Entries in copyright (7)

Saturday
19Dec2009

SF MoMA Thomas Hawk Simon Blint (Photography is not a crime 2008)

Date20091219 at 05:57

FROM: The Archives 2008

A re-post (with minor improvements) of an “incident” overview in the days imnediately following, that tracked some of the stories and conversations from August 8, for about a week. Right before SF MoMA responded, I watched my stats closely and reassured others that some sort of statement from the Instutution was forthcoming. SF MoMA response was the 13th, and things pretty much settled down by the 15th. Added a few FriendFeed embeds, and tried to maximize readability. The CSS colors match the photos by complete coincidence.

UPDATE: See end for SF MOMA Response and others’ reactions

 

Mr. Hawk recounted the events of Friday, August 8, 2008 on his blog

 

Recently I blogged about my excitement regarding the San Francisco MOMA’s decision to begin allowing photography in their permanent collection after years of maintaining a closed no photography policy. Directly because of this change in policy, I decided to purchase a family membership in order to support the museum, both with my artistic energy and financially. I was excited to begin spending regular time exploring and documenting the museum….


After purchasing my family membership and visiting the museum today I was forcibly thrown out of the museum by two museum security guards at the direction of the Director of Visitor Relations Simon Blint…

FriendFeed had three very impassioned conversations:

1. Thomas Hawk’s FriendFeed discussion

Simon Blint, Director of Visitor Relations at the SF MOMA, Yeah You [expletive elided] Photography is Not a Crime

 

2. Jeremiah Owyang’s FriendFeed discussion

Thomas Hawk’s skewering of Simon Blint: Thomas is a community leader (and photo site CEO) he needs to wield his power with responsibility. Tagging Simon Blint and “*sshole” has damaged his online reputation for years on end, and will likely impact job screenings.

3. Cyndy’s FriendFeed discussion

When FriendFeed Creates a Mob

SFist covered the incident (thanks, Brock!)

…Hawk talked to Blint who (allegedly) told him “he did not care” and that he needed to “protect” his employees — employees that might appear in my photographs.” Hawk goes on to say, “I was not shooting with a tripod. I was not shooting with a flash.”

Was Blint, in fact, being an *sshole? Was Hawk putting up a pissy fight, which led to his ejection? We don’t know yet. But we think banning of any type of photography is inane, especially if you work in the arts.

But what say you? Should photographers be subject to this kind of harassment? Or does Blint deserve a serious tongue lashing?

BoingBoing didn’t miss the story

Robbo sez, “Thomas Hawk was forcibly removed from the San Francisco MOMA by two security guards at the direction of the over-zealous Simon Blint, Director of Visitor Relations. How ironic is that? Why? Taking photos in the atrium. SF MOMA policy on this? Their own web site specifically allows photography in the atrium. Hawk had also previously confirmed this personally with Thea Stein in the Marketing and Communications Department of the museum…

Consumerist covered it as well

Despite What Their Website Says, Taking Pictures In San Francisco’s Museum Of Modern Art Is Cause For Ejection

The Guardian covered it

Oh dear — it crossed the pond. Unexpected, to say the least.

The power of the Hawk is a problem for SF-MoMA
Throwing the esteemed Thomas Hawk out on his ear is not the way to win friends and influence people 

It was the top story on Digg.com on Saturday

Mona made me break my Digg prohibition, in place since back in the days before Mr Baby Man was banned, in the “de-css” era I think. Digg started some 6-7 A.G. I think. A.G. is [after Google] and B.F. is [before Facebook] of course.

Takeaways 

  • SF MoMA is apparently clarifying its policies, not re-banning photography
  • Blog & “web2.0” commentators are opinionated
  • Blog commenters are lazy
  • You can’t win: online activism is ineffectual, or a mob
  • Character assassins often don’t disclose personal motivations (profit motives)
  • Allegations of pseudonyms being a cowardly shield, easily falsifiable here
  • Allegations of perversity, child abuse and privacy violations still pervade
  • Even the least noisy conversations have a very wide difference of opinion
  • Tendency is subjectivity, not objectivity; big picture reduced to a thousand tiny icons
  • Definitions of public v. private space, rights and violations, still an issue
  • If Photography is a privacy violation, why is there wide acceptance of surveillance cameras?

