OT? Facebook "Wall" Pix Downloadable?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by (PeteCresswell), Apr 10, 2012.

  1. (PeteCresswell)

    tony cooper Guest

    On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 22:05:15 +0200, Mxsmanic <>
    wrote:

    >Savageduck writes:
    >
    >> However, It seems that the Facebook account holder, who placed these
    >> images out in public has technically waived his copyright.

    >
    >No, there is no waiver of copyright in uploading images to Facebook. The fact
    >that an image can be viewed, copied, or downloaded in a technical sense does
    >not eliminate the copyright protection that applies to it. In other words,
    >even if you can download a photo, that doesn't mean that you are legally
    >allowed to do so.


    There is nothing illegal about downloading a copyrighted image. It's
    what you *do* with that image that invokes copyright considerations.

    If I download an image of yours, and keep it to myself, I've broken no
    law.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Apr 12, 2012
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. (PeteCresswell)

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 01:59:13 +0200, Mxsmanic <>
    wrote:

    >tony cooper writes:
    >
    >> There is nothing illegal about downloading a copyrighted image.

    >
    >That depends on your jurisdiction.\


    What? How does "jurisdiction" come into play?
    >
    >> If I download an image of yours, and keep it to myself, I've broken no
    >> law.

    >
    >See above.


    I have no idea what you're talking about. If you think it is illegal
    to download someone else's copyrighted image, cite the law that makes
    it illegal. All you're doing when you download a copyrighted image is
    taking possession of it. You do the same thing when you buy a
    magazine, a newspaper, or a product with an image on the label.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Apr 13, 2012
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:

    > On 2012-04-11 06:23:44 -0700, Bruce <> said:
    >
    >> "(PeteCresswell)" <> wrote:
    >>> Per Bruce:
    >>>> Perhaps you should send a message to the person and ask them to send
    >>>> you a copy of the original image, then accept their decision? You
    >>>> have absolutely no right to use other people's copyright images
    >>>> without their specific permission in any case, even if they are
    >>>> foolish enough to allow people to copy them from Facebook.
    >>>
    >>> He sent me the link in response to my request. FWIW, the pics
    >>> are of Yours Truly sailing his outrigger canoe and I wanted my
    >>> own copies.

    >>
    >>
    >> They are his images, not yours. His copyright, not yours. You are
    >> not legally entitled to any images made of you in a public space.

    >
    > However, It seems that the Facebook account holder, who placed these
    > images out in public has technically waived his copyright. Maybe
    > intentionally, maybe not.


    I don't think so. I think he's granted a view-only license.

    > I don't have a Facebook account, so from their point of view I am a
    > complete outsider, yet the page has been made available to
    > all. Obviously the account holder has set his privacy options to allow
    > this public access. Regarding the images, he has not made them "view
    > only" or protected them in any way. He has in fact given the public
    > and option to download his images, thereby implying fair use of the
    > images.


    Although I'm not a lawyer, I really strongly recommend you do not take
    actions that would require you to defend this position in court.

    (Grabbing a copy for your own private viewing probably is not such an
    action.)

    > Now this certainly might not have been his intent. He might well have
    > thought that his images were in some way protected and that he had not
    > waived any of his rights.
    > ...but he might well have just intended to share the images on his
    > "Wall Photos" page with anybody who cared to look.


    Those are not incompatible; we don't have to guess which he intended.

    > Privacy settings and waiving of rights has been a major Facebook issue
    > from the beginning. Just another of the reasons I have never had a
    > Facebook account. I want my options made very clear, and I don't care
    > to automatically waive any rights I might have, just by opening an
    > account.


    If you want to share your photos with people, you have to give the
    people permission to view them, and the site that hosts them permission
    to display them. If you *don't* want to share your photos with people,
    then yeah, uploading them to a sharing site is not the right thing for
    you.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Apr 13, 2012
    #23
  4. Mxsmanic <> writes:

    > tony cooper writes:
    >
    >> There is nothing illegal about downloading a copyrighted image.

    >
    > That depends on your jurisdiction.


    Are you making a distinction between "downloading" and "viewing on the
    web"? If so, on what basis? Both require transmitting the bits of the
    image from the hosting server to your computer, and with most browsers
    in fact result in those bits being stored on your hard drive.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Apr 13, 2012
    #24
  5. (PeteCresswell)

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> wrote:

    > > What? How does "jurisdiction" come into play?

