Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Being a Photographer > Business / Philosophy of Photography

Business / Philosophy of Photography Taking pics is one thing, but understanding why we take them, what they mean, what they are best used for, how they effect our reality -- all of these and more are important issues of the Philosophy of Photography. One of the best authors on the subject is Susan Sontag in her book "On Photography."

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

EU Approves Controversial Copyright Directive
Old 1 Week Ago   #1
PKR
Registered User
 
PKR is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,455
EU Approves Controversial Copyright Directive

EU Approves Controversial Copyright Directive and ‘Upload Filter’

petapixel.com

By Michael Zhang

The European Parliament yesterday voted in favor of the highly controversial EU Copyright Directive, which is intended to bring EU copyright laws into the Internet age. Critics have called the directive “disastrous” and warned that it could fundamentally destroy the open Web.

One of the most debated sections of the directive has been Article 13, which contains what critics have called an “upload filter.” According to the article, online content sharing websites would be liable for copyright infringement occurring on their platforms unless they implement “effective and proportionate measures” to “prevent the availability of specific [unlicensed] works identified by rightsholders” and act “expeditiously” to remove copyright infringements while showing they’ve made “best efforts” to “prevent their future availability.”

Critics argue that Article 13 would force Internet companies such as Facebook, YouTube, Flickr, Instagram, and 500px to implement a scanning system that analyzes every single piece of piece of content being uploaded for copyright violations. While that may sound like a helpful copyright protection measure for content creators such as photographers, notable companies, groups, and individuals have been warning that it could have disastrous consequences.
Those that have spoken out against the EU Copyright Directive include the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Creative Commons, Reddit, Wikimedia, and YouTube.

A group of 70 top tech leaders also sent a signed letter to European Parliament President Antonio Tajani back in June, expressing their opposition to the directive.
“By requiring Internet platforms to perform automatic filtering all of the content that their users upload, Article 13 takes an unprecedented step towards the transformation of the Internet from an open platform for sharing and innovation, into a tool for the automated surveillance and control of its users,” the letter states. “The damage that this may do to the free and open Internet as we know it is hard to predict, but in our opinions could be substantial.”
Other critics argue that the directive would effectively kill the world of online “memes,” the viral pieces of media that often included copyright content.

More
https://petapixel.com/2018/09/13/eu-...upload-filter/
__________________
The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera. Dorothea Lange
  Reply With Quote

EU Approves Controversial Copyright Directive
Old 1 Week Ago   #2
joe bosak
Registered User
 
joe bosak is offline
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 51
EU Approves Controversial Copyright Directive

So article 13 itself is really just about enforcement. The real issues are copyright holders fundamental rights, whether they are sensible, whether the enforcement is proportional, and whether or not intenet companies are capable of sensibly implementing the enforcement specified.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #3
Paul T.
Registered User
 
Paul T.'s Avatar
 
Paul T. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,968
There has been a lot of lobbying against this by Google, who take billions of ad revenue from videos to which they don't own the copyright.

Whatever happen ultimately with this directive, Youtube, Google and other sites have represented a huge shift of money, away from creatives and towards digital distributors.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #4
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul T. View Post
There has been a lot of lobbying against this by Google, who take billions of ad revenue from videos to which they don't own the copyright.
The problem is, with literally hundreds of millions of videos being uploaded daily, how are YouTube supposed to police that? If the RFF servers were located in the EU and I uploaded a copyrighted image, RFF would be hit with a big fine. How would they police that? The answer is: they wouldn't; they would ban all image sharing, which is to everyone's detriment.

If all the Internet distribution channels such as YouTube, Vimeo, Facebook, Instagram, Flickr etc. died tomorrow, where would amateur creatives share their art with millions of eyeballs and eardrums? We would be returning to a world where only the pros are able to publish work through traditional channels: printed magazines, TV broadcasts, billboards etc. The rest of us would have to be content with a home slide show and winning ninth prize at the local photography club.

No thanks!
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #5
lukx
Registered User
 
lukx is offline
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 9
The funny thing is: copying a journalistic text as you did for this post would be prohibited by article 11 of this new copyright law if I'm not mistaken. It is going to be very interesting to see how this will affect everyday internet use.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #6
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 440
The jurisdiction of laws regarding Internet copyright used to only cover the locations where the servers are hosted. Does anyone know if that's still the case?

