March 16, 2010 by pmelcher.

Dear Copyright Advocates,

The Obama Administration is asking to hear from YOU, the creative backbone of our country, about how intellectual property infringement affects YOUR livelihood. The Administration is also seeking advice on what the government could be doing to better protect the rights of artists and creators in our country.

  HERE’S A CHANCE FOR YOU TO BE HEARD!

BACKGROUND:

Last year President Obama appointed and the U.S. Senate confirmed Victoria Espinel to be the first U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator. Her job is “to help protect the creativity of the American public” by coordinating with all the federal agencies that fight the infringement of intellectual property, which includes creating and selling counterfeit goods; pirating video games, music, and books; and infringing upon the many other creative works that are produced by artists in this country.

As you know, the unauthorized copying, sale, and distribution of artists’ intellectual property directly impacts the ability of artists and creators to control the use of their own creativity, not to mention their ability to receive income they have earned from their labor. This impacts U.S. employment and the economy, and our ability to globally compete.

As required by an Act of Congress (The PRO‐IP Act of 2008), Ms. Espinel and her White House team are preparing a Joint Strategic Plan that will include YOUR FEEDBACK on the costs and risks that intellectual property infringement has on the American public.

Here’s how to make yourself heard!

1. Send an email to Ms. Espinel and the Obama Administration: intellectualproperty@omb.eop.gov and copy the Copyright Alliance on your email: info@copyrightalliance.org

2. Begin your letter with “The Copyright Alliance has informed me of this welcome invitation from the Obama Administration to share my thoughts on my rights as a creator.”

3. Include in your email: your story, why intellectual property rights are important to you, how piracy and infringement affect you, and what the U.S. government can do to better protect the rights of creative Americans.

4. Also include in your email: your name, city, state, and what type of artist you are 5. DO NOT include any personal or private information as all comments will be posted publically

on the White House website. All comments must be submitted by Wednesday, March 24 by 5:00 p.m. EST.

Don’t be shy! Take two minutes today to make your voice heard, and don’t forget to spread the word to everyone you know. Forward this notice using this short URL ‐ http://bit.ly/cjDZJt ‐ by email, MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, and more!

Best,

Lucinda Dugger

Posted in license, copyright, technology, google, web 2.0, news, law, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

March 5, 2010 by pmelcher.

The Gamma/ Eyedea sinking ship saga continues : 4 companies/ projects have  filed to be considered for the reprisal of the almost defunct Company. French Number one photo agency, ABACA Press, Verdoso Media, Frank Ullman and a pair of ex bosses of Gamma. No Getty ( for once) , No Corbis.

The buying price ? A symbolic 100,000 to 150,00 Euros. Hachette Filipacchi Photo, ex owner of this group of photo agencies, had sold it to its current owners for 600,000 Euros. Not much of a profit here, if you also consider the money invested since, and lost. The main role of the court now is to figure out which of this project is the most viable. Their main focus is to see how many jobs can be saved. Out of the 60 + currently on staff, not more than 30 are expected to stay.

The good news ? There seem to be some interest by French companies to save the group of images and bring it, finally, into the 21st century. Most might be thinking that this move will get them the good favors of the French Government who will them jump in and  pour some welcome cash, or incentives. However, like everything in France, it is going to take a while for the decision to be made.

On a similar note, Retna UK, not to be confused with Retna USA, has sold, again. Now, it is to Photoshot, a agency eating company that seems to buy anything and everything hanging low from the tree. Wonder why they didn’t not bid for Eyedea/Gamma.

It’s Friday, don’t forget to look at images today…

Posted in celebrity, magazine, photojournalism, transaction, law, france, news | Print | No Comments »

December 13, 2009 by pmelcher.

Apparently, Getty Images has decided to go after market shares in full force. In a seemingly coordinate worldwide effort, it has launched an all front offensive against any and all its competitors, no questions asked.  They now offer new low prices in exchange for being the sole provider . If a publisher agrees to only use Getty Images, and no one other, they get new preferred low pricing.

The competition is then offered to lower their pricing also, should they want to remain considered. What they are not been told is that even if they do decide to match those pricing, they will only be used when Getty Images cannot supply an image. Which is rare these days.