    >
    > In some jurisdictions, it's legal to download a copyrighted image for your own
    > use. In others it's not.


    which ones? name them.

    any such jurisdiction would need to block the use of web browsers
    because in order for a browser to work, it must download copyrighted
    images.

    > > You do the same thing when you buy a magazine, a newspaper, or a product
    > > with an image on the label.

    >
    > No. In that case, the copy is already made and licensed.


    the photos were posted on a publicly accessible web site for anyone to
    access.

    that's basically saying 'come and get it.'
     
    nospam, Apr 13, 2012
    #25
  6. In article <>,
    Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    >tony cooper writes:
    >
    >> What? How does "jurisdiction" come into play?

    >
    >In some jurisdictions, it's legal to download a copyrighted image for your own
    >use. In others it's not.
    >
    >> I have no idea what you're talking about.

    >
    >I agree.
    >
    >> If you think it is illegal
    >> to download someone else's copyrighted image, cite the law that makes
    >> it illegal.

    >
    >The law varies by jurisdiction.
    >
    >> All you're doing when you download a copyrighted image is
    >> taking possession of it.

    >
    >Making a copy of it, in other words ... which is one of the fundamental
    >actions that copyright law controls.
    >
    >> You do the same thing when you buy a magazine, a newspaper, or a product
    >> with an image on the label.

    >
    >No. In that case, the copy is already made and licensed.


    If you can see it on your screen, you already downloaded it.

    You may not know where you downloaded it to, but it's there on your
    hard drive.
    --
    ------
    columbiaclosings.com
    What's not in Columbia anymore..
     
    (Ted Nolan, Apr 13, 2012
    #26
  7. Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:

    > On 2012-04-13 08:22:55 -0700, David Dyer-Bennet <> said:
    >
    >> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
    >>
    >>> On 2012-04-11 06:23:44 -0700, Bruce <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> "(PeteCresswell)" <> wrote:
    >>>>> Per Bruce:
    >>>>>> Perhaps you should send a message to the person and ask them to send
    >>>>>> you a copy of the original image, then accept their decision? You
    >>>>>> have absolutely no right to use other people's copyright images
    >>>>>> without their specific permission in any case, even if they are
    >>>>>> foolish enough to allow people to copy them from Facebook.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> He sent me the link in response to my request. FWIW, the pics
    >>>>> are of Yours Truly sailing his outrigger canoe and I wanted my
    >>>>> own copies.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> They are his images, not yours. His copyright, not yours. You are
    >>>> not legally entitled to any images made of you in a public space.
    >>>
    >>> However, It seems that the Facebook account holder, who placed these
    >>> images out in public has technically waived his copyright. Maybe
    >>> intentionally, maybe not.

    >>
    >> I don't think so. I think he's granted a view-only license.

    >
    > Then why provide the ability to download.


    Because it's not possible to prevent it. To display on my computer
    monitor, the image *must* be copied to my computer; no way around it.

    >>> I don't have a Facebook account, so from their point of view I am a
    >>> complete outsider, yet the page has been made available to
    >>> all. Obviously the account holder has set his privacy options to allow
    >>> this public access. Regarding the images, he has not made them "view
    >>> only" or protected them in any way. He has in fact given the public
    >>> and option to download his images, thereby implying fair use of the
    >>> images.

    >>
    >> Although I'm not a lawyer, I really strongly recommend you do not take
    >> actions that would require you to defend this position in court.

    >
    > I am sure that the photographer/FB account holder has the ability
    > within FB to deny downloads and to make a statement restricting use of
    > his images, if he cared to. In this case it seems he doesnt care to do
    > that.


    Facebook...no, there's no special way to try to forbid downloads. I can
    control who can *see* photos I post, but that's about all. I can of
    course post any sort of statement I want associated with an image (or
    album).

    > ...and I agree, that by not taking any action to deter the download of
    > his images, or make a statement of conditions of use, he would be hard
    > pressed to defend against use he had not authorized. Particularly when
    > he had facilitated easy download.


    Any publication is subject to the usual laws, at least.

    >> (Grabbing a copy for your own private viewing probably is not such an
    >> action.)

    >
    > That is a different issue, and is a fair use of shared images.


    I don't actually know if that's been settled in court, but it seems like
    it to me.

    >>> Now this certainly might not have been his intent. He might well have
    >>> thought that his images were in some way protected and that he had not
    >>> waived any of his rights.
    >>> ...but he might well have just intended to share the images on his
    >>> "Wall Photos" page with anybody who cared to look.

    >>
    >> Those are not incompatible; we don't have to guess which he intended.

