Closed Thread Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-03-2009, 02:18   #61 (permalink)
dvd111
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1
There are a number of complex issues here. Image theft should be taken seriously, and image rights respected, for sure.

However, if images are not signed or watermarked, how can anyone tell whether they are protected, or just freebies? So many images recur all over the web, and could well appear in free listngs even if they are protected. Someone, somewhere might have made an innocent mistake or mixup.

Furthermore, American style bullying is not acceptable in Britain or Europe. The American tendency to use the law as a tool of harrassment and intimidation, rather than fair play and justice, is inappropriate here. The greed motive (The excessive demands) may also rankle with the reasonable minded person.

A polite letter to remove the images before any action is taken would be more suitable.
 
Old 11-03-2009, 02:30   #62 (permalink)
downtown
Registered User
 
downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: California
Posts: 3
Send a message via AIM to downtown
Copyright Enfringement

This is a late reply to the posts regarding Copyright infringement, but I felt I must chime in on it with my story.

In 1994 I purchased a templated web-site from BoxedArt Web Templates, within this template existed a copyrighted image of a woman sitting in front of a desk, PC with a headset; the image name is WOMAN WORKING.

In September of 2008 (that's 4 years after launch) I received an E-Mail from the Copyright Enforcement officer at Master File MasterFile, in the E-Mail was three screenshots taken by automated robot software which searches the Internet for ANY/ALL copyrighted imagery which fits the digital fingerprint of the source image under Copyright protection.

Included in the demand to cease and desist was a billing for $3600.00USD to be paid within 10 days or legal action would be taken against our failing company.
I replied to the Copyright Enforcement officer at Master File VIA E-Mail informing her that I have removed the images and that I have in no way profited from the usage of this image and that blame for profit should lie squarely on the shoulders of BoxedArt, this E-Mail's content informing of where I bought the template which contained this Copyrighted image was bought from went un-replied as if they don't care about people selling Copyrighted imagry for a profit with Carte Blanche and impunity.

It seams to me that the offender of profiting from the sale/usage of copyrighted material would lie squarely on the shoulders of BoxedArt in this case for example???

At either rate, I went through roughly 4 months of strong threats of ($60,000.00) legal action against me by Master File if I failed to pay their extortion fee within a term of 10 days once again!
I ignored this billing, the due date and never replied to the Master File Copyright Enforcement officer again.

Now beginning in the front of 2009 I recieve bi-monthly calls from Ashley Thomas which works for NCS Recovery NCS Recovery, I actually spoke with this lady once telling her that their client will never receive this fee as our company barely makes it own monthly financial liabilities and is on the brink of bankruptcy as I speak.

Ashley's reply was that my response was not what NCS or Master File wants to hear and that she now has no choice but to refer this file to an attorney (scare tactic, bullying).

I had one month of silence and then Ashley Thomas began calling again still trying to collect this outlandish fee that should be demanded to be paid by BoxedArt!
Hmm, no letter from an attorney, but more phone calls though from Ashley Thomas at NCS Recovery trying to extort a failing company out of $3600.00USD whilest NCS earns a %20 commission fee when successful in collection!

In this time I have also contacted the U.S. Copyright Office and inquired as to how I would protect myself in the future if any templated sites were utilized which I won't, I'll just design the site msyelf from here-on.

The short and skinny of U.S. Copyright holders search can still leave un-witting no-bodies in a dangerous realm- you are able to pay a one time fee of $150.00USD hourly to the U.S. Copyright office for Copyright material searches for a maximum of TEN (10) HOURS, but if their search comes up negative they can only tell you that you may still be infringing on Copyrighted art possibly.

Summary: We are unable to pay this ridiculaous fee and for that fact and am unwilling to pay any amount as we are being targeted whilest the Copyright holder ignores the fact that BoxedArt directly profited from the sale of their Copyrighted material!

BoxedArt refuses to reply to ANY E-Mail correspondence I send them regarding this issue, I ultimately feel that BoxedArt and Master File are in cahoots as I was hit by Master File's claim 4 months after failing to re-new my subscription to BoxedArt imagry...

