Stolen Picture
So, this is the price we pay for indulging in social media, I guess.
I am thrilled to have reconnected with so many friends on Facebook. One of them sent me this message yesterday:
Alright, so how’s this for random: I’m in the car, taking my wife for a check up, pass by a new grocery store and notice that they have a picture of you, your husband and two kids on the store front window. Life size. I kid you not. Will take a photo of it later today and send….
What you don’t know from this message: this college friend lives in the CZECH REPUBLIC.
Clearly, my family did NOT take a picture for any advertisements - either here or abroad. And, clearly, whoever hijacked the picture assumed no one would recognize us so far away. Hmmmm…wrong. 
I’ll admit, there is an element of flattery (I think) to the whole thing. But still, there is something creepy about knowing our family picture was stolen from one of my sites. This picture has been on my blog, used as a Christmas card and put on a few Ning Networking sites. It is also on my Facebook page (which is one of the reasons Justin recognized us) but my FB page is open only to friends.
Perplexing.
Here is the real picture:
And here is our modeling debut in Prague.
According to my friend, Justin, the translation reads: “We will prepare and deliver your requests in two business days.”
Thanks, Justin for letting me know!
Interesting. Bizarre. Flattering, I suppose. But quite creepy.
This picture was taken by a friend of mine, Gina Kelly. She does give me the rights to the pictures she has taken - and has authorized me to use them on my site, etc.
Your thoughts?
Updated, Saturday, June 6th. Based on the comments I’m seeing, I feel compelled to clarify a few things. 1) I am the author of this site - Danielle. Not my husband. Quite a few comments have been directed to him. 2) I take FULL responsibillity for posting this picture with the incorrect resolution (read: too high). Clearly, I am not a professional photographer and should have made the resolution smaller and/or watermarked the picture. 3) I used the incorrect term in one of my comments - the photographer did sign a release for me to use the pictures, and certainly, this does not mean I ‘own’ them. 4) While the photographer certainly may sell some of her pictures as stock, she ALWAYS has the subjects sign a model release. I didn’t sign one for this picture, but would have if she had asked. 5) I posted this story because I think it is INTERESTING - what are the chances a friend who see this ad thousands of miles away? AND because I was SURPRISED it happend. Like many of you commenting, I wasn’t aware pictures could be taken. If this makes me naive, so be it. Now I know. And, for the record, I will not stop using pictures of my family on my site - I will however, change the format. 6) I am grateful to the greatest percentage of people who have commented with very interesting thoughts. However, if you are part of the smaller percentage who are commenting only to say that a member of my family (or all of us) are ugly, I won’t be approving the comment. I won’t allow it on my site. I imagine you understand. Thanks for stopping by!
Related posts:
- Thank you Thank you for expressing your opinions so freely about our...
- I’m getting thicker skin When I was a TV Anchor, thick skin was a...
- Lucky Me. I have had a few surprises lately. Finding out our...
- St. Louis Children’s Photo Contest - Lace Images A few years ago, when I was elbow deep in...
- Love, Love and more Love In the chaos that surrounded the lead up to BlogHer...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Nick~
Thank you for explaining this…
Danielle
You will actually have a better chance of protecting your image in Europe than in the US if the Copyright Office has its way. They have been pushing an amendment to US copyright law what gives a pass to people who use art and photos they find and can not trace the owner of. It has been know as the Orphaned Works Bill. It has failed twice due to active resistance of Artists and Photographers. It is soon to be introduced again. It was originally intended to help Libraries and archival organizations.
But this Bill has morphed into a monster that will require any image you want to protect be registered with private for-profit registries, or you will lose all real leverage to discourage people from thieving images. They would get a slap on the wrist and pay fair market for the usage if found out. Unless you want to police the whole world, there is almost Zero chance you will ever find the user of your images (witness the uproar over your experience). The cost involved in finding and getting the thief to pay for the use is more than the payment. Proving intent to steal is almost impossible in the digital age, so no real threat of major punishment if this Bill passes.
A lot of the free-use culture sees nothing wrong with this way behavior. But people like your professional photographer friend, artists and illustrators spend their work hours making images to put food on the table. Being unable to afford to protect or control the fruits of their labor is a death nell to their ability to feed their families. For private persons, becoming associated with some commercial, political, or social message they do not approve of becomes more of a danger when there are no effective laws for punishing appropriation of your likeness (or effective laws are gutted-Orphaned Works Bill!).
The Grocery Store’s use of your image was probably worth $800-$1200 dollars in the commercial market, more if the use extended further. That is money you could have used for your family, or your photographer friend could have used for her business or family. The Grocery Store certainly paid money for the ad work and expects to make money from using it as well. They could have made their own image, but they did not want to send the time or pay the photographer, so they took yours instead…
Danielle,
After reading your original post and most of the comments, I would say that there are two interesting stories here. The first one is that you experienced s/th, I guess others would by pay money for. No doubt you’ll enjoy many good moments by telling this story years from now.
