "the law" which in fact means that you have no more real idea what you are saying, other than the value of "in my opinion"

Also worthy of note, (and to all here) citation of Wikipedia, is not allowed even at university degree study level (nor youtube videos) so they are certainly not admissible in a legal debate. As they are not classified as a correct knowledge source, due to the fact that anyone can edit the content, no matter how closely it is monitored.

Cheers

JF
edit on 3/3/2012 by JakiusFogg because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/3/2012 by JakiusFogg because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by JakiusFogg
 


Um, did you read my posts? I did not just post my "opinion" I posted the LAW.


Applying layman logic to the twisted world of legal realities may uncover situations that seem improbable, unfair, or illogical, but this is why these people STUDY to be a lawyer.

EXACTLY what I have been saying this whole time. And, this "lawyer" needs to go back to school. Since, I (am not a lawyer) can see the flaws in her argument.


Im not being rude, I agree with a lot of what you say, however, in reality what you say it is not the reality. it's only common sense.

Common sense? It is common sense to be afraid of something that should not cause fear? It is common sense to hide ones head in the sand, even when the sand is being shoveled away at an alarming rate? It is common sense to IGNORE fact?


Therefore given the situation, do you not think it prudent to to cease advocating to others a legal position that could be questionable, Based on nothing more than an untrained understanding of "the law" which in fact means that you have no more real idea what you are saying, other than the value of "in my opinion"

What part of "the law" is hard to understand? What part of those exceprts from the law are my opinion? How about none! That's right, I didn't right the law(s)!

What the OPer is presenting is an opinion. What I am presenting is FACT. As shown by my sources.

Of course, you are free as well to POST THE LAW THAT IS BEING BROKEN. I have posted what is not being broken, and all I get in response is: "You're wrong, so there."


Also worthy of note, (and to all here) citation of Wikipedia, is not allowed even at university degree study level (nor youtube videos) so they are certainly not admissible in a legal debate.

I wondered how long it would be until we moved the goalposts:


Moving the goalposts, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. In other words, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt. This attempts to leave the impression that an argument had a fair hearing while actually reaching a preordained conclusion.[4]

en.wikipedia.org...

Can't defend your position, attack my sources. That's fine, I noticed you ommited the FACT that I got the law from the gubberment...


Provide evidence you folks are right, otherwise you are wrong.

EDIT (To add)
Also, readers, keep in mind that there is a position that can be held against "fair use". And that position would be applicable to this discussion. The only reason I am saying this is to show you folks that the nay-sayers WILL NOT RESEARCH!

They have a perfectly good argument they could use in their defense, yet they choose to not learn. They choose to ignore my links, obvious because all of them include said defense.

This is why I can say things like "You should have read my sources" Because if they had, they would have a defensible position. (Hint, hint!)
edit on 3/3/2012 by adigregorio because: Silly debators,



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


You know, I was going to let them do the research. So they could earn some respect in the land of debate.

But why?

Here is why the lawyer has some grounds for her decision(s):

"Fair use is not a right, it is only a defendable position."

So, while it is not illegal to follow "fair use" it would be up to you (if persecuted) to prove it falls under "fair use". Of course, this brings us back to the logical fallacy of appealing to probability:

An appeal to probability is a justification based on probability, sometimes regarded as a logical fallacy,[citation needed] when an unwarranted assumption that something will happen, because it can happen, or when the odds of an occurrence are unrealistically played down in lieu of appropriate precaution.

en.wikipedia.org...

Keep that in mind when using this as a defense position in this debate. It (to me) is faulty reasoning to live in fear over what "might happen" especially when you unrealistically play down the odds of this occuring.

If it smells like a fallacy, it probably is.

So there you have it folks, the lawyer probably knows that "fair use" is not a right. Of course, I bet they didn't know that BEFORE they clicked "okay". If you want to live in useless fear, then hide. If you want to like/pin/repin pictures, you are protected under the "fair use".

See, it wasn't hard at all to research. I bet you wish you had done it though, we could have twisted this for at least two pages! (Can still have a go at it though, I am game!)
edit on 3/3/2012 by adigregorio because: Minor change, didn't want to come off as an ass



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


You are a very aggressive person are you not? As I stated you may advocate a logical position this will not stop you getting you ass hauled into court or anyone else who decides that your posts have reason which they do.

The arguments of the lawyer may seem flawed to you. and many others, however hers is a position of legal training, It may seem like nonsense, and as if "she needs to go back to school" because a layman cannot make sense of it. But that is the very essence of what this is about.

As for moving the goalposts. ha weak!. no. I am current doing a Master degree, any citation from wikipedia means you get marked down. I am not moving the goal posts at all, you are trying to argue legally using wikipedia and youtube as source data.

While I commend you effort to back you arguments and wish that others would do the same. if you wish to assert a heavy weight position, try citing peer reviewed journals, They too are available on the net, with a little searching. Just a tip.

As for whatever else you have to say. I am not interested. I will not follow your say so, that it is actually OK by your armchair degree interpretation of laws you DO NOT fully understand, against that of a qualified and certified legal professional you, stated that while there was some hope in this case, in general terms the terms were written in such a way to legally protect the company, while exposing its users to what may be a legal mine field.

However, maybe you are already heavily exposed to this site and are rattled by it. maybe you are just paranoid. but in the end whatever argument that the law is wrong, not matter how logical it may be. Will not stop the inevitable.