Take this for what it's worth but the Copyright laws are ambiguous at best basically leaving little no-bodies open to possible litigation and expense.

Have a great life people
 
Old 11-03-2009, 08:50   #63 (permalink)
trendypixels
Registered User
 
trendypixels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 42
Send a message via AIM to trendypixels Send a message via MSN to trendypixels
What I want to know is how do they KNOW you didn't purchase the images? They have hundreds of thousands of account holders purchasing stock images and web developers are allowed to purchase images for use on their clients websites. So how do they know you didn't do just that? Did the images still have their watermark on them or were they obviously tampered with (watermark was airbrushed out, etc) ?
 
Old 15-03-2009, 02:07   #64 (permalink)
downtown
Registered User
 
downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: California
Posts: 3
Send a message via AIM to downtown
Hi TrendyPixels...

I did nothing to these images that came in the templated web-site we purchased from BoxedArt, nor did these images have any watermarkings what-so-ever.

It just seems to me that I along with other small cheese individuals are being targeted by alleged copyright holders and copyright protection groups that seem to myself to be in cahoots with one another, the template I purchased from BoxedArt had no notices that any of the material contained within it's package may or may not contain copyrighted art-work- however, when I poored through the terms posted at BoxedArt basically at the very base of the terms (very verbose) it is stated that it is your responsibility to verify whether or not any of the components contained within the package are copyright protected material.

Personally this whole thing stinks, I feel very strongly that not unlike a motor vehicle which has a title or deed of ownership which is corroborated by a VIN (Vehicle Identification Number) any and ALL copyrighted digital media should be forced to disclose the same by a circle C OR watermark.

This ambiguity is just leaving us poor fools that don't have the money for attorneys to be gutted and fileted by the sharks at these copyright holder agencies.

Please reply I am willing to continue, maybe we can raise awareness and create a concerned group of individuals which have been billed for such infringements so that these company's MUST provide a Circle C OR Watermark.

It takes a village to stop this tyrrany, let's do something, this is how the big-boys screw us, they get together and come to a common ground and implement bills to be submitted to the U.S. Copyright Office, we should have the same privilege too!

The only one that profited so far from this template is BoxedArt, in my eyes if it were a drug dealer selling to an unwitting consumer the consumer would be granted immunity after handing over the drug dealer- am I right or wrong here folks?

I certainly don't condone the theft of someone eles' sweat of brow work, but likewise I feel very strongly that the image should be clearly defined as copyrighted material to warrant and support such claims!.
 
Old 16-03-2009, 11:14   #65 (permalink)
Cooper
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by downtown
I certainly don't condone the theft of someone eles' sweat of brow work, but likewise I feel very strongly that the image should be clearly defined as copyrighted material to warrant and support such claims!.

Whilst I disagree with the way the copyright holders are behaving in these cases, I don't agree with this idea. Copyright is implicit on all artwork by default, you don't need a copyright logo to clarify that. What's more, are you suggesting that any artwork used in a design - or any designs themselves for that matter - should all be watermarked and/or display copyright logos? That could end up looking pretty messy. No, the way it stands, with the creator retaining copyright by default is perfectly reasonable.

However, the fact that a template reseller sold you licensed artwork without the proper licence approvals is reprehensible, as is the manner in which the copyright holders are badgering you. The sums they are asking for are completely ridiculous and in no way represent either what they would have made from selling you the image legitimately nor the value of the image to your business or the profits you would have potentially made from it.

The message that stock image banks and stock template resellers seem to be sending out is don't under any circumstances use stock artwork of any kind and let them go out of business because the risk is simply to high that they've sold you artwork that they don't hold the licence to. Good riddance?
 
Old 16-03-2009, 19:23   #66 (permalink)
downtown
Registered User
 
downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: California
Posts: 3
Send a message via AIM to downtown
Hi Cooper...

Thanks for the reply.

Quote:
Whilst I disagree with the way the copyright holders are behaving in these cases, I don't agree with this idea. Copyright is implicit on all artwork by default, you don't need a copyright logo to clarify that. What's more, are you suggesting that any artwork used in a design - or any designs themselves for that matter - should all be watermarked and/or display copyright logos? That could end up looking pretty messy. No, the way it stands, with the creator retaining copyright by default is perfectly reasonable.