If so, on 29th March, Google etc. could just close down all their European servers in Ireland, Belgium, Finland and the Netherlands and move them to the UK.

It's taken me over two years, but I've finally found an up-side to Brexit.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #7
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by lukx View Post
The funny thing is: copying a journalistic text as you did for this post would be prohibited by article 11 of this new copyright law if I'm not mistaken. It is going to be very interesting to see how this will affect everyday internet use.
Actually, it looks like individual users are exempt when it comes to sharing news items. See Article 11, section 1a:

"1a. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall not prevent legitimate private and non-commercial use of press publications by individual users"

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/...DOC+PDF+V0//EN
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #8
Paul T.
Registered User
 
Paul T.'s Avatar
 
Paul T. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
Actually, it looks like individual users are exempt when it comes to sharing news items. See Article 11, section 1a:

"1a. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall not prevent legitimate private and non-commercial use of press publications by individual users"

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/...DOC+PDF+V0//EN
Exactly, but the story that individuals would be affected has been widely spread and is widely believed.

Arianna Huffington made $315m by selling her news site which simply shared news from other sources who actually spent money on journalists (and photographers). No one has quite explained where such sites will get their news when all the organisations spending money on such have gone bust.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #9
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul T. View Post
Arianna Huffington made $315m by selling her news site which simply shared news from other sources who actually spent money on journalists (and photographers). No one has quite explained where such sites will get their news when all the organisations spending money on such have gone bust.
This isn't the 'fault' of the internet or Huffington Post though. Those news organisations deliberately placed what they see as valuable content on the open Internet where anyone can reused it...that's the nature of the Internet.

The problem is that people and businesses want it both ways: they want to protect their copyright and make money from everything they create and display online, but at the same time they want to use that content on the Internet to widely promote their businesses, drive traffic to their websites, and ultimately sell people things. You can't do both. You have to choose what to freely distribute on the Internet and what to sell. If businesses and individuals actually thought about this and were more careful with the content they placed online, we wouldn't need these ridiculous draconian copyright laws.

What happens today:

Photographer creates a website and posts her best three hundred high quality photos. One of them is used without permission on another website. All hell breaks loose with lawyers earning a fortune, bad feeling on all sides, calls for tighter copyright laws etc.

What should happen:

Photographer creates a website and posts a small selection of thumbnail images. She accepts that by posting them online they may be used elsewhere without permission. She's fine with that because they are very small and therefore of limited use, and besides, wide distribution of those images may promote her work.

She provides a login for anyone interested in viewing higher quality images. Finished artwork files are locked away behind a paywall where they can only be accessed via a credit card.

------

The lesson with all this is: if you have something of value that you don't want other people to share for free, then by all means put it online, but do it behind a paywall. If it has real value, people will pay for it. If it hasn't, they won't. Either way, your work won't be stolen.

End of story.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #10
PKR
Registered User
 
PKR is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,455
"Photographer creates a website and posts a small selection of thumbnail images. She accepts that by posting them online they may be used elsewhere without permission. She's fine with that because they are very small and therefore of limited use, and besides, wide distribution of those images may promote her work."

"and besides, wide distribution of those images may promote her work."






I don't do wedding photography but, I've had my thumbnails lifted and used by others.. who take credit for their creation.

Here is an example of what's done with small thumbnail images that are lifted from a website. Often the thief's web page is copyrighted, so your lost images have been copyrighted by the thief.

This kind of photo theft is common. I've heard of thiefs bragging about lifting a photographer's entire website. One local thief told the site owner that he ripped his entire site, and there was nothing he could do about it.

Wedding photographers see a lot of theft. But, thumbnail theft isn't isolated to them.

Have a look at this site:
http://stopstealingphotos.com/
__________________
The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera. Dorothea Lange
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #11
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by PKR View Post
Wedding photographers see a lot of theft. But, thumbnail theft isn't isolated to them.
Why would wedding photographers put more than a handful of representative images on their website?
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #12
PKR
Registered User
 
PKR is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
This isn't the 'fault' of the internet or Huffington Post though. Those news organisations deliberately placed what they see as valuable content on the open Internet where anyone can reused it...that's the nature of the Internet.