 

But wait, that’s not all! Flickr had a dscussion underneath the above photo and this one too. Bert P. Krages II, Attorney at Law, on legal issues around photography: The Photographer’s Right

Disclaimer and some SFist comments of mine:

Disclaimer:
I’ve concluded that I was confused as to whether “galleries” includes the permanent collection, or refers to the “special exhibits.” My initial impression was that the change in policy would allow for photography of the stuff that’s owned outright by the SF MoMA. Apologies for any confusion, and perhaps this would be a point of clarification, i.e. if photography of any “exhibited” piece is disallowed, say so. Perhaps discuss stairs, hallways, elevated walkways, etc., as these are not “galleries,” may not be part of the “atrium” and yet provide unique vantage points from which to take photos (of the architecture.)

“Director of visitor relations” is a poor match for his behavior. He should apologize, resign, or try to otherwise repair the situation. Since it’s a PR-related job, he seems uniquely unfit and uneducated about the causes and effects of negative PR. He’ll probably have a “rich learning experience” though.

dianachen and ScribeGuy, I’m glad you signed up to SFist just to comment about the incident. It’s too bad Blint or other SF MoMA person hasn’t spoken up. So, thanks for giving your opinions. Someone else who has worked with Blint did not have kind things to say. I find the less agreeable sites engage in character assassination on both sides. Perhaps you aren’t finding the best conversations.

RobinSF, you are a piece of work. Photography w/o flash is allowed in the permanent collection, atrium is OK always, if you use a flash in the atrium it must be a hand held point-and-shoot. While the policy is imprecise and ambiguous, you manage to completely miss the intent. Can YOU read? Do YOU know flash photography can damage the pieces? Do you seriously think they are mandating the use of a flash in the atrium? Does the point-and-shoot restriction refer to the Atrium, or the use of flash? Go ahead, rant some more, it’s entertaining.

UPDATE: Mr. Hawk added another post and photo with additional commentary on this matter…

More on the Whole Simon Blint Fiasco
Mr. Hawk’s second FriendFeed discussion is here.

 

UPDATE: Steve Hodson of WinExtra chimes in… 

No Offence Thomas Hawk But You’re Coming Late To The Party
Steve’s FriendFeed discussion is here.

Me: “Indeed, I missed your July post. However, “late to the party” I feel is inaccurate. Thomas Hawk wrote in the first person, and that of course is the best way to justify attention-grabbing rhetoric. In the end, many things conspired to make this story “pop.” Don’t feel bad, Steve! P.S. I like your moxie!”

 

UPDATE: Duncan Riley says…

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Duncan’s FriendFeed discussion is here.

UPDATE: Carlos Miller, a Miami photographer, has a personal interest in this topic.

Hawk, in fact, was one of the bloggers who not only wrote about my arrest last year, but also contacted the Miami Police Department seeking more information, including obtaining and posting the arrest report which was filled with contradictions.

UPDATE: Simon Reed defends Simon Blint (peppered with ad hominem attacks on Mr. Hawk)

Imagine going in to work one day, putting in your time, and coming home to find yourself the target of a massive internet slime campaign. This is the current situation faced by Simon Blint, head of visitor services at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art.

UPDATE: Hutch Carpenter expands on Cyndy’s “mob mentality” theme

Applying Circuit Breakers to a Social Media Mob Mentality
Cyndy Aleo-Carreira has a good post out today, When FriendFeed Creates a Mob

UPDATE: Mona N. couldn’t stand the suspense and actually picked up a phone.

Meanwhile, in other Non-Gmail Related News.. I Called SF MOMA
Mona’s FriendFeed discussion is here.

 

UPDATE: SF MoMA Responds:

SF MOMA Responds to August 8 Incident

UPDATE: Justin Korn reported on the SF MoMA response

As Justin said, there’s a lively FriendFeed discussion on the response here. 