    >
    > The assumption any casual browser who comes upon his "Wall Photo" page
    > is his intent was to share freely.


    Maybe 'share freely' means something differen to you than it does to me,
    or something. Obviously if I post something publicly I intend people to
    view it. I do *not* intend people to republish it themselves without my
    permission.

    >>> Privacy settings and waiving of rights has been a major Facebook issue
    >>> from the beginning. Just another of the reasons I have never had a
    >>> Facebook account. I want my options made very clear, and I don't care
    >>> to automatically waive any rights I might have, just by opening an
    >>> account.

    >>
    >> If you want to share your photos with people, you have to give the
    >> people permission to view them, and the site that hosts them permission
    >> to display them. If you *don't* want to share your photos with people,
    >> then yeah, uploading them to a sharing site is not the right thing for
    >> you.

    >
    > So we agree.
    > Regarding viewing the images, that permission has been given by the
    > act of public posting via the particular host.
    > I believe that enabling downloads from within the site the permission
    > to download is implied.


    You keep saying "enabling downloads". There is no way to block
    downloads. For the third time, to display an image on my monitor, that
    image MUST BE copied to my computer.

    > There are certainly other solutions which will permit a photographer
    > the ability to post his work and provide a degree of protection.
    >
    > In G+ some 3-4 months back, Trey Ratcliff discussed at length his
    > philosophy regarding posting and resharing his work and maintaining
    > attributions as part of the "Creative Commons, Noncommercial".
    >
    > Regarding usage his statement is clear and understandable, all his
    > images are "Creative Commons, Noncommercial".
    > http://www.stuckincustoms.com/licensing/


    I think the CC lincenses are a great idea. Spending the money get good
    lawyers to prepare a range of licenses and then encouraging their wide
    use has made it much easier for people to accomplish various things they
    want.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Apr 13, 2012
    #27
  8. (PeteCresswell)

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> wrote:

    > > any such jurisdiction would need to block the use of web browsers
    > > because in order for a browser to work, it must download copyrighted
    > > images.

    >
    > In jurisdictions where it matters,


    which ones are those?

    > a distinction is often made between
    > download for the purpose of immediate display and download for archiving of
    > the image.


    cite?

    > > the photos were posted on a publicly accessible web site for anyone to
    > > access.

    >
    > That does not mean that they are licensed for download and archiving or reuse.
    > That's not how copyright works.


    the copyright holder still retains copyright, however, posting it in
    public gives permission to copy it.
     
    nospam, Apr 13, 2012
    #28
  9. (PeteCresswell)

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> wrote:

    > This is why YouTube allows you to watch videos on its site, but does not allow
    > you to download them for watching later. Two different situations from the
    > standpoint of copyright law.


    yet there are hundreds of apps whose sole purpose is to download
    youtube videos and even convert them to standard formats and nobody is
    prohibiting them.
     
    nospam, Apr 13, 2012
    #29
  10. (PeteCresswell)

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:22:17 +0200, Mxsmanic <>
    wrote:

    >tony cooper writes:
    >
    >> What? How does "jurisdiction" come into play?

    >
    >In some jurisdictions, it's legal to download a copyrighted image for your own
    >use. In others it's not.


    Where is it not legal?

    >> I have no idea what you're talking about.

    >
    >I agree.
    >
    >> If you think it is illegal
    >> to download someone else's copyrighted image, cite the law that makes
    >> it illegal.

    >
    >The law varies by jurisdiction.


    Where is it not legal to download a copyrighted image?

    You can't get away with a hand-wave about it being jurisdictional if
    you can't provide information about in what jurisdiction it is illegal
    to download an image.

    >> All you're doing when you download a copyrighted image is
    >> taking possession of it.

    >
    >Making a copy of it, in other words ... which is one of the fundamental
    >actions that copyright law controls.


    It is what you *do* with the copy that is covered, not that you make
    the copy.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Apr 13, 2012
    #30
  11. (PeteCresswell)

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 20:40:50 +0200, Mxsmanic <>
    wrote:

    >nospam writes:
    >
    >> any such jurisdiction would need to block the use of web browsers
    >> because in order for a browser to work, it must download copyrighted
    >> images.

    >
    >In jurisdictions where it matters, a distinction is often made between
    >download for the purpose of immediate display and download for archiving of
    >the image.
    >
    >> the photos were posted on a publicly accessible web site for anyone to
    >> access.

    >
    >That does not mean that they are licensed for download and archiving or reuse.
    >That's not how copyright works.