The problem is that people and businesses want it both ways: they want to protect their copyright and make money from everything they create and display online, but at the same time they want to use that content on the Internet to widely promote their businesses, drive traffic to their websites, and ultimately sell people things. You can't do both. You have to choose what to freely distribute on the Internet and what to sell. If businesses and individuals actually thought about this and were more careful with the content they placed online, we wouldn't need these ridiculous draconian copyright laws.

What happens today:

Photographer creates a website and posts her best three hundred high quality photos. One of them is used without permission on another website. All hell breaks loose with lawyers earning a fortune, bad feeling on all sides, calls for tighter copyright laws etc.

What should happen:

Photographer creates a website and posts a small selection of thumbnail images. She accepts that by posting them online they may be used elsewhere without permission. She's fine with that because they are very small and therefore of limited use, and besides, wide distribution of those images may promote her work.

She provides a login for anyone interested in viewing higher quality images. Finished artwork files are locked away behind a paywall where they can only be accessed via a credit card.

------

The lesson with all this is: if you have something of value that you don't want other people to share for free, then by all means put it online, but do it behind a paywall. If it has real value, people will pay for it. If it hasn't, they won't. Either way, your work won't be stolen.

End of story.
You continue to find reasons to excuse photo theft. Keeping your images offline doesn't prevent all photo theft. But, I'm sure you know this.

The only thing that I've seen stop a photo thief is legal action. And, legal action isn't possible in all countries.
__________________
The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera. Dorothea Lange
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #13
PKR
Registered User
 
PKR is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
Why would wedding photographers put more than a handful of representative images on their website?
I don't know the wedding photo business model. But, it seems the thief is simply taking credit for photos they didn't create to generate business and, represent their ability to create imagery that's beyond their talent.

Why do students, scholars and politicians plagiarize? I think the answer is the same.
__________________
The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera. Dorothea Lange
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #14
Paul T.
Registered User
 
Paul T.'s Avatar
 
Paul T. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,968
Some small crooks might have made a few hundred dollars from stealing wedding photos.

Google is making billions by hosting stolen videos. Which they say they're not really responsible for, even as they trouser the dosh. That's the big crime.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #15
Steve M.
Registered User
 
Steve M. is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,902
Sounds like an unenforceable law. Just don't post anything online that you don't want anyone stealing.

I have the same philosophy with cars. People pay lots of money for elaborate and expensive auto alarms. I just don't leave anything of value in the car, and roll the windows down so they don't break them to see what is inside.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #16
RichC
Registered User
 
RichC is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brighton, UK
Posts: 1,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
Why would wedding photographers put more than a handful of representative images on their website?
One word: promotion.

I’ve a friend who’s a wedding photographer. She’s very good at it with a glamour-meets-urban-candid style, being selected by Rangefinder Magazine as one of its 30 worldwide rising stars of wedding photography: http://eclection-photography.com/ran...tography-2016/

To keep her business in the public eye and looking fresh means new photos constantly being put online to promote it and to reach couples about to be wed. So, photos on her website, social media, blogs, print magazines, online magazines ... you get the picture! And she gets pictures ripped off. People stealing her photos for general use doesn’t harm her: that’s just irritating - she’d at least like to be credited. But what really hacks her off is people nicking her photos and saying they took them - this has included other wedding photographers (presumably crap ones)!

It’s all well and good saying don’t put images online that you don’t want ripped off but that’s not always possible. In my friend’s case, doing that would seriously harm her business, so image theft is something she has to live with.

So, I’m in favour of this EU Directive, if carefully thought through and applied sensibly.
__________________

-=Rich=-


Portfolio: www.richcutler.co.uk
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #17
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichC View Post
One word: promotion.

Iíve a friend whoís a wedding photographer - and very good at it, being selected by Rangefinder Magazine as one of its 30 worldwide rising stars of wedding photography: http://eclection-photography.com/ran...tography-2016/

To keep her business in the public eye and looking fresh means new photos constantly being put online to promote it and reach couples about to be wed. So, photos on her website, social media, blogs, print magazines, online magazines ... you get the picture! And she gets pictures ripped off. People stealing her photos for general use doesnít harm her - thatís just irritating, and sheíd at least like to be credited. But what really hacks her off is people nicking her photos and pretending they took them - which has included other wedding photographers (presumably crap ones)!