I understand your disagreement with my suggestion- however, the law is far too ambiguous for digital media!
Even spending big money with the U.S. Copyright office for costly media copyright searches can still come up leaving an unwitting user holding the bag.

SO yes I do say as I am sure many others will agree, ALL copyrighted digital media should have:
A) a circle c
OR
B) a watermark.
All copyrighted software is clearly denoted as such alike, which you MUST ACCEPT prior to installing on your machine!
Otherwise guess what, you don't get to install that nifty software.

Are you suggesting that artists not wanting an alleged messy circle C OR watermark is acceptible for the rest of us who can't afford legal representation to defend ones self against such heavy handed tactics employed by the enforcement agencies?

Just because you don't want a circle c OR watermark declaring that it defaces your art-work is weak grounds for leaving the rest of us wide-open for legal action.

Do you own real property?
Do you hold a title of deed to that real property?

Do you own a motor vehicle?
Do you hold a title of ownership to that motor vehicle?

I am quite sure that the designer which submitted the template I purchased from BoxedArt held legal usage rights to that image!
He is in my eyes in the wrong for re-selling what was not his to re-sell in the first place!
So don't forget to wag your finger at these people alike, this is not a one-way street as you portray to be in your mind-space Cooper!
At the very least when copyrighted media is used as in this case and many others I'm sure, a templated design should ALWAYS provide full disclosure of actual copyright protected digital media.

Think about it this way Cooper:
The city you live in has STOP signs at all locations requiring you to STOP at, correct?

How about starting today however the city decides they don't want to litter their road-sides with un-attractive signs and now you are just expected as an unwitting motorist to know which corner to stop at or face ticketing?

The above scenario is NOT UNLIKE your suggestion of NOT wanting to burden your art-work with a circle C or watermark, am I not correct here?

I don't want you to come under the impression that I condone theft at any level as I DO NOT!
But all things in a democratic society must be fair and equitable for ALL not just the few such as yourself not wanting to litter YOUR artwork with an un-attractive denotation of copyright.

Ultimately, I immediately removed the art-work upon notification from Master File!
I DID NOT PROFIT from the display of the imagery, BoxedArt & the artist which submitted the template profited and broke the law!
I was merely left holding the bag because some artist doesn't want to be forced to denote such copyright on his/her imagery, I say grow up and get over it...

If you beleive so strongly in not having to denote ownership you had better hurry out to all of your vehicles and immediately remove the VIN and also shred your deed/title then do likewise for all real propety, go to the county clerks office and remove your name from the property and just put MickeyMouse in your names place.

Do you see where I and many other people like myself are coming from, if I came to your house and stole something you might try to physically stop me and if you were unable to you would have to resort to calling the donut nazis to take care of your own affairs.

This scenario leaves the taxpayers paying to take care of what you should be taking care of in the first place, the same applies to un-denoted copyrighted material alike, who do you think pays for the federal court system?
TAX PAYERS Cooper..

In closing I don't want to create an endless argument of he said she said, I however feel that it is imperative that all minds come together on this subject so we can all play nicely together in our digital sandbox without stepping on one-anothers toes, can you agree with this at the very least?

Thank you for your reply...

Best Regards
 
Old 16-03-2009, 19:49   #67 (permalink)
Herr Kurm
ding dong
 
Herr Kurm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Tallinn, Estonia
Posts: 4,035
Crappy car analogy is crappy.

Physical property {does not equal} intellectual property.

When you bought your sodding template from BoxedArt you probably signed an agreement or it was done when you registered on their website. Either it states that you are eligible for all copyright claims down the road or you can tell the guys who are harassing you to choke on cock and die.

EDIT: even if they do dare to take you to court you cant be held resonsible for using the copyrighted material. Pretty much the same as buying a stolen car (yes I am using a fucking car analogy to illustrate my point) unknowingly, you cant be charged or convicted to jailtime for that unless they can prove you knew about it being stolen.
__________________
Freelancer for hire.
-portfolio-
 
Old 25-03-2009, 13:22   #68 (permalink)
Cooper
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 71
Ok, well I can understand that you're angry downtown and rightly so. I personally believe that Boxedart.com act disingenuously when licensing out their templates.