    "Reuse" is what you *do* with the image that could be illegal.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Apr 13, 2012
    #31
  12. Per Mxsmanic:
    >But you have not necessarily archived it for later use. In copyright law,
    >there's a distinction between looking at a copyrighted work and making a copy
    >of it for later use.
    >
    >Your browser can download images for immediate display (there is no other
    >option). But that does not mean that you can make a copy of the image for
    >later use. The latter action may be an infringement of copyright.


    Any idea where automatic caching comes in?

    Sounds like maybe intent is a critical factor given that a
    browser, with no special setup by the user, may save images to
    disc where they remain until explicitly deleted.

    On my PC, for instance, I just browsed a folder called
    C:\Documents and Settings\Kolon\Local Settings\Temporary Internet
    Files which contains many .JPG images and I'm guessing that many
    if not most of them are coprighted.
    --
    Pete Cresswell
     
    (PeteCresswell), Apr 13, 2012
    #32
  13. Mxsmanic <> writes:

    > David Dyer-Bennet writes:
    >
    >> Facebook...no, there's no special way to try to forbid downloads. I can
    >> control who can *see* photos I post, but that's about all. I can of
    >> course post any sort of statement I want associated with an image (or
    >> album).

    >
    > There is no way to block downloads for photos that are otherwise available for
    > viewing. When you upload a photo to Facebook, you grant Facebook an extremely
    > generous license to reuse and distribute the photo, including the right to
    > make it available for download to anyone. The license terminates if you remove
    > the photo or leave Facebook, unless it has been shared. See the terms of
    > service for details.


    I've read it, repeatedly as it changed (not necessarily every single
    time; they change it so much I probably haven't kept up with that).
    Basically, that license gives them no more than what's necessary to do
    what I desire and expect them to do when I upload a photo. It just
    sounds kind of impressive when listed all in one place like that.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Apr 13, 2012
    #33
  14. Mxsmanic <> writes:

    > Ted Nolan <tednolan> writes:
    >
    >> If you can see it on your screen, you already downloaded it.

    >
    > But you have not necessarily archived it for later use. In copyright law,
    > there's a distinction between looking at a copyrighted work and making a copy
    > of it for later use.


    Not that I can find; there's no reference to "looking at" in any statute
    I've found. It's all about *copying*.

    > Your browser can download images for immediate display (there is no other
    > option). But that does not mean that you can make a copy of the image for
    > later use. The latter action may be an infringement of copyright.


    The use can entirely possibly be a violation, of course.

    > This is why YouTube allows you to watch videos on its site, but does not allow
    > you to download them for watching later. Two different situations from the
    > standpoint of copyright law.


    No, they're just trying to be controlling (not that it works).
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Apr 13, 2012
    #34
  15. Mxsmanic <> writes:

    > David Dyer-Bennet writes:
    >
    >> I don't think so. I think he's granted a view-only license.

    >
    > Yes. Although he has to be the copyright owner to do that, and many Facebook
    > users upload images that they didn't create and for which they don't own the
    > copyright, so technically tehy cannot even grant such a license.


    Yes, some people do illegal things on Facebook (or Flickr or wherever).

    >> Although I'm not a lawyer, I really strongly recommend you do not take
    >> actions that would require you to defend this position in court.

    >
    > He is completely wrong, and on that path lies danger.
    >
    >> (Grabbing a copy for your own private viewing probably is not such an
    >> action.)

    >
    > It depends on the jurisdiction. Even where it is illegal, it rarely leads to
    > litigation, at least for images (for software, music, video, etc., the
    > tolerance is much more limited).


    And when people share thing sspecifically on Facebook, they mostly
    intend them promotionally or for people's interest, so again they're
    likely to be perfectly happy with the things I'm actually likely to do.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Apr 13, 2012
    #35
  16. In article <>,
    Mxsmanic <> wrote:

    > nospam writes:
    >
    > > yet there are hundreds of apps whose sole purpose is to download
    > > youtube videos and even convert them to standard formats and nobody is
    > > prohibiting them.

    >
    > They are prohibited by YouTube's terms of service, and as a general rule they
    > also infringe on the copyrights of those creating and uploading videos to
    > YouTube.


    I'm not a member of FaceBook or YouTube. I've never agreed to their
    terms of service, yet I can easily download their photos and videos with
    my web browser.

    Incidentally, a photo I downloaded (by clicking FaceBook's download
    button) was not only reduced in size, but its Basic EXIF data was
    missing. I don't know if an added copyright notice would have survived.