Itís all well and good saying donít put images online that you donít want ripped off but thatís not always possible. In my friendís case, doing that would seriously harm her business, so image theft is something she has to live with.

So, Iím in favour of this EU Directive, if applied sensibly and carefully thought through.
A wannabe wedding photographer (potentially living in a different country to your friend), is so inexperienced or unskilled that they donít have the ability to even gather together a handful of their own good shots to promote themselves. They wouldnít be able to deliver a professional service or good quality images, and would probably be out of business in a few weeks.

How could that person seriously harm your friendís business?
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #18
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by PKR View Post
You continue to find reasons to excuse photo theft.
Iím not excusing or condoning theft. Where did I say that?

Iím saying creatives and media owners have a responsibility to protect their valued assets.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #19
RichC
Registered User
 
RichC is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brighton, UK
Posts: 1,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
A wannabe wedding photographer (potentially living in a different country to your friend), is so inexperienced or unskilled that they don’t have the ability to even gather together a handful of their own good shots to promote themselves. They wouldn’t be able to deliver a professional service or good quality images, and would probably be out of business in a few weeks.

How could that person seriously harm your friend’s business?
Bad press on one occasion when accused of scamming a couple. Turned out someone had stolen her photos and used a false name, so out of the blue she was accused of fraud. That was the worst example (I’m sure there are other instances where her name or business was badmouthed wrongly that didn’t get back to her).

In short, use of photographs in this way affects businesses by misrepresentation, dilution of brand image and reputational harm. It’s no different to shoddy fakes of a brand product that fall apart - sure, many will realise (sadly some after buying them), but some will be put off the brand (rightly or wrongly).

And as the web spans the world and is democratic, some unknown “wannabe” wedding photographer ripping off photographs has global reach.
__________________

-=Rich=-


Portfolio: www.richcutler.co.uk
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #20
DanskDynamit
Registered User
 
DanskDynamit's Avatar
 
DanskDynamit is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 308
I live in Europe, I'm a EU citizen and I agree with this directive which is only controversial for companies making money by letting their users to upload zillions of videos and photos they don't own.


Michael Zhang is lobbying for google and facebook here while just a few months ago he was writing:

"A Virginia federal court has made a decision that photographers won’t be happy to hear: the court ruled that finding a photo on the Internet and then using it without permission on a commercial website can be considered fair use."


I'm on the photographers side, and you Mr. Zhang?
__________________
DanskDynamit
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #21
wolves3012
Registered User
 
wolves3012's Avatar
 
wolves3012 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wolverhampton, UK
Age: 61
Posts: 2,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve M. View Post
Sounds like an unenforceable law. Just don't post anything online that you don't want anyone stealing.
+1. Under no circumstances do I support the theft of something that isn't yours but it has to be realised that the internet is global. Placing anything on it means you accept that someone, somewhere might (read: is likely to) steal it if they have a use for it. Since the internet IS global, you cannot protect against this by making laws which can only be enforced in parts of the globe. To believe otherwise is utterly naiive.
__________________
Zorki: 1e (x2), 2C, 3M, 4, 4K, 5, 6
FED: NKVD, 1g, 2e
Kiev 4, 4A
Leica IIIC
Yashica Minister III
Zenith C, Zenit C, Zenit E
Minolta XG-M, XD-5
Nikon P50
Panasonic Lumix G2, 14-42 Kit lens + 45-150mm

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Benjamin Franklin
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #22
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
 
nukecoke's Avatar
 
nukecoke is offline
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Sweden/China
Posts: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve M. View Post
Just don't post anything online that you don't want anyone stealing.
I agree.

Even if you put your photos offline on light poles they can still get stolen.

Or you can be like Getty images and sue everyone who steal your image. That's how Getty earning big pink Maos in China these days. Real good business.
__________________
tumblr

flickr(abandoned)

About Film Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #23
DanskDynamit
Registered User
 
DanskDynamit's Avatar
 
DanskDynamit is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolves3012 View Post
you cannot protect against this by making laws which can only be enforced in parts of the globe. To believe otherwise is utterly naiive.
what about porn? what about child abuse pornography? what about guns and drugs selling? what about terrorism promotion?

Internet is global and it needs laws.
__________________
DanskDynamit
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #24
wolves3012
Registered User
 
wolves3012's Avatar
 
wolves3012 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wolverhampton, UK
Age: 61
Posts: 2,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanskDynamit View Post
what about porn? what about child abuse pornography? what about guns and drugs selling? what about terrorism promotion?

Internet is global and it needs laws.
I'm not suggesting we don't bother and just accept all this without trying. I'm merely pointing out reality. Despite laws, pornography, guns, drugs etc. ARE available still (at least, I believe so, since I don't have a desire to even look for them myself). The lack of global control and the unlikelihood of it ever happening means that new ways need to be found to address these things. And no, I don't have the solutions!
__________________
Zorki: 1e (x2), 2C, 3M, 4, 4K, 5, 6
FED: NKVD, 1g, 2e
Kiev 4, 4A
Leica IIIC
Yashica Minister III
Zenith C, Zenit C, Zenit E
Minolta XG-M, XD-5
Nikon P50
Panasonic Lumix G2, 14-42 Kit lens + 45-150mm

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Benjamin Franklin
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #25
DanskDynamit
Registered User
 
DanskDynamit's Avatar
 
DanskDynamit is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolves3012 View Post
I'm not suggesting we don't bother and just accept all this without trying. I'm merely pointing out reality. Despite laws, pornography, guns, drugs etc. ARE available still (at least, I believe so, since I don't have a desire to even look for them myself). The lack of global control and the unlikelihood of it ever happening means that new ways need to be found to address these things. And no, I don't have the solutions!
yes! but they are punished! which makes a huge difference!
There are many countries that control different websites, ThePirateBay is blocked in many countries, even Facebook and google are blocked in the largest populated country. If a website does not control it's content, infringing copyright laws, they could block it if they (government) want to.
cheers
__________________
DanskDynamit
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #26
PKR
Registered User
 
PKR is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
A wannabe wedding photographer (potentially living in a different country to your friend), is so inexperienced or unskilled that they donít have the ability to even gather together a handful of their own good shots to promote themselves. They wouldnít be able to deliver a professional service or good quality images, and would probably be out of business in a few weeks.

How could that person seriously harm your friendís business?
I find it hard to believe you're that naive ?
__________________
The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera. Dorothea Lange
  Reply With Quote

Old 5 Days Ago   #27
seany65
Registered User
 
seany65 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 810
Does the EU think it's law is enforceable in the rest of the world?

A Japanese photographer puts some pics on a server that is in South Korea and a Filipino thief steals them and puts them on a server in Indonesia, Does the EU step and say "You naughty boy?"
__________________
An ever-growing amount of photo-stuff and a never-growing amount of photo-talent.
  Reply With Quote

Old 5 Days Ago   #28
RichC
Registered User
 
RichC is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brighton, UK
Posts: 1,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by seany65 View Post
Does the EU think it's law is enforceable in the rest of the world?

A Japanese photographer puts some pics on a server that is in South Korea and a Filipino thief steals them and puts them on a server in Indonesia, Does the EU step and say "You naughty boy?"
Try Googling...?

The directives are aimed at online platforms and similar organisations, not individuals like Joe or Jane Bloggs. Tumblr, Instagram, Flickr, YouTube and their ilk are the ones who will be poked in the eye for ignoring or playing fast and loose with copyrighted material.

The EU's population is over half a billion (the US is a third of a billion), so global online platforms can't afford to ignore Europe: it's too large. Online platforms that throw their toys out of the pram and refuse to cooperate will wither away and die... or at least become regional and thus of no importance. You may recall the EU online privacy regulations (GDPR) that came into force in May: most international organisations have already implemented them or will do so - including those in the US - despite protestations from some.
__________________

-=Rich=-


Portfolio: www.richcutler.co.uk
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Days Ago   #29
seany65
Registered User
 
seany65 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 810
But how are the platforms to know the stuff they host is 'stolen'?

How are the regulations going to be applied to platforms that have their offices and servers etc. outside Europe?
__________________
An ever-growing amount of photo-stuff and a never-growing amount of photo-talent.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Days Ago   #30
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,170
The platforms only know what is copyrighted if someone, i.e. the copyholder, tells them. Giant media companies do. That is what this is all about, not you and me.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 22:42.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.