Firstly, I should quickly cover the copyright logo issue and explain the fundamentals of copyright law before getting into bashing boxedart.com.

How would you envisage this working? All images on the internet have a copyright logo or watermark? And then what? That would get removed if you bought a licence to use it on your website? And then unmarked images go back into circulation anyway? Or your website would just be covered in a dozen different copyright notices and watermarks? That's going to look wonderful.

It's unnecessary, frankly. Copyright laws negate the need for that activity and the ownership of unmarked images only becomes an issue if you don't understand copyright law or you knowingly abuse other people's copyrights. If you want analogies, it's like bringing a sandwich to work. I own that sandwich, I don't need to identify it as my sandwich. Everybody in the office knows that it isn't their sandwich even if they don't know exactly who's sandwich it is. The correct thing to do is to not take that sandwich because it isn't yours, not assume you can eat it because it's ownership isn't clearly identified. People don't generally need to be told what isn't theirs. VIN numbers etc. aren't there to tell you that car doesn't belong to you, they are there to trace the car if it is stolen. A completely different concept from copyright symbols or watermarks.

Every single piece of creative work is covered by copyright law. There are no 'copyright free' images, web templates etc. (unless the copyright has expired). The way it works is the creator, or their employer, owns the copyright to anything they create. Even if a designer is commissioned by a client to create, say, a website, the designer still owns the copyright to that website, the client merely pays for a license to use the designs usually with very specific limitations of use.

Stock photography and stock website templates work exactly the same. When you 'buy' a stock website template from someone such as boxedart.com, what you are actually doing is buying permission to use that template design along with any limitation of use that boxedart.com may impose. The same goes for 'buying' images from Getty, what you are actually doing is buying a licence to use that image for specific purposes. Getty are very professional about this aspect, with different pricing tiers for the same image depending on whether you want a licence to use it in a printed publication, website or unlimited uses. They also specifically prohibit use of their images for re-licence - ie, if you buy a licence to use their image for a specific purpose, you do not have the right to re-licence that image either through another stock photography website or as part of a website template in a stock template website. Really, this is automatically protected by law; as you are not the original copyright holder, you do not have the right to re-licence that artwork unless that permission has been expressly granted (usually as a 'one-time' use).

This is where, as far as I'm concerned, boxedart.com is acting disingenuously. They include stock photography and other art in their templates and then sell licences for those templates to their customers. However, this is clearly illegal because they are effectively re-licensing artwork which they don't hold the copyright for, right?

Well, apparently not.

So basically they are selling you a licence for some of the content in the templates but not all of it? Uh, right.

Frankly, Getty should be going after boxedart.com all guns blazing. They are liable to milk a lot more money from a company who .net nominated "Best Web templates resource" than from the likes of poor sods like yourself and they may actually make some impact in preventing real infringements on their copyrights.

The irony is, boxedart.com's Licening Terms plays hardball with infringements on their copyright while they happily abuse other companies' copyrights, endangering their customers in the process.


There's nothing wrong with copyright laws and mechanics, there is everything wrong with companies like boxedart.com who try to skirt copyright laws and displace liability onto their customers and companies like Getty who claim unrealistic damages from the little man without actually investigating who is really abusing their copyrights.

I suppose my previous assessment stands - the lesson that these companies seem to be trying to teach us is avoid stock art suppliers, because the licensing trail is just too sketchy. Source your artwork directly from illustrators, photographers, graphic designers and web developers and ensure they are creating original artwork tailored to your specifications. It will more suitably target your business objectives anyway and will ensure that any artwork you use has been specifically licensed to you for the purpose you need it for.
 
Old 25-03-2009, 22:56   #69 (permalink)
TopGun Media
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2
Getty Images and NCS Recovery in Kahoots to Exotort Money!