 

UPDATE: Duncan Riley of the Inquisitr has more to say: State of Fear

…I don’t want to dwell on the points of the case, but the whole thing raises something far more concerning for society as a whole: that today we live in a state of fear. A fear that a person taking pictures is a pervert, a pedophile or even a terrorist…

UPDATE:  Candace Holly also has this:  4 Ways to Better Handle the Public

…there are ways to handle a situation like that without making a public spectacle of it. Whether they were in the wrong or not doesn’t matter at this point. Four key things were not handled well at all…

404

UPDATE: Destiny from 10 Zen Monkeys:  Thomas Hawk Versus Rent-a-cops

Related FriendFeed discussion is here.
…Is there a new controversy over photography itself — and the blogger at the center of the issue? And has Friday’s incident snowballed into a larger debate about technology, privacy, and the conduct of security guards?…

RELATED: Illegal Proposition: Abuse and Damage the Source (Letter to Lessig)

RELATED: Unbridgeable Chasm: Lane Hartwell & The Richter Scales

<iframe src=”http://friendfeed.com/stevenhodson/0bff3cb1/no-offence-thomas-hawk-but-youre-coming-late-to?embed=1” frameborder=”0” height=”600” width=”400” style=”border:1px solid #aaa”></iframe>
in , | tagged , , , , , , ,
by Authorrichardwalker | | | | Comments Off
Wednesday
07Oct2009

Undead Music: Zenph Studios (Performance Re-creation) (2008)

Date20091007 at 10:53

From the Archives: November 2008



In his TED presentation, you will see John Q. Walker demonstrate his “performance re-creation” technology to an uncritical, naïve audience.

“Imagine hearing great, departed pianists play again today, just as they would in person. At the 2007 EG conference, John Q. Walker shows how recordings from the likes of Glenn Gould and Art Tatum can be analyzed for precise keystrokes and pedal motions, then played back on computer-controlled grand pianos.”

Imagine… Undead Music.

This is not about the music or the musicians. It is about a fetish for dead, perfect things reproduced with ultimate fidelity for your greedy, selfish pleasure.  Making music is a thing of the past, and your music needs are fulfilled by corporations who pander to this fetish for profit. You faithfully purchase the regurgitated masterworks, and listen to them on your hi-fidelity entertainment system.

Meanwhile, Glenn Gould and Art Tatum haven’t given their permission for this use. That is to say, owning the rights means one doesn’t need,  their permission. You pay a premium to the rights holders and they can continue to hold the monopoly forever. Pay close attention to what John Q Walker says during the TED talk. Not many people are going to fork over $50,000 to buy a Yamaha Disklavier to listen to piano music.

Copyright is forever. Public Domain be damned. Lock the vaults, add minor value to the works, and presto you have another monopoly for another century. This is from the Zenph Studios site, where they address “Labels and Studios” (emphasis mine):

The Diversity of Copyright Laws

The USA has strong copyright laws; sound recordings essentially don’t go into the public domain until well into the 21st century. But, in the European Union (EU), for example, recordings go into the public domain 50 years after their first release. Small recording companies in the EU already re-issue CDs of historical mono recordings in volume. That’s been a small concern to the labels, but in 2006 the situation gets troubling. 1956 was the start of early stereo, which is how we still listen nowadays. Starting in 2006, the “good stuff” from 1956 forward starts going into the public domain. Year by year, labels will lose European rights to the most prized, profitable recordings in their archives. With global retailing, CDs made in the EU are readily available anywhere.

The way around this is to create new, highly-desirable music recordings, which establish a new copyright. A modern re-recording can be a premium product, protected with the latest Digital Rights Management (DRM). For a modern re-recording to be acceptable to discerning jazz, classical, and pop listeners, it must be faithful, note-perfect, and identical to the original performance. That’s our business.


Where to begin? The fact that copyright isn’t forever is troubling to these people. These people are not musicians as much as they are businessmen, audio and software engineers and technologists.

“Faithful, note-perfect and identical” doesn’t describe most live performances. Perhaps he is referring to re-recording of studio performances.  Either way, he’s uniquely positioned to make sure that the “public domain” of mid-century works never happens, those who resist are turned into “pirates.”
 