If you pin one of my photos without my permission, I will sue you for unlawful distribution which is my right, and I will win. end of.

chin chin!



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


Note the text you quotes, The mods on Wikipedia have inserted a [citation needed] which translates as

THIS IS UNSUPPORTED BY FACT.

Please review the use of citation before you advocate that people expose themselves legally. But now seeing as this ia published material, You are now liable. you have no disclaimer or waiver or rights and obligations in this matter,

Therefore someone can cite you as influence and you are exposed legally.

Rule one, protect yourself at all time. Why do you think ATS have the rules about external content and citation. it is called intellectual property.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by JakiusFogg
You are a very aggressive person are you not? As I stated you may advocate a logical position this will not stop you getting you ass hauled into court or anyone else who decides that your posts have reason which they do.

The only thing I have been aggressive about is posting the truth/law. The only thing I have been aggressive about is informing others of the truth/law. The only thing I have been aggressive about is exposing faulty opinions, by using the truth/law.


Originally posted by JakiusFogg
The arguments of the lawyer may seem flawed to you. and many others, however hers is a position of legal training, It may seem like nonsense, and as if "she needs to go back to school" because a layman cannot make sense of it. But that is the very essence of what this is about.

Really, what kind of lawyer is she? Divorce lawyer? How much training do they receive in regards to copyright law? Proof by authority is another logical fallacy, one that I myself did not accept when it was pasted to me. I expect the same amount of respect in this regard, unless we have some sort of evidence of her law degree.


Originally posted by JakiusFogg
As for moving the goalposts. ha weak!. no. I am current doing a Master degree, any citation from wikipedia means you get marked down. I am not moving the goal posts at all, you are trying to argue legally using wikipedia and youtube as source data.

And again you raise the bar. I can post the list of fallacies from another source, if that would please your honor? Or will you just appeal to ridicule (weak) again? Obviously your Masters is not in debate, or speach for that matter. Which reminds me of my last point, what is the law degree of the lawyer? As I have shown here, a masters does not mean that one can debate properly. (Not that I debate properly, but I think I am doing better than this.)

PROVIDE A SOURCE OF YOUR OWN. (Readers, how many times have I asked now? I have lost count...) Then you may critisize mine. If you continue in this vein, I will point you to the sources at the bottom of those wiki pages. Then you may try your "guns" on those.



Originally posted by JakiusFogg
While I commend you effort to back you arguments and wish that others would do the same. if you wish to assert a heavy weight position, try citing peer reviewed journals, They too are available on the net, with a little searching. Just a tip.

And you should practice what you preach. At least I have provided sources, including THE LAW itself. From the government, not your hated wikipedia. And again you ignore those parts of my posts. Where are your sources, I don't even ask for "peer reviewed". AND I won't raise the bar!

Readers, notice how we are no longer talking about the topic. The poster just attacks my position, and does not provide their own evidence.


Originally posted by JakiusFogg
As for whatever else you have to say. I am not interested. I will not follow your say so, that it is actually OK by your armchair degree interpretation of laws you DO NOT fully understand, against that of a qualified and certified legal professional you, stated that while there was some hope in this case, in general terms the terms were written in such a way to legally protect the company, while exposing its users to what may be a legal mine field.

You won't read my sources, why would I expect you to follow my advice? I understand the law better than you, this is obvious to even your "Layman".


Originally posted by JakiusFogg
However, maybe you are already heavily exposed to this site and are rattled by it. maybe you are just paranoid. but in the end whatever argument that the law is wrong, not matter how logical it may be. Will not stop the inevitable.

And now the ad-hominems begin, and note readers. We are still not talking about the topic, now we are looking at my faults. If I have faults, my argument MUST be wrong



Originally posted by JakiusFogg
If you pin one of my photos without my permission, I will sue you for unlawful distribution which is my right, and I will win. end of.

No you will not,



Originally posted by JakiusFogg
Note the text you quotes, The mods on Wikipedia have inserted a [citation needed] which translates as...

NOT the topic! Care to provide your sources, or are you just going to stand there and point your opinions?


Originally posted by JakiusFogg
Rule one, protect yourself at all time. Why do you think ATS have the rules about external content and citation. it is called intellectual property.

Read the law, then you will understand the rule on ATS. Everything you need is linked in this thread, you have to cut through the faulty opinions to find it though.

Rule #1: Stay on topic!



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
First the OP failed to read the original article in its entirety because this part was missed;




Oh, and you have no right to reproduce this article or any portion thereof. But feel free to share the link! ddkportraits.com...


Which means you should have paraphrased in your own words the main points of the article and then linked to the article itself. And she was not fearful, she was tearful. No one frightened her, she simply made an ethical choice after research that she may not have the legal right to make decisions concerning other people's work and what they 'might' approve of, and encouraged others to do some research as well.

I think it should be helpful for people to read through and attempt to understand what is intended by words, she was tearful (with a T) because she was sad to be deleting such beautiful artwork.
edit on 3-3-2012 by Jameela because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


According to the following journal extract, states that rights are reserved by the creator of any fixed medium of expression I.e. photographs (Stewart, 2012) Therefore if you use my image without my permission, and i sure, you will lose.Hence the reason for payment of license and or royalty.


The article discusses the application of fair use analysis and copyright law to photographs on social networking sites to evaluate the validity of photographs republished for news reporting purposes. It says that the original authorship creators fixed in any medium of expression are entitled



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join