Getti Images and NCS Recovery are working full time to make a living out of this and they try to use 'the law' as a crutch. They severly over charge for what they deem is the use of photos and NCS Recovery is disrespectful and THINK they are going to get some kind of results. They will go after ANYONE to make a buck! And they are obnoxious! Even if you cease the use of the photo they still want an outragous amount for the 'violation' They try to railroad people and say that it takes away from the value of the photo even if you used it for a day or a week. (which is just BULL) Mayeb we all should let the world know what these two companies are up to and when someone wants to do their due diligence before hiring them then maybe they'll think twice before hiring or doing any business with them. Many people go to the web to get the scoop on a company...with our testimonies all over Google...maybe we can make a difference!
I know I'm not paying them a penny as the company that used and uploaded them should be responsible...these people will go after whom ever seems the most vulnerable!
 
Old 25-03-2009, 23:00   #70 (permalink)
TopGun Media
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2
Getty Images and NCS Recovery in Kahoots to Exotort Money!

Getty Images and NCS Recovery are working full time to make a living out of this and they try to use 'the law' as a crutch. They severely over charge for what they deem is the use of photos and NCS Recovery is disrespectful and THINK they are going to get some kind of results. They will go after ANYONE to make a buck! And they are obnoxious! Even if you cease the use of the photo they still want an outrageous amount for the 'violation' They try to railroad people and say that it takes away from the value of the photo even if you used it for a day or a week. (which is just BULL) Maybe we all should let the world know what these two companies are up to and when someone wants to do their due diligence before hiring them then maybe they'll think twice before hiring or doing any business with them. Many people go to the web to get the scoop on a company...with our testimonies all over Google...maybe we can make a difference!
I know I'm not paying them a penny as the company that used and uploaded them should be responsible...these people will go after whom ever seems the most vulnerable!
 
Old 26-03-2009, 06:29   #71 (permalink)
CraigEdmonds
www.craig-edmonds.com
 
CraigEdmonds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Marbella, Spain
Posts: 60
I designed an ecommerce site for a client a few years ago and used istockphoto images, all purchased properly of course.

After about 3 years later the client wanted the site redesigned but did not like my prices and went with another cheaper designer in Argentina.

12 months later client sends me an email saying "waaaaghhhhh, waaaaghhhhhh, Getty images wants to sue me for 16,000 GBP. Its your fault etc etc"....

I asked him to send me the letter that Getty sent over and I looked at the screenshots and the new web site and politely pointed out that Getty is absolutely right, his site contains ripped images from Getty Images....but.....I did not design the site, your new designer did so told him to contact him. I did not hear anything else about it after that. (I have now been retained once again to design the clients web site btw)

I think Getty is 100% correct in chasing copyright theft, its not right to rip images from the internet without the authors permission, and its not legal, thats just the way it is, however the methods Getty use and the intimidating correspondence with such high fees is not acceptable at all.

In most cases a firm cease and desist notice should be enough to deter copyright infringers and if that does not work then start sending intimidating notices and threats.
 
Old 24-06-2010, 15:25   #72 (permalink)
Copyrighthawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1
Masterfile.com Fraud

Masterfile.com AKA Masterfile Corporation AKA Endless Media is a company that is doing the same thing as Getty.

They send letters demanding that people pay way more than a photo could ever be worth. Over 3000 times what I recently paid for a photo.
They lie about copyright laws to make you believe they have the right to do what they do. They claim that Digital Millennium Copyright Act only covers Internet Service Providers. It covers Online Service Providers. They have been put on notice to stop this activity as of 06/21/2010. If they continue this practice please be sure to file a complaint as outlined below.
They ask you to provide customer information that should be requested by a subpoena. The subpoena is to protect you from violating privacy policies
They make inappropriate character references... calling people bank robbers/thieves.
They claim they do it for artist yet they own all the rights to the photos. I tried to be nice and sent them a check for their artist and they sent it back.
They do not take appropriate steps to protect their "valuable" photos with watermarks. They have thousands of pages that they make available to the public without watermarks. They have been put on notice to stop this activity as of 06/21/2010.
They do not take appropriate steps to protect their "valuable" photos by removing the right click copy function. They have been put on notice to stop this activity as of 06/21/2010.
They do not take appropriate steps to protect their "valuable" photos by limiting the viewing of their photo to registered users who have read their terms and conditions. They have been put on notice to stop this activity as of 06/21/2010.
When offered more than fair and reasonable offers they are refused.
Their photos were made available to people on the internet by companies and individuals before Masterfile purchased them.
Their images are available on Google images without watermarks and without terms of use.
Their president knows that they are asking too much for their photos. I am in favor of copyright laws and the right to own creative material but these Canadian companies are abusing US copyright laws and our court systems to bully people.
They are a Canadian Company with international agents When you go to their site they do not have a US agent but they have a New York Office. This seems Odd??? Why would they not want to sell through a US office? Is this to keep from being investigated by the FBI???