    Fred
     
    Fred McKenzie, Apr 14, 2012
    #36
  17. On Fri, 13 Apr 2012, nospam wrote:

    > In article <>, Mxsmanic
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> This is why YouTube allows you to watch videos on its site, but does notallow
    >> you to download them for watching later. Two different situations from the
    >> standpoint of copyright law.

    >
    > yet there are hundreds of apps whose sole purpose is to download
    > youtube videos and even convert them to standard formats and nobody is
    > prohibiting them.


    There is also The Pirate Bay. The existence of an app or tool says
    nothing about the legality of using such tools.

    I can stream all the movies I want from Netflix. I am allowed, by their
    license, to receive and cache the movie data in order to watch that movie
    during a streaming session. The license expressly forbids my capturing
    that data for later viewing. Ultimately, whether or not you are allowed
    to capture data for later use is something that is going to be covered in
    the licensing agreement that you enter into by using the site. In
    Youtube's case, this is covered under 4.C of their agreement:

    "You agree not to access Content through any technology or means other
    than the video playback pages of the Service itself, the Embeddable
    Player, or other explicitly authorized means YouTube may designate."


    Ryan McGinnis                         @bigstormpicture
    Follow my storm chasing adventures at http://bigstormpicture.blogspot.com
    Images@Getty: http://bit.ly/oDW1pT        Images@AGE http://bit.ly/w4EuWB
    The BIG Storm Picture:  http://bigstormpicture.com    PGP Key: 0x65115E4C
     
    Ryan McGinnis, Apr 16, 2012
    #37
  18. On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 08:32:42 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

    > Ryan McGinnis writes:
    >
    >> The license expressly forbids my capturing that data for later viewing.

    >
    > Interesting ... because this is exactly what people do when recording TV
    > programs for later viewing, which is legal.


    License terms are not copyright, they are business. (Same applies to
    region encoding in DVDs and other, similar "limitations of use" that
    publishing businesses desire but which copyright has nothing to say.)
    Whether or not you can contract away some of the rights that you have
    traditionally had in copyright has yet to be decided in some cases, I
    think. DMCA, despite the name, is a business-model protection, rather
    than a change to how copyright works. (IANAL, YMMV, etc...)

    Cheers,

    --
    Andrew
     
    Andrew Reilly, Apr 16, 2012
    #38
  19. On Mon, 16 Apr 2012, Mxsmanic wrote:

    > Ryan McGinnis writes:
    >
    >> The license expressly forbids my capturing that data for later viewing.

    >
    > Interesting ... because this is exactly what people do when recording TV
    > programs for later viewing, which is legal.


    Indeed, but the courts may view on-demand streaming to be a different
    thing than broadcast television. I am not sure if it is tested or not,
    but I wouldn't want to be the test case if it hasn't.

    Ryan McGinnis                         @bigstormpicture
    Follow my storm chasing adventures at http://bigstormpicture.blogspot.com
    Images@Getty: http://bit.ly/oDW1pT        Images@AGE http://bit.ly/w4EuWB
    The BIG Storm Picture:  http://bigstormpicture.com    PGP Key: 0x65115E4C
     
    Ryan McGinnis, Apr 16, 2012
    #39
  20. nospam <> wrote:
    > In article <>, Mxsmanic
    > <> wrote:


    >> > What? How does "jurisdiction" come into play?

    >>
    >> In some jurisdictions, it's legal to download a copyrighted image for your own
    >> use. In others it's not.


    > which ones? name them.


    > any such jurisdiction would need to block the use of web browsers
    > because in order for a browser to work, it must download copyrighted
    > images.


    >> > You do the same thing when you buy a magazine, a newspaper, or a product
    >> > with an image on the label.


    >> No. In that case, the copy is already made and licensed.


    > the photos were posted on a publicly accessible web site for anyone to
    > access.


    > that's basically saying 'come and get it.'


    So is leaving your front door open. But it's still a crime for someone
    to walk in and steal your stuff.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Apr 21, 2012
    #40
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Cymbal Man Freq.
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    968
    Uncle John
    Jun 4, 2005
  2. Flatus Ohlfahrt

    From tomorrow's Wall Street Journal

    Flatus Ohlfahrt, Dec 30, 2004, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    530
  3. Tom Dacon
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    500
    nerd32768
    Aug 19, 2004
  4. Guest
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    529
    Guest
    Oct 28, 2003
  5. pystol

    FACEBOOK is driving me up the wall

    pystol, Dec 24, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    371
    Richard
    Dec 24, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page