It seems that Getty Image is going all out for market shares and probably hopes to compensate for the lost income by increased volume. It is quite sure that they must have spend long hours calculating the probability and have studied many many charts. Thus, that their new policy is, at least according to their numbers, a profitable one.

A lot of Getty’s competition will suffer heavily from this. Mostly smaller size agencies that already have been living on the edge of their profit margins and do not have much or any exclusive content. The others, well, have a clear choice. Either stop believing that their salvation is in cheap volume of sales  and increase their rates, or die a slow painful asphyxiating death. Trying to hold down to the diving whale by matching pricing is a suicide swim.

The publishers, going through one, if not the worst period of their existence, cannot be more happy with such an offer. Why shouldn’t they not accept it ? Cheaper cost is always a welcome opportunity and Getty certainly has enough choice for the photo editors to pick from.  Where they are mislead is in multiple ways. The disappearance of some photo agencies will make some content disappear. Forever. It has already happen and will accelerate. Once competition is decimated, Getty will have free range to raise their pricing to monopolistic heights and publisher will have no other alternatives. Finally, the remaining agencies will be forced to charge premium prices for their exclusive content in order to compensate for the lost of usage.

There are no Anti Dumping laws in the USA. That is laws that forbids a company to sell products or services lower than what it cost them to produce. The reason is hidden somewhere in the strong belief in a free economy that balances itself and only crashes because of regulations. Also, it is believed that a company applying such practices could not sustain it for very long and thus either go bankrupt or be forces to raise its prices. There are however anti monopoly laws which Getty is heavily flirting with. Controlling all aspect of an industry, from production to distribution, is still illegal ( remember Rockefeller).

Getty seems (again, nothing is sure here) to have exported this model to Latin America and maybe other continents .It is also, if not entirely, affecting editorial content. As they probably have people sign a”non disclosure”, it might be hard to find out. The best way to know however, is to see if suddenly a magazine has only or mostly just one credit.

Not to cry but it is a sad time when photography is not viewed for what it is anymore but just another box of supplies in the production process. Because of the economy, photo editors have no voice anymore, as they cannot afford to loose their jobs.

It is also sad to see some of these publications, that rely so much on photography, treat it  so poorly.

The future landscape of image provider will be very interesting to gaze upon once all is said and done . Devastated, sure. Worse ? not so sure. There has been a lot ( too many ?) of comfort riders in this business for too long and that should kick them off the back of the jumping horse.  Can Getty get away with this ? depends. Some countries my find this predatory competition and block them from doing so. It is such a disorganized industry that by the time all the fragmented competition get together, Getty will have finished signing all contracts. Plus, there will always those who think they are super smart and will try to copy Getty’s new pricing scheme, not realizing its not for them.

” Remember that your aim is to achieve the highest dollar gross contribution margin, not make the highest volume sales. You would get 100% of the market if you gave the stuff away.” - Phillipe_M from WebmasterWorld

Posted in license, celebrity, magazine, finance, transaction, law, editorial, getty | Print | 3 Comments »

December 8, 2009 by pmelcher.

The other day we wrote a post about the Plus Coalition. Besides being bombarded by emails from someone who would like to remain anonymous and seeing a post on another blog defending it , there was no reaction to it. It wasn’t a big surprise. If you add those who have never heard about it to those who do not understand what it does and how it works, there is not much people left. Sure, there are the few board members, that include some crooks, who could be more vocal about it, but hey, what’s the point ? It is not going to become the standard for licensing anytime soon.

However, one can see the underlying scheme surfacing a little more. After making an exclusive deal with Picscout for image recognition without even asking for bidding from other image matching technologies, it is now encompassing, slowly, the Creative Common. After all, even free is a license, isn’t it ? And Plus will still make money, as it will still charge a fee to access images in its Registry. The question is why would someone bother to attach a license that they are offering for free, but that is another issue.

Now, the CEO of Creative Common is joining Pic scout as a consultant. The strangling triangle is now fully closed. PLUS/Picscout/CreativeCommon. Everywhere you look, you will be forced to deal with one of the three who will certainly refer one to the other. What will professional photography licensors will gain from this ? Not much besides being forced to pay to play by parasite companies.

On the same topic, I had the great surprise to see that in the video/space, Copyright infringement and rights was moving into the right direction. Probably unknown by many people, YouTube, who has been in the forefront of copyright issues, has come up with a very interesting solution. Call Audio ID or Video ID, this service allows for copyright owners to upload their content so that the automated matching system can compare any other upload to that library. The result ? If someone attempts to upload a video, or a audio linked to a video with our proper clearance, Youtube automatically blocks it. The fee ? Free. The result ? Youtube can now safely add advertising to videos without worrying about copyright issues and Copyright owners do not need to monitor Youtube all day long.

If Plus had been a little bit smarter and less greedy, they would have done the same. Instead of forcing users to do a search on a private registry to check for licenses, their database could continually scan the internet. If someone uploads an image to a site without the appropriate license, a red flag would come up. Since the Plus system does not currently handle location of usage, this is currently impossible to do. Furthermore, it would entail that Plus would not make any money, which is also an absolute no no for them. It is too bad, because with a similar system, a user who would try to upload an image for a site without the proper license would immediately and automatically prompted to contact the copyright owner. It would finally make stealing almost impossible and licensing much much easier.

The beauty of such a system is that it would NOT require a central database. Ones image database could easily work as a registry. The image would call back “home” and check for license information.

However, Plus like other registries, coming or already in place,   is just another business and another reason to suck up pennies from copyright holders. Sure, there are cost but then, why not create a subscription model instead ?

Needless to say, there is still a long way to make images more intelligent and simplify seller and buyers’ life. In the mean time we will have to cautiously navigate the treacherous waters of scammers and potion sellers.

More on Youtbe content ID here

Posted in license, copyright, Plus, technology, Search, IPTC, transaction, finance, web 2.0, law | Print | No Comments »

November 25, 2009 by pmelcher.

It’s right around the corner. Actually, you can already hear it’s footsteps. E-magazines are coming and coming fast. From Hearst Magazines preparing its own player to the formation of biggest coalition of magazine publishers, from the upcoming Apple tablet ( maybe) to the current Kindle, publication are pro actively preparing their full digital migrations. It’s not a fad but a survival issue.

Already the New York Times and the WSJ are available on the Kindle for a subscription. They will all use images. If the web traffic is any reference, photogrpahy is one main reason for traffic. So how are you going to price them ?

Will you be happy to license your image by file size ? Good luck. The digital version of these magazine will need much smaller size than print magazine, thus allowing them to feed themselves on your lower priced content.

Will you apply the pathetic rates currently applied for online usage. From $5 to $40, that will certainly not help your bottom line, unless if you want to reach it very fast.

Will you do a subscription deal a la Getty? Unlimited use for a flat fee. Good luck here too. As digital takes much less space and has a more rapid turnaround, they will have used most of your library for a miserable flat fee in less than a year.

Finally, will you continue to let them tear away all the IPTC information that you so painstakingly added to every single one of your files

So, what is the solution ? Well, for once, unlike with the web publication, you should have a strategy, and a very clear one. You should not react to people coming to you saying” It’s new, we don’t know if its going to work, we have no budget ” and let them have your pictures for a -low fee. Why ? because as it might not currently look like it now but for editorial, those E- magazine will become your main source of income in the next coming five years. And if you let them, they will put you out of business.

So, before you accept crappy prices because you think that “any sale is better than no sales” mentality or that you get lured into this “oh, but it is great publicity” trap, think about how what you agree to now  will affect you in five years

One solution is to  continue to price your images related to circulation. It is much easier to track circulation online or on a E device than on print. If they start with a low subscription, the license fee can be low. And as their circulations rises, your licensing prices should too. That is simple enough, no ? You share their effort and grow with them. Since your images are partly responsible for their growth success, its only fair.

Don’t wait for your useless trade association to help you with this as they apparently couldn’t care less. None of them have come out with any recommendation nor analysis. They just want you to pay your fees and collect sponsorship money.

Talk to each other : use Facebook, Twitter,  or the phone. Do not agree on pricing, because that is completely illegal. But agree on licensing models that make sense. Organise meetings, discuss, challenge each other. Ask your agency what they plan to do and how they plan to face this new pricing challenge. Make them think.

It would be nice, for once, to see this industry to be creative and pro active. Don’t you think ?

Posted in license, multimedia, Search, celebrity, magazine, commercial stock, technology, focus, newspaper, web 2.0, transaction, editorial, law, finance, PACA, photojournalism, CEPIC, getty | Print | No Comments »

November 4, 2009 by pmelcher.

How useless is your photo association? ASMP, PACA, NANP and others have been denied a voice in the Google book settlement . Why ? because they requested to be part of the class action suit much, much too late. According to court documents, the litigation regarding Google’s attempt to scan any and all books in existence had started back in September 2005 and these associations just recently requested to be a part of it.

The court probably felt that  the sudden arrival of photo association was more due to the agreed settlement ( or rather, the smell of money) rather than a real concerned about copyright issue.

So, next time you prepare to pay your dues, or you see your image used by Google, for free, thing twice.

full court document here: Photo Association Google Books

Posted in google, copyright, web 2.0, PACA, law, news | Print | No Comments »

October 15, 2009 by pmelcher.

We hadn’t heard from the PLUS coalition for a while. This loose organization of visual professional who has been tediously trying to create a standard for licensing has suddenly burst out of its silence with two important announcements:

1) The ASMP has dug into its $1,3 Million  fund it had received last year ( we hadn’t not heard of that for a while too) to retrieve $150,000 as a generous gift to PLUS. This adds up to the $85,000 ASMP had already given to the coalition. This probably makes the ASMP the biggest provider of funds to PLUS by far (usually, organizations donate around $25,000). The question is why is the ASMP so interested in PLUS as opposed to fighting Google and its book scanning initiative ? PLUS has made no headway in the last few years and although everyone agrees it could become a useful tool, it has yet to be adopted and put in practice anywhere. It is also quite evident, although never clearly announced, that the PLUS business model is to create a licensing registry that would charge for its usage.  For pennies, indeed, but with billions of licenses happening online worldwide, it can quickly becomes a huge cash cow. Maybe ASMP sees this as a long term investment.

Also, with such a heavy donor, will PLUS feel the pressure to satisfy their needs (those of ASMP)  rather than those of publishers. After all, like in politics, those who have put more in usually see the benefits first.

2) PLUS has chosen Picscout as the exclusive provider of image recognition services to the PLUS Registry . That resembles the deal that PLUS had made with ImageSpan a while back. How does a coalition that is supposed to create a standard make exclusive arrangements with private companies ? It is a bit like the IPTC deciding that the only tool for reading metadata should be made by Adobe ? Image tracking is still in its infancy but yet PLUS has decided that Picscout is not only the best, but the only one? There are companies currently working on similar, if not better solutions that I really doubt PLUS has even approached. What is behind this deal that we are not told about ?

Picscout has recently announced its  Image IRC, which is an image registry who does not to want to say its real name, and has now combine forces with PLUS, another image registry in the making, for more fire power. Both will split the huge potential revenue for access to their overgrowing databases. What will happen soon is that image creators and copyright holders will soon be held captive by these organizations that will become the forced middle man for every licensing transaction.

With investors with mysterious agendas, strange relationships ( Creative Commons), Exclusive agreements ( ImageSpan and now Picscout), it is behaving more like a secret society that keeps its operations in the shade while putting little effort in the wide spread acceptances of its offerings. Not very social.

Posted in license, copyright, Plus, technology, IPTC, google, transaction, finance, photoshop, law | Print | No Comments »

October 13, 2009 by pmelcher.

While everyone is searching for what commercial stock might become in the future, the Chinese might have one solution and it is quite revolutionary. Researchers from TNList, Department of Computer Science and Technology, Tsinghua University along with a Singapore based researcher, have put together Photosketcher, previously called Sketch2Photo.

The principle is quite simple : you sketch what and how your final image image  should look like and it fetches all the elements on the internet and stitches them together for a final composite image.  Better yet, here is a visual explanation :

This would be a major breakthrough for art directors all around the world. Instead of going to hundreds of stock banks trying to locate an image that remotely looks like  the one they had in mind, they could actually build it from different bits and pieces of a variety of images. Obviously, they wouldn’t even have to hire photographers for photo shoots anymore, at least for those that have common elements in them.

But, before we get there, this is a pretty nifty tool for art directors who would like to create comps to show their clients or  the photogrpahers they are about to hire  what they have in mind.

In the paper, it is unclear where in the internet the search is performed. It seems to be  everywhere, creating a huge copyright headache. Of course, some would argue that since the end result is a composite and thus a new creation, there is no copyright due. Let’s leave the arguing to Lawheads and revue the implication of this new tool.

If the search was only applied  to Creative Common content ( Flickr)  one could probably be free of any copyright issue. Furthermore, one would have the legitimate right to register the new finished product as their own and license it. Think about it. A completely computer generated image created with bits and pieces of images from various photographers would come and take its rightful place next to work from long-time pros. Wow. And some though microstock was bad. Wait until everyone can create photographs.

Currently, the end result is very average as the selection of images does not pay any attention to light orientation and shadows. However, that could easily be an additional search parameter which would allow for extremely realistic end photographs.

What would this imply for editorial photography, especially news ? Major, major trouble. On could easily put together, in any environment, two people that have never met and look very realistic. Our news imagery could suddenly be flooded with hand-made images of events that have never taken place. Would we ever trust photography ever again ?  Doubtful. Photography will have to go through rigorous credibility checking before being branded as real news.

Finally, could this Photosketcher be a hoax ? Doubtful. Finding image via sketching is already widely operational, while automated  extracting already exist ( Adobe has a great one in Photoshop Element). Stitching, as we all know, is also very common. Thus combining all these know application together is not impossible. It is actually not too hard. The whole operation must take a pretty hefty amount of processing power but then we have no information on what type of computer these students have.

This new tool, however amazing it seems to be, has many implication for the world of photogrpahy and will have far reaching repercussions. It’s acceptance and usage will be something to monitor closely for anyone involved in photogrpahy.

See a full explanation in this video:

Sketch2Photo: Internet Image Montage from Tao Chen on Vimeo.

Posted in license, Search, copyright, technology, commercial stock, prosumer, flickr, law, news, editorial, filter, photojournalism, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

September 23, 2009 by pmelcher.

While the industry is  going through its most radical change of its small and short existence, it seems that everyone is caught standing and staring at the incoming headlights. Many violent issues are affecting the way business is done today, with possible long lasting repercussions, yet it seems that all are taking cover under a “business as usual” blanket.

Google Book: The DOJ has just concluded that the current agreement is not fair. This would be a good time for the photo industry to jump in and make its voice heard. why ? Because scanning books and offering them under a digital format requires a new license for the images and Google is not offering to compensate anyone for those. They are offering to compensate the authors of the books, however. Furthermore, the images thus scanned and available on line might become another source of orphan work and a playing ground for those looking for “free” images. The biggest providers of images to Book publishers ( think Corbis or Getty) have remained very, very quiet on this. Are they making their own deals ? But the real scandal here is the complete silence and lack of action from those associations who claim to represent the industry. PACA, ASPP, ASMP, APA and so on have not taken one step to seriously address the issue and only recently a single lonely voice coming from Europe has dared to express their concern (CEPIC) . It is not going to be enough.

Metadata: At a pivotal time where more images are being used online than on print, there is still no agreement between the photo industry and publishers on how to carry and protect metadata. You would think, since it’s their livelihood, that the photo industry would have spearheaded an effort to make sure information would travel, and stay, in each and every image published online. No. Nothing. Images can and will be published online with absolutely no credit outside or inside the image. Actually, software companies like Adobe, will gladly help strip any information inside an image, even when it’s a clear violation of the DMCA.  There used to be an agreement, sometimes still in practice, in the editorial world that when an  image was  miscredited or not credited at all it would be billed at twice the amount. Out of respect for the creator. Guess that will not going to survive.

Pricing: The latest quote I have heard was $5 for editorial usage on a website own by one of the biggest publisher in the world. The funny part was that the photo editor quoting me this price was amused that someone had actually agreed to this. Photo agencies, these days, are their worst enemies. They even get scared of themselves when they see a mirror. Everyone agrees worldwide that the future of editorial, and commercial photography, is online. Most form of print magazine will die in the next five years and be replaced by an online equivalent. Yet, everyone charges pennies for licensing rights . How will that ever replace the print magazine market as a source of income? It baffles me and any four year old with a calculator.

” Why did you go out of business ?”

” Me ? O well , for the price I was licensing my images, I couldn’t pay my bills”

“Mmm…brilliant !! What are you going to do now ?”