Musicians not needed. Live performance not needed. Perfection is the standard, and very few humans make the grade. iPod. iGod. Don’t you feel special “owning” all this music? Yes, it’s yours! At least until the device breaks, the DRM expires, or the format is no longer supported. Then you can look forward to the next trendy offerings from the corporations. Perhaps smell-o-vision and 3d moving imagery to accompany the music.

in | tagged , , , ,
by Authorrichardwalker | | | | Comments Off
Saturday
19Sep2009

Unbridgeable Chasm: Lane Hartwell & The Richter Scales (2007 - 2009)

Date20090919 at 01:47

RELATED: 

SEE ALSO:

UPDATE: January, 2010 — Version 1.1

Created in late 2007 by removing the Hartwell photo, this is the only remedy to Hartwell’s takedown request. Via “Here Comes Another Bubble” Credits (Versions 1.0 and 1.1)

Kara Swisher (shown only in Version 1.1)
Photo found on Kara Swisher’s All Things Digital bio, photo by Adam Tow

Owen Thomas (shown only in Version 1.0)
Photographer: Lane Hartwell, photo appears in Wired News

 

UPDATE: February, 2009 — Hartwell: “no expert”

For want of a nail the post was lost
For want of a post the horse was lost
For want of a horse the rider was lost
For want of a rider the battle was lost
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost
All for the want of a freakin’ photo of Owen Thomas


UPDATE: December, 2008

This post was written in December of 2007, but one year later, the video is still missing from YouTube; copyright and “fair use” of images remains an issue in spite of Lessig’s efforts, and those of Creative Commons.

I found a copy of the video at the center of this controversy. Judge for yourself! (Original music video using a Billy Joel song and various internet images)

Video (2:45): Here Comes Another Bubble - The Richter Scales  (via “antifreeze”)

“Owen Thomas” Google search

  • Let’s assume: high-resolution digital media should be licensed, “paid for” and not pirated.
  • For lo-fi photos, lo-fi audio, etc. we could make use and re-use “free”, “low flat fee” or “attribution only”.

    •  

    This finesses a problem that businesses and artists have had before; many things don’t get enough money or attention because they are too heavily guarded.  

    There have been successes making things free or very cheap, letting crowds and time do their magic. Then later you make money in sheer volume, in the tell-all book, the director’s cut, the audio re-master, or the glossy magazine cover.

    Ms. Hartwell should not have needed to yank all her photos; perhaps she could have replaced them with lo-fi versions, her name inside the image frame, and never made public her hi-res collections.

    Most people should still use lo-res public galleries so people know where to go if they do want the “good stuff”. Unless, of course, you have all the fancy rich clients you need, and don’t care whether new people discover you.
     

    The music industry has missed this exact opportunity as well  (thanks to Alex Lindsay of PixelCorps.tv for providing a crucial piece long ago)

    • Very-lo-fi DRM-free audio tracks everywhere
    • Two levels of paid-for service: normal (limited hi-fi), or premium all-you-can-eat
    • Playlists then make sense, because playlists should always “just work”, and be portable
    • Missing track is a thing of the past
    • Lo-fi track is what happens when you are cheap or are trying before buying.
    1. General Solution: Make lo-fi versions of most every photo and audio track available, for free or very low cost, and make it easy for “creatives” to pay to license hi-res media, be it one photo, ten seconds of music, etc. 
    2. Benefit: things don’t have to be “taken down”, just replaced with lo-fi versions where people haven’t paid creators or gotten permission.

    This could enable a whole bunch of non-commercial activity, and should the Richter Scales start becoming commercial, they’d license the work or get permission, maybe share royalty. If they used the photo out of laziness, and don’t care about the fidelity, I think the argument leans toward their side. Maybe there weren’t other recent photos of the “new media d***-bag” (Owen Thomas).

    One shouldn’t  find the hi-res media by searching.  One shouldn’t find lo-res either if one is going to be sued or taken down after the fact. Perhaps this is Wired’s fault? The implication is that Ms. Hartwell’s snapshot is worth more than the final music video, which I refute. How can we let a lot of hard work and talent go down the (you) tubes because the rules favor accusers, corporations and lawyers and provide no clarity, no recourse, no compromise, no simple legal guidelines for simple artistic goals.

    (I should mention here that Ms. Hartwell was very aware of the large number of views they were getting. She may feel robbed, but others may feel extorted)


    I think what angers some is that briefly showing a likeness, photo and subject not unusual or artistic, requires a pre-negotiated license. I do not think it reasonable to make a career of selling licenses to use ordinary (in this case) pictures of people that you* have access to and others don’t.

    That would put you* half-way toward becoming a paparazzo, wouldn’t it? A paparazzo who doesn’t have to compete and has the cooperation of the “celebrities.” These are big celebrities only in their small insular world.

    We aren’t talking Princess Di and Dodi, fer cryin’ out loud!

    you* is a “hypothetical” you.