If you are being inappropriately targeted you must contact the FBI at Your Local FBI Office and file a complaint. You must also file a complaint at the IC3 gov website. When asked for a value of the fraud use an amount that is ten times the usual Rights Managed License fee, this is what they are likely to ask for in court. This will help the government officials see what these people are using a stick to extort money from people. It will only be through an accumulation of complaints that these people will be stopped.
 
Old 03-02-2011, 23:21   #73 (permalink)
keithL
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1
getty is a bully

Visit this website to see a great description as what to do

extortionletterinfo.com/forum/read.php?2,287
 
Old 08-02-2011, 12:50   #74 (permalink)
ann11281
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1
Hi all

I got a letter from Getty, too.
Could you give me any update (thosewho got letters)- did you pay or if not did they take you to court?
thanks a lot for replies
 
Old 09-02-2011, 20:37   #75 (permalink)
oli
Chicharito™
 
oli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Manchester, England.™
Posts: 14,065
This is like the chalk thread.
__________________
 
Old 15-04-2011, 19:28   #76 (permalink)
MrGamma
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffc
Old thread, but for future reference:

Whether it was outsourced or not, freelancer or not, the person was working under you - which makes you responsible unless you put explicit language in a contract with your client that puts the burden on them. Always, always always proof your freelancer's work and ask for documentation on stock images used because you never know when things like this will happen.

Not always, and that is an assumption. If I go to wordpress.com or facebook.com and either of those companies redesign the page which I host my content on, then you are not responsible for their carelessness, even if you park a domain on it and call it your own.

I called Ghetty and I tried to reason with them, saying that out of the hundreds of images in use, the designers couldn't distinguish the stock image from the client provided images.

I asked them to drop it, and to send the claim directly to me. In fact, I was the only one with enough privileges and know how to remove the image from html code. Code which is a template, reused on ther websites as a part of the core software service product offering, and the image is embedded within that software.

They wouldn't drop the claim who it was directly at wrongly, and they wouldn't settle with me. I think in my instance, Ghetty is overstepping their bounds and being unreasonable.

Does anybody really believe there are that many photographers out there who have actually done business with these people?

They are professional extortionists, and it would seem the last thing they do is provide photography services, product, ect...

On another note, perhaps it is a good wake up call.

It would however be decent if they went after publishers who used stock images in the context of the works they are creating.

In my case, They kept saying to me that it was the responsibility of the "End User". Well... if the end user didn't put it there, didn't ask for it, and they have no means to remove it, how can they be at fault?

Last edited by MrGamma : 15-04-2011 at 19:40.
 
Old 15-04-2011, 21:51   #77 (permalink)
niggle
Senior Member
 
niggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,492
Like most here I've had my good times with getty. They targeted my studio a few years back. As out happened the mistake was theirs, but I learned two valuable lessons:

1. Getty don't make idle threats. Yes, they really will take you to court.

2. They are as tenacious as a dog with two dicks. They will never, ever go away. I'm an award winning cunt with a phd in being a bastard but they came close to cracking me.
 
Old 16-04-2011, 00:01   #78 (permalink)
d*d
Keeping Tom Happy
 
d*d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bristol
Posts: 11,375
Nibble, this thread is 4 years old
 
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Contact Us - Web Design Forums - Archive
vBulletin © 2000-2009 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC8