When your told not to take photos

lex_jenkins · August 8, 2009

"Everybody fashions themselves as a "citizen journalist" today. It's the new in thing..."

</blockquote>

Interesting conceit. Unusual for you to make such generalizations. I recall in many previous debates you insist that others give specifics when they made such generalizations.

But aside from not giving specifics about "everybody" and "the new in thing", what would satisfy your requirements for pursuing journalism? And would you apply the same standards to your pursuit of street photography? Are you a street photographer because you take street photos? Or did you receive training and credentials?

I would say that one is what one does. If one reports on or photographs newsworthy events for the purpose of informing readers and viewers, then one is a journalist. But perhaps when you studied journalism your teachers had an alternative philosophy.

Brad_ · August 8, 2009

>>> I recall in many previous debates you insist that others give specifics when they made such generalizations.

My comment was general and triggered by your enthusiastic comments about newspapers, above. And from other comments on forums

and other discussions. If you would like to take the word "Everybody" in the strictly literal sense, meaning 100%, then you have a

legitimate beef, I guess - my appology. How about "Many people with cameras ... ... " With respect to not giving specifics in my original post, that was more towards efficiency; rather than dragging

down the discussion with links and citations. Do you always provide links and citations to go along with your opinions when initially

rendered? But this is getting outside the scope of the discussion. How about another thread - I can talk for hours about this subject;

news collection, citizen journalism, the newspaper industry, etc.

>>> And would you apply the same standards to your pursuit of street photography?

There aren't any standards that I know of with respect to SP. At least I don't have any. Any camera and desire/commitment to the work works for me. But

then I have no expectations from street photographers providing a product in the way I have high expectations with respect to journalists

and news organizations.

>>> But perhaps when you studied journalism your teachers had an alternative philosophy.

Well, yes, but just taking one class, but I certainly don't consider myself one, and hardly an expert. But my teacher being a Pulitzer

Prize winner and a seasoned professional who went to journalism school, I would guess has a more mainstream philosophy on that and

similar concerns about citizen-journalism, news collecting, the way the industry is going, etc. I'll ask him next time I see him. That would be a good story to blog

about right there.

tonmestrom · August 8, 2009

Thomas , it's undoubtedly true that many highly valuable photos were and are being made by non pro photographers but here is the point, nobody is denying that. The mere fact that they were there to shoot those photos however doesn't make them journalists, citizen or otherwise. Merely lucky amateurs who were at the right place at the righ time. Shooting a photo that gets the news doesn't make you a journalist anymore than picking up a camera makes you a photographer.

Joseph , I already stated that I took this topic further than your situation. I can't be clearer on that than I have already been. The reason I did this is because it started to revolve around photographer rights. If you feel that I've hijacked your thread because of that I apologise. On the other hand it's still within the same context, sort off.

Jeff , you're right that we agree and that I am talking more in general.

Lex , the flipside of every right is responsability. Rights aren't limitless. I believe someone here referred to the first amendment. This has only relevance here in sofar as that it talks about freedom of speech and freedom of press. Since most here (if any) don't belong to the press all that is left here in this context is freedom of speech. Yes, anybody has a right to photograph on public property but in such a case only in sofar as that it doesn't conflict with rescue operations. That's one of the limits of said (and any) law. The law isn't one dimensional. That's why I said as long as people stay out of the way.

I haven't talked about compassion or empathy. I talked about professional behaviour. In this context it's what would be expected from a professional PJ and most know exactly what they can and can't do. Other than professionals onlookers have no legitimate reason to be there. They have a right to be there but that's something else alltogether. Most onlookers, if not all, let's face it are only there to satisfy their curiosity.

Strawman objections. Now there is a interesting phrase. I keep indeed repeating myself if for no other reason than that I keep emphasizing I'm not talking about Josephs specific situation. Surely you must have read that. This is a photography site Lex as you keep saying to people. Photographer rights are therefore important. I stand by what I said, these are not limitless and making peope aware of that IS relevant I think.

Lastly, if you allow me I'll provide an answer to the question you asked Brad before . If there is one standard most streetphotographers I know apply it's common sense. I know I do.

dave404 · August 8, 2009

I guess there are a lot of people here that would agree that the Iranian protesters that are protesting the rigged election in Iran should also toe the line and not publish any photos or videos of the police crack down, complete with goon squads to terrorize the people.Without these amateur journalists there would be little news out of Iran.

Here in the US there is increasing government control of what you can photograph and under what conditions. Dover AFB prevented basic photos of the body bags coming home, for that would drive home the message that the Iraq fiasco has a steep cost. Mathew Brady today would probably be locked in a jail or given a cease and desist order. All kinds of photography are off limits. You need permits, show insurance policies etc etc before being alowed to shoot. I was shooting a building facade a few years ago and got surrounded my police! It was an old hospital building.

If you are the first on the scene of an accident or are needed to help out, your first priority should be saving lives. After that you should be able to photograph a newsworty event.

Brad_ · August 8, 2009

>>> I guess there are a lot of people here that would agree that the Iranian

protesters that are protesting the rigged election in Iran should also toe the

line and ...

Where? I don't see any.

tomwatt · August 8, 2009

David wrote: Here in the US there is increasing government control of what you can photograph and under what conditions. Dover AFB prevented basic photos of the body bags coming home, for that would drive home the message that the Iraq fiasco has a steep cost.

</blockquote>

Actually, there is an inaccuracy stated here which I feel compelled to address. The flag-draped containers on the planes bearing the bodies of U.S. servicemen were neither coffins nor body-bags, and photography was restricted for a reason other than what you suggest. The containers were called "human remains transfer cases" (HRTC), and are essentially an oversized ice chest designed to preserve the remains for shipment until they could receive proper treatment. The cases leak, and the prospect of a family seeing photos of their loved ones returning to U.S. soil and leaking contents everywhere was considered inappropriate (wouldn't you think the same if it was your loved one?).

Procedures were changed so the bodies were embalmed before shipping, eliminating the potential problem of leakage.

Was there an accompanying government interest in suppressing the display of returning bodies? Possibly, probably even, but for the most part, that was a issue manufactured by the news media. Do you hear or see issues regarding bodies returning from Afghanistan now? Why not? Daily death toll there has risen to a point that was deemed unacceptable by the press when the last administration was in office. Why not an equivalent 'daily body count'?

In 2000, I conducted the inventory of available HRTCs at the request of the office in which I worked. That is how I know this.

jeff_livacich · August 9, 2009

All this stuff about who's a "photojournalist" and who's not. Sheesh. Historically, people who took pictures for newspapers were "news photographers"; those who furnished copy were "reporters". Reporters could be called "journalists" but usually were not. A "photojournalist" was someone who furnished both pictures and copy.

The point of this is that Joseph is being criticized for apparently fancying himself a "photojournalist". But he's not. He is a photographer, and he was attempting to take photographs. Newspapers have long had stringers, both photographers and reporters, and have readily bought pictures and even copy from freelancers, who usually had no press credentials from a specific paper because they worked freelance. They also bought newsworthy images from ordinary individuals, i.e., those not in the profession. They on occasion bought copy from ordinary individuals, but generally only for Society pages and such.

Joseph was the only photographer on site when the story broke, and he wanted to take pictures to offer to news outlets. That made him a de facto news photographer, with or without press credentials. In his place I would have told those people I was a freelance news photographer, which there and at that time, was true. He had a right to be there taking pictures, and they had no right to block him. Whoever was in charge of those people should have known that. He was not behaving disruptively, but they were . He disrupted no one; they disrupted him.

Joseph, I would contact the newspaper and tell them about what happened to you. They might be interested in letting their readers know about the deliberate obstruction. The additional bad PR might cause others to consider how their actions are perceived, especially if they appear to be hiding something. Their obstruction of you is part of the story. Remember, they had no authority to obstruct you, yet acted as if they did. And if you encounter this kind of behavior again, take pictures of the obstructors obstructing you. One of those pictures might not have as much impact as the original story, but its caption sure could.

There will always be people sticking their hands in front of cameras, saying "No pictures." Pictures of them doing that can be very damning, as people wonder why they don't want any pictures.