     

    <iframe src=”http://friendfeed.com/thomashawk/6b78df0f/more-on-whole-simon-blint-fiasco?embed=1” frameborder=”0” height=”600” width=”400” style=”border:1px solid #aaa”></iframe>
    in | tagged , , , , ,
    by Authorrichardwalker | | | | CommentPost a Comment
    Saturday
    19Sep2009

    Illegal Proposition: Abuse and Damage the Source (Letter to Lessig) (March 2008)

    Date20090919 at 01:36


    Dear Mr. L    essig, Lessig Lessig - Copy2Lessig - Copy

    Thank you for your reply a long while ago regarding my frustration over wikipedia photos! Now, let me try another tack in light of recent events. Apologies for the length.

    Could it be made legal to… expand and merge clear fair use, quotation, transformative use, allowable “under the limit” use with “damaged” use:

    • lo-fi audio (unpleasant, noisy, covered by other sound, tinny, bassy)
    • lo-fi speech (almost or partly incomprehensible)
    • lo-fi image (important detail missing, no color, no color fidelity, small part of image)
    • lo-fi text (tiny, unreadable)
    • lo-fi video (fuzzy, tiny, misshapen, jerky, lower frame rates)

     

    If the use is clearly not fair use, or not agreed to:the less “fair” the use is, the more you have to degrade the thing you are using, so it is absolutely undeniable that you are using the work because you must, but not stealing the thing.

    In Hartwell v. Richter, let’s assume there is only one photo of the subject, and no permission (but at least some sort of access.) Then, you have a painter or illustrator work from the photo, creating a new independent work. That may not always be possible, affordable, practical, scalable.

    But, let’s assume you are willing to torture the thing you want to use without permission.
    Why can I not take the photo, print it on poor paper, get it wet, step on it, leave it in the sun, then scan it at poor fidelity, so that I have an indisputably inferior derivative “copy.” Can I not use that, without permission?

    My point here is that I think it would be a huge help if we could say that there is always more abuse, more squashing, more scratches, more dust, more noise, more distance, you can apply until you reach the point where a claim of infringement is so ridiculous as to make even the most aggressive lawyers blush. It becomes “fair use” because it’s no longer aesthetically intact.

    Take the Richter video into an editor, identify the Hartwell content, apply some censorware to the video, so that you see it strobe, or reverse, visually, so you see the censor marks but also sort of see underneath. Anyway, Ms. Hartwell might welcome a reversal of the take-down, and perhaps they could try to discuss compromise. Perhaps everyone wants to see it now. Perhaps its not as good as all that.  But, a single challenge should not mean sudden death and amnesia (take down and forget.)

    Maybe people will realize satire and parody have the easy legal argument, and in fact have to be very close to the original to have that protection. 

    Disney, Warner Bros., now with many decades of paid-for mythology that we’ll be paying to see again on the screen or in the park. And, don’t use Mickey or Bugs, or they will sue you, but they will use them promiscuously and greedily.

    Perhaps social pressure will make people stop enforcing copyright when the real goal is to silence others and maintain a monopoly. A runaway success in remix culture may get clout and cash and permit creation of hi-fi derivative works.

    Or, we can do nothing and wait for the corporate singularity (I’m trademarking that right now) to occur. That’s when for obvious reasons different conglomerates merge geographically, so that entire states are serviced by one phone company multi-monopoly, one content provider, one retailer, et cetera.

    We need to prevent the “owners name their own prices, at the last possible moment” bargaining, and try to force a uniform sane fee for a tortured derivative work, so you can retreat enough to be safe, then go forward. Each case should not be another fight to the finish over claims of infringement that call for death and amnesia. (and never offer reasonable licensing terms)

    Their properties are not hated, people hate the way they are used like a bludgeon… And if they could just relinquish some control and see what develops.

    Am I living in a fantasy to think this could be possible?

    The kind Mr. Lessig responded:

    From a practical perspective, it is a great solution. From a legal perspective, it is weaker, since copyright protects a “work” and not any particular copy of it. In some contexts, I agree this would be a great solution.  

    in | tagged , , ,
    by Authorrichardwalker | | | | CommentPost a Comment
    Tuesday
    08Sep2009

    Remix Culture - a cultural appropriation by Richard Walker (2004-2008)

    Date20090908 at 23:51
    Remix Culture
    a cultural appropriation by Richard Walker

    Update: May 2008

    From the Lessig Blog:

    TotalRecut has launched a remix contest: “What is Remix Culture?” I’m a judge (as close as I’ll ever get to that title, but now twice — just finished judging the Obama in :30 contest). Cool prizes. Great question. Get busy.