” I don’t know, maybe hit my head against a wall real hard. That sounds like fun too”

Getty and Corbis: One is using and abusing its dominance on the market to use and abuse photographers, and the other is playing unfair competition.  Yet, it doesn’t seem to bother anyone. I was recently having lunch with a commercial photographer from the New England area who mostly shoots travel and pharmaceutical images and who has a distribution contract with the oil company legacy company. He was proud to announce that he regularly sees, on his sales report, images licensed  to big companies, at $3. When asked why he accepted those prices, he said ” its better than nothing”. Needless to add that his overall revenue, from the same distributor, has dropped 40 to 60% in the last year. After taxes, those $3 images probably leaves him with a few bucks. I would not get out of bed for two bucks. Not only that, but Getty also pressures, threatens, blackmail and abuse contributing photographers on a permanent basis. Yet, no one seems to voice their concern. If that is not a monopolistic attitude, I wonder what is ? Next to them sits Corbis. Now, how many industries have a company that has not made a profit since their creation , 15 years ago ? How is that fair competition ? If Bill Gates likes loosing money so much, why doesn’t he open a car company ? Or bail out a few banks ? Why does the photo industry have to deal with a company that does not obey to the most simple and basic rules of business ? Sure, they are not a monopoly, although they could, but they are certainly unfair competition.

Trade Associations: Someone has to explain why the photo trade associations are so useless. Not one has any usefulness and all should be referred as clubhouses instead of associations. They do nothing to represent or defend their members. They mostly act as social organizers, as if nothing of importance was happening in our industry. Not one has a lawyer in Washington DC to help promote and defend our trade. Instead, they act as conduits for manufacturers and service companies, while receiving nice juicy kickbacks for their executive members.

It will not be long for us to see more closing, bankruptcy and  maybe a Ponzi scheme or two. It is not a surprise. As long as those who work in this trade think silence and apathy are the best tools to increase business, nothing will change.

“Brave Clarice. You will let me know when those lambs stop screaming, won’t you? ” _ Hannibal Lecter_

Posted in license, Search, newspaper, copyright, magazine, commercial stock, technology, google, web 2.0, editorial, law, corbis, transaction, finance, CEPIC, PACA, getty | Print | No Comments »

July 26, 2009 by pmelcher.

If you think it’s just one among the numerous search engines that landscape the Internet and help you search for what you’re looking for, well, you couldn’t be more wrong – Google, to put it mildly, is a search engine giant. And going a little overboard, you could say that it sets the standard for search engines, in terms of quality, innovation, efficiency, and continued improvement. I think it’s a safe bet to assume that more than 90 percent of Internet users depend on Google for their daily forays down the information highway. So you would think that this search engine is probably the best friend for anyone who is searching for tips and information on photography, ranging from tricks of the trade to the best schools that teach this subject.
But there is a darker side to Google, as most opponents of this dotcom giant’s controversial venture, Google Street View, will tell you. They’re sick and tired of all the “snooping” that they think Google is doing and are protesting against the invasion of their privacy. Google sends out its camera cars, which are equipped with revolving cameras that are fitted on the top of the vehicles, into random neighborhoods across certain countries of the world and then puts up these images on its website. While some people do like searching for their homes and themselves on this application, there are others who are aghast at this blatant invasion of privacy.
Of course, Google does argue that the faces and other sensitive information like number plates of vehicles are blurred out, but that does not stop people from recognizing you or deter thieves from scanning neighborhoods using this application before they hit it. If you don’t like what you see, you can certainly have it removed, says Google’s privacy policy, but when people have already seen what you don’t want them to see, why go to all the trouble of trying to remove the evidence?
Now this high profile candid camera has ruined the good name of many a photographer who is just randomly shooting pictures of streets and people for their own reasons, especially when they’re of places that are famous as vacation haunts or which have historical significance – people become suspicious immediately and are at your throat threatening to take away your equipment.
But, Google does have its advantages too – Google Earth is a useful tool if you’re a wildlife photographer who is looking to research the availability of animals in the location where you’re headed for a shoot.
As with any technology, Google too is a friend or foe depending on how it’s used – the more wisely we use it, the more benefits we gain.
By-line
This guest article was written by Adrienne Carlson, who regularly writes on the topic of photography colleges . Adrienne welcomes your comments and questions at her email address: adrienne.carlson1@gmail.com

Posted in lens, technology, google, editorial, law | Print | No Comments »