Ton, you say in regard to the 1st amendment that since few, if any here, are members of the press, only speech is relevant in this context. Not so. It is not necessary to be a member of the press to have a right to take newsworthy photos. Also, the news outlets have a right to source their photos wherever they want. They can use all "citizen journalists" and have no staff reporters or photographers if they so choose. On private property, even if that "private" property is government property, access can, with reason, be limited to photographers with press credentials, or even a single press pool photographer. Photography and video-recording can be forbidden in courtrooms. Reportage cannot. It can be banned in places like military installations, for reasons which are obvious. In public spaces, even on private property, no such restriction can be made. A public space can be for example a parking lot, or outside an entrance to a building. The reason people can solicit donations or sell Girl Scout cookies outside a supermarket entrance, even though it's private property, is that it's a public space. Restrictions can be placed on photography anywhere which is excessively disruptive (like blocking an entire sidewalk) or which is commercial in nature. News photography is not considered to be commercial.

At any rate, Joseph's actions are covered under the speech clause. Lawfully taking a photo and disseminating it is protected speech. Offering it to news outlets is protected, whether or not it's published.

tonmestrom · August 9, 2009

Not so. It is not necessary to be a member of the press to have a right to take newsworthy photo

</blockquote>

Jeff, that's not what I said, is it. Your first amendment speaks about freedom of the press (amongst other things) which to me doesn't seem to be applicable here. But since I'm not familiar with US law I could be wrong in which case no doubt someone will correct me. Still, I would be very surprised if the phrase or definition of "citizen journalist" would be mentioned in US law. Again, I'm not talking about Josephs particular situation nor have I criticized him anywhere for trying to take some photos. What strikes me though, in this discussion as in a lot of others, is that everytime when something like this comes up a lot of American's talk about nothing else but their constitutional right to do so as if that is the single most important thing. It isn't.

As I already explained rights aren't limitless, rights can conflict with other peoples rights (in which case a ruling is in order) and maybe most important of all rights don't NEED to be exercised. It's a nuance I often miss preoccupied as most are with emphasizing their rights.

But since it keeps popping up let's go to Joseph for a moment.

The only photos that surfaced were taken a block away as people were placed into ambulances. A large amount of volunteers were placed into service to prevent photos and videos from being taken. This was a deliberate effort to prevent bad press for the event

</blockquote>

Granted I wasn't there but anyone of you tell me this then. What more bad publicity does anybody need beyond a accident of this magnitude? In my experience it is more likely they wouldn't want people trample all over the site of the accident which if true is perfectly reasonable. Away from Joseph and back to general now.

Realize that most organizations go nuts to avoid bad PR. Don't take it personally, don't let them get away with it.

</blockquote>

Comments like this also have the habit of popping up in these discussions. It's downright paranoid. Or is anyone here telling me that a higher goal is served? Come off it. Get away with what? Haven't you got a independent Transportation Board who investigates such accidents whose findings are open to the press and public. How much does that leave of the bad PR argument.

A pro PJ shoot there for his livelyhood and to inform the public of what happened. The first one is perfectly valid while the second we expect in an open society and needs to be maintained and if necessary defended at all costs. But most people who flock to an accident, again in general and from firsthand experience, are there for one thing only. Getting a cheap thrill out of it. Sometimes the best thing you can do with a camera is put it away. Not because someone tells you to but to keep your own integrity while preserving that of other people. Or even more simple than that, because it's the decent thing to do.

joseph_leotta · August 9, 2009

Lets set the scene so theres a better understanding:

Heres a shot before the accident earlier in the day.

When I say on the Street and publice property, it takes up 6 blocks of a main street.

the rides are on the left , on the next block from where I am standing. Before the rides, there is a intersection with a cross street running from right to left. When the accident occurred, the block with the rides on it was immediately cleared and a barrier was set up at the intersection. The entire area was free for all rescue personal. I was standing at the barrier on the cross street with a clear view if the site acrossfrom me. (White line on street right to left) As soon as I took the camera out I was surrounded and stopped.

I was told by the volunteers “The church doesn't want any pictures taken". I replied - you can't stop me, and they said just watch us.

This went on for several minutes and I left as it was getting to confrontational and I was very outnumbered.

I had every right to take pictures. These people simply abused authority that they did not have. I'm a photographer on the street, no distinction between amateur, pro, semi pro or photojournalist. I have the ability to have news worthy pictures published just as every one of you has. I have the right to take these pictures for any reason. These rights were denied me. These people were wrong. Believe me, It will not happen again to me.

lex_jenkins · August 9, 2009

Ton, I'm not sure how to respond to the errors in your assertions without derailing this thread even further. Your concepts - as relevant to the U.S. - regarding Constitutionally protected rights (not granted, but protected), citizens, journalism, the press, and nearly every other assertion you've argued are in error.

And your repeated use of dismissive phrases such as "Getting a cheap thrill out of it" to characterize the responsible efforts of U.S. citizens to pursue Constitutionally protected activities indicates there is far too broad a gulf in our philosophies to be resolved in this discussion. I don't see any basis for further communication on this subject in this discussion until you have a better understanding of the subject as it applies to the U.S.

I had assumed that there were more similarities than differences between photographers who pursue photojournalism, documentary photography and street photography, but this discussion causes me to wonder whether our differences are irreconcilable.

lex_jenkins · August 9, 2009

BTW, Brad... clever.

Where? I don't see any.

</blockquote>

You got caught in a very uncharacteristic generalization that you couldn't defend. Now you've gone back to a familiar rhetorical device, putting others on the defensive to justify their generalizations.

FWIW, I agree with David's assertion. So now you see at least one person.

glen_berry · August 9, 2009

Joseph - your original question asked: "what do you do?" You already have a diversity of answers - some you're in favor of - some not. Evidently you've made up your mind regarding what you'll do should a similar situation arise. Nothing anyone else says will change your mind. To go on explaining your situation in this particular accident is moot - it's over - it happened - deal with it and move on.

Brad_ · August 9, 2009

>>> BTW, Brad... clever.

I'm not following you Lex. What's clever?

I checked each post to see if anybody would take the view that the government abuse against the Iranian protestors should toe the line and

not be filmed by people on the street with cameras. I didn't see *anyone* in any way shape or form subscribing to that notion. Certainly not

me.

>>> FWIW, I agree with David's assertion. So now you see at least one person.

Not following you again... I suspect you're misunderstanding something.

>>> You got caught in a very uncharacteristic generalization that you couldn't defend. Now you've gone back to a familiar rhetorical

device, putting others on the defensive to justify their generalizations.

You win, I shouldn't have used "everybody" if some will take that literally to mean 100%. I conceded that earlier...

tonmestrom · August 9, 2009

Your concepts - as relevant to the U.S. - regarding Constitutionally protected rights (not granted, but protected), citizens, journalism, the press, and nearly every other assertion you've argued are in error.

</blockquote>

if by that you mean that the right to shoot photos regardless what overrules any other rights than yes, I'm clearly misstaken and laws in the US are indeed one-dimensional and I'm furthermore misstaken that you're merely twisting words. But why get on your high horse, feel free to enlighten me especially since I made clear several times already that I'm hardly an expert on US law.

And your repeated use of dismissive phrases such as "Getting a cheap thrill out of it" to characterize the responsible efforts of U.S. citizens to pursue Constitutionally protected activities indicates there is far too broad a gulf in our philosophies to be resolved in this discussion

</blockquote>

Now you really dissapoint me Lex because it's abundantly clear for anybody to see that that's not what I've said, not by a long shot . If that's the best you can bring to the table than yes, I agree. There is no basis for further communication on this subject.

Let me end with one more thing; relating all this to the conditions under a totalitarian regime would be laughable if it weren't so tragic.

I bid you all a very good night, Have to get up early.

oskar_ojala · August 9, 2009

Could be that they don't want shots because of fear of lawsuits. Why should we assume that they weren't acting due to an ulterior motive? Given this, I think it would have been good to take those photos so that the accident could be better assessed later on.

thomas_sullivan · August 9, 2009

First Amendment.......Congress shall make <a href="http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/dnn/Audio/borday/1st.mp3" target="_blank">no law</a> respecting an <a href="http://constitutionbee.org/user/StudentGuide.aspx?id=783" target="_blank">establishment of religion</a>, or <a href="http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/dnn/audio/religion/rel_audio_danbury.mp3" target="_blank">prohibiting</a> the <a href="http://constitutionbee.org/user/StudentGuide.aspx?id=786" target="_blank">free exercise thereof</a>; or abridging the freedom of <a href="http://constitutionbee.org/user/StudentGuide.aspx?id=787" target="_blank">speech</a>, or of the <a href="http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/dnn/Default.aspx?tabid=77" target="_blank">press</a>; or the right of the people <a href="http://constitutionbee.org/user/StudentGuide.aspx?id=840" target="_blank">peaceably</a> to <a href="http://constitutionbee.org/user/StudentGuide.aspx?id=789" target="_blank">assemble</a>, and to <a href="http://constitutionbee.org/user/StudentGuide.aspx?id=790" target="_blank">petition</a> the government for a redress of grievances.....

notice it says abridging the freedom of speech, OR of the press.

In 1776 there was no such thing as a camera. It was only spoken or written word. Today the press or the common citizen has a visual means of communications also. In the spirit of the founding fathers they would agree that photography was also included in this freedom of speech. Actually, compared to the sketches that were used in pre photography days in the press, a photograph is a lot more real.

Hence, freedom of speech.....which is for all the people.......is valid. I can take a picture of anything I want to on public property. Ton.....you are just plain wrong in this instance.

thomas_sullivan · August 9, 2009

And he did not interfere with the rescue operations. That was being taken care of on the other side of the barriers from where he was. He was strictly on public property, away from the actual rescue ops, and the people in his way were doing it totally away from the rescue attempts. Ton....your'e wrong.

tonmestrom · August 10, 2009

Thomas, about you're first post:

if I'm wrong than I'm wrong and thanks for pointing that out. In my first referral I already made clear that if I was wrong no doubt someone would point that out. That still leaves me with two questions though concerning your law that you might answer as well.

<ol>

<li>what if that right conflicts with someone elses right?</li>

<li>is the site of a crash or an accident that's sealed off still considered public property under the law?</li>

</ol>

but I wasn't talking law alone. Rights don't need to be exercised and sometimes it's better not to.

tonmestrom · August 10, 2009

Thomas about you're second post:

no, there I wasn't wrong because I've gone out of my way in saying again and again that I took this more in general beyond Josephs situation but despite all that some people conveniently neglected that. I still think that the obsession some American's seem to have with their rights, not only here, often gets in the way of common sense. There's a lot more to life than rights alone.

pnital · August 10, 2009

Reading that long thread and points of view, I will add my two cents , and will do it as well in a more general manner. Being an RN in the past, with a lot of experience in situation like that, I think that Ton at least speaks from a professional point of view. When an accident of any kind is the case,and people are victims, the first right is to provide them as fast as possible first aid, and execute life saving procedures. And in some cases it is a short important border between life and death.

For this, police and ambulances needs a free way to the place of the accident. Usually when it is in the streets many passers by are curious enough to see what happened and are a disturbing crowd.Today many ordinary citizens are having cameras at hand, and it is tempting for some to photo the event.( not referring to Joseph's question.)the victims right to privacy, their family rights to get the hard information not by seeing the victims faces( their beloved family members, children, older parents etc.) In the news, before and even after they have received the information from the police( their right for privacy).

The right of the citizens to take photos of the tragedy, is for the victims and professional aid a second right, as the first is defending the rights of the people in a hard life situation. For me as a professional the first right is to save life and help people in plight. All the other rights even to photograph it and the right of the public to get the information are secondary.

joseph_leotta · August 10, 2009

Ton – you keep missing the point. Freedom is a core value. It is the most important right that we have. And yes common sense applies. You don’t have the right to interfere with anyone else’s freedom. That includes their right to a rescue and emergency treatment as well as the right to take photos of that event. Keeping them in balance is what makes this country great.

Thru this thread people keep missing the point. The situation was under control by authorities who neither wanted nor would allow any outsiders to get involved to help. There was a large area cordoned off to allow all the free access needed by emergency responders. Being outside that area, at that point and being a photographer all that I could do was to document the event within reasonable parameters and not interfere with anyone’s safety. That’s what I did. Other persons intervened and prevented me from taking those photos. This was a form of censorship to prevent bad publicity. That was a violation of rights and freedoms.

thomas_sullivan · August 10, 2009

"...obsession some American's seem to have with their rights, not only here, often gets in the way of common sense..."

interesting you put those two thoughts together Ton.....perhaps you should read Thomas Paine's "Common Sense"....and then continue on to his Rights of Man and Age of Reason. Real eye openers for what America was in the early days. granted, lately we've been over ridden by forces to the contrary, but the beginnings were true.

Norma Desmond · August 10, 2009

Censorship is something that a government imposes either on its people or on news media. What happened here was regrettable, but not censorship.

If what happened was a bunch of thugs thinking they were doing the right thing by preventing you from photographing, it is misjudgment at best, battery at worst. From the story as told, there does seem to be room to allow that there is uncertainty about precisely what their motives were.

We can't deny that two things are going on in contemporary times. Cameras in the hands of all kinds of people with all kinds of agendas are proliferating. Lots of people are worried about their privacy and our government has many people scared about threats (cameras included).

It seems only realistic to recognize that this is the way things are. I think some self-regulation is in order among photographers, also some common courtesy and recognition that cameras can be seen as exploitive and aggressive, regardless of the intent of the photographer. I also think photographers should assert their rights in situations that demand that. On the spot, we each have to decide what's important and what balance between what we want and what others want is a reasonable one to strike. The fact is, we don't live in a utopia where absolute adherence to laws and rights is going to take place each time. Human emotion will much more often intervene. We can quote the Constitution, privacy laws, free speech amendments, all with futility. In the end, we've got to be personally ethical and human. Usually, those two things involve a balance between asserting ourselves, deferring to the needs or desires of others, and knowing when and when not to compromise.

There were no "shoulds" in this situation, especially since no one has the complete facts from all points of view. The OP had to make a very split decision which he seems to somewhat regret. Next time, he might do otherwise. Just keep in mind that those preventing him from shooting likely also made a quick gut decision in the heat and uncertainty of the moment, not a legally considered or fully ethically thought-out choice.

DickArnold · August 10, 2009

I guess I'll say something although it is against my better judgment. Number one, when I was in the Air Force I was in charge of several aircraft accident investigations. Number two much later after I retired I worked for a newspaper as a photographer (note I did not say photojournalist). Number three my impetus for joining the Air Force was to be a member in an organization that, at the time at least I thought was primarily in place to defend our precious constitutionally protected rights and basic human liberty here in the USA. Among those was of course is freedom of speech (I worry about current erosions of that right). When I responded to an aircraft accidents we cordoned of the area to protect evidence and wreckage patterns from being disturbed. Given those constraints I never remember blocking the news media from taking pictures at my accidents There are circumstances dealing with classified information that are the exception to the rule and it could be used as a way to block the media. When I worked for the paper I knew what my rights were but it helped to have good relations with the police. Had I been on that street with Joseph in my newspaper capacity i would have walked toward the scene to where it was legally blocked or interfered with rescue efforts taking pictures as I walked. I definitely would have photographed the volunteers had they tried to block me. My paper would have expected it. I have had a couple of similar situations. I would not do that now as submitting photos to my former paper does not excite as I had enough except for sports. The basic and fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that events like this should not be covered up. That's how defective equipment and procedures get corrected by exposing them to sunlight. I have no idea what laws are in effect in Holland are nor would I attempt to comment on them except to say that most everyone there seems quite civil, friendly and law-abiding. Maybe I was naive when I joined the AF and maybe I am still naive but I still believe in protecting those rights today maybe now more than ever.

DickArnold · August 10, 2009

BTW the best time to get news pictures is before officials arrive. I have had some evidence damaged before we got there but if it is public property in this country they have a right to be there until legally restrained. It was much different on a Base. But, IMHO, basic human rights as covered in the constitution allow those freedoms to be preeminent. Hopefully they are exercised with good judgment. They are the basis of our society.

Sign In

When your told not to take photos

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in