    Update: Feb 2008

    • Lawrence Lessig has retired from his role as Free Culture advocate, and will be focusing on how money corrupts politics. A moment of silence, please!
    • Steal This Film II is a very good shareware film that explain some Intellectual Property issues and history, without requiring you be a lawyer.
    • Jenny Toomey has left the Future of Music Coalition.
    • Nine Inch Nails released the source material to a work in the form of Garage Band Tracks. This was done specifically to allow remixing of the work.
    • Nine Inch Nails in collaboration with Saul Williams offered a release with alternative payment options
    • Radiohead stirred up a big controversy by releasing their last album In Rainbows with alternative payment options, including “zero money” pricing.

    Cory Doctorow 

    EFF graduate, Sci Fi writer, copyfighter, technologist, Canadian, CC-er  

    US Rep Mike Doyle Defends Mixtapes and Mashups on Floor of Congress


    The Ecstasy of Influence

    radio program “Open Source”, Christopher Lydon, PRI) Feb 2007

    The “Ecstasy of Influence” with novelist Jonathan Lethem, who asks: without borrowing, stealing, cribbing, remixing, mashing-up, collaging and compiling — without influences great and small, in other words — is “creating” even possible?


        Open Source » Blog Archive » The Ecstasy of Influence

        Click to Listen to the Show (24 MB MP3)

    Click to listen to my “Back to School Edit” of the show (includes illustrative audio under Hosler interview) (15:45)

    Open Source - Mark Hosler of Negativland - Back to school edit v2 
    Mark Hosler - Founding member, Negativland

    Congressman Rick Boucher: Congress Must Balance its Copyright Agenda

    An episode of Center for Internet and Society published on February 2, 2007

    The Stanford Law & Policy Review and Stanford Law School welcomed Congressman Rick Boucher (D., Va.) to deliver a speech entitled “Congress Must Balance its Copyright Agenda”.

    Listen in for many painful details on the RIAA, the MPAA, the DMCA, and the difficult job the Congressman has fighting the likes of Jack Valenti and the Disney Corp., on your behalf!

    Code Monkey Remix Contest

    Jonathan Coulton’s charming “Code Monkey” is a song about a programmer.  At the end of 2006, Jonathan and Quick Stop Entertainment held the “Code Monkey Remix Contest” [which provides links to tools to help get you started at remixing]

    Here are the winners; I particularly like what Kristen Shirts did with it.

    There many code monkey videos and video remixes on YouTube. Click here to search.

    Thanks to Amber MacArthur and Leo Laporte for covering this on their podcast Net@Nite, ep14

    Future of Music Coalition 

    I’ve been a supporter and fan of Jenny Toomey’s efforts for years now.  She and her cohorts are working hard to make a better future for artists. 

    Lawrence Lessig (his blog)

    the preeminent law professor, artist advocate, author, and evangelist, who bravely battles the emerging, crippling collision of culture, technology, law, property and capitalism in the 21st Century.

    You may have heard of  Creative Commons  or the  Electronic Frontier Foundation,  two critical efforts he champions, both conceived “for the good of the people.”

    He welcomes artistic appropriation of his book “Free Culture,” just click the link below…

    “The Creative Remix”  (October 2004) an hour-long broadcast special from

    Benjamen Walker’s Theory Of Everything an excellent apparently defunct radio program now found at WFMU.

    Here are Track one and Track two

    A very enjoyable, lawyer-free, in-depth examination into the nature of creativity and “originality” from antiquity to the present day.  Grey Album.  Ancient pornographic literary theft.  East Coast relics are given new life during an installation.  Curmudgeonly antiques dealers are contrasted with young art school graduates.  “What is this?” “Less than five hundred bucks” the trafficker in dead things mutters.



    Media enclosure: Open Source - Mark Hosler of Negativland - Back to school edit v2

    Open Source - Mark Hosler of Negativland - Back to school edit v2

    in , | tagged , , , ,
    by Authorrichardwalker | | | | CommentPost a Comment
    Page 1 2 Next 5 Entries »