The other story is how cultures differ. As a little experiment, I told your story to a couple of people (all Europeans). While reactions did vary from “way cool” to “scary”, noone came up with the idea of legal action. A small percentage wondered about making money from it, but again - none mentioned sueing anybody.
No when I read the comments above I ask myself: what is it in your culture or society that results in such a high percentage of (presumably) Americans to immediately shout for legal action?
I mean, to me it seems really ridiculous, reading comments from folks that apparently do have zero knowledge of (for example facebook) legal terms nor international law. Obviously they shout for a lawyer first, while thinking and reading follow later (if ever).
There are a lof of follow-up questions coming into my mind. I’ll leave it to you to think over it.
And hey, you mentioned you’re flattered by having been picked for the ad campaign. I guess you also have the right to feel flattered for reacting to this story more savvy than many of my fellow posters above suggested.
Too bad that store didn’t pay your family a trip to Prague -which is a beautiful city- instead of redoing their campaign…
Cheers,
vt
Britt is absolutely spot-on with her assessment of the harm the Orphan Works Act will cause families who use the internet to share photos with distant relatives and friends. In the text of the bill an ‘Orphan’ is any image who’s creator ‘failed’ to sign or mark the image and can not be found by searching the copyright office. How many parents are in the habit of signing and registering their photos?
It’s a scary new world that makes it possible for someone to reach across the globe and violate your rights as a family here in the US. I think you’re handling it all incredibly well and I wish you and your lovely family the very best. ~Lisa
Dear Danielle,
what a global world, we’re living in…
A friend told me about your creepy story. I’m working for a newspaper in switzerland and would like to print it as an example and a warning for publishing personal data and pictures on the web.
Thatfore I wanted to ask you if I might use your family photo for the article (I could steal it too, but I’m not shure anymore that you wouldn’t find out ;-)).
Thanks for a short reply.
Lorenz
Even if you do mark your image, Photoshop can do wonders in talented hands. After a modest watermark is removed or cropped out, the image can travel through numerous hands ending up who knows where. Only the first person in that chain has broken the law, if something like the Orphaned Works Act is approved in the US.
@vt: Perhaps us Americans hold our principles in higher regard when compared to Europeans? If someone does you wrong, do you not want justice?
Nick - Don’t you love all these people that ask non-photographers about an opinion on whether or not to sue? Why not ask photographers, artists, poets, etc on their opinion of what to do if their work is used without permission?
@Lorenz: So you want to, instead of admonishing the ones who will be breaking the the law, encourage those who are abiding by the law adjust their practices to deter thieves?
This is like advising a grocer that they shouldn’t put their fresh apples out front where they can be stolen rather than encouraging people not to break the law and steal in the first place. The problem isn’t putting the apples where they can be stolen; the problem is the thieves stealing the apples.
You will be admonishing the wrong party, and for that I resent you as you will only be exacerbating the problem by shifting responsibility from those that are breaking the law to the victim. Try telling a rape victim they shouldn’t have been so pretty and see how that goes.
I don’t think this story is about privacy issues and how Daniel was wrong (which she wasn’t) to publish personal information on the internet; it’s about an advertising agency who unlawfully reproduced a copyrighted work and was caught despite significant odds. If you are indeed writing an article as you’ve described, I encourage you to find a more relevant subject matter.
@Tyrone: That’s another thing that irks me. I don’t see anywhere that Danielle has asked whether or not she should sue.
@Nick W: While I agree with the general thrust of your argument. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Lorenz taking the opportunity to let the clueless know what is going on out there and how to protect themselves in the the world as it currently exists. I would hope he/she would also write into the article about the state of the laws which are suppose to deter such thieving behavior (there are some changes afoot in Europe as well.) In the US there are potentially very stiff penalties to protect the art and photos of those who have jumped through the necessary hoops to gain official ability to utilize the maximum penalties. Those hoops discourage a lot of individuals, who instead rely on the possibility that their art *might be* properly registered as the deterrent of choice. This only works if there is a general belief that getting caught will have serious consequences.
In practice, I think properly registering your image for maximum protection gets you a quick resolution of disputes, lawyer’s fees, fair compensation, and a cease and desist order, not the maximum penalties. But without those eye popping potential sums, the offenders would ignore your rights.
I believe Danielle said she was not interested in suing, a perfectly understandable decision not to complicate her life when it is not her livelihood on the line. The Grocer has stopped the use of the image. They did this readily because they knew they could be in real legal difficulty is my guess, especially in Europe. Other commenters have suggested that a suit would be a proper response.
Hello again,
@Lisa: you call the use of a photo which was -unintentionally, but de facto- put into the public domain a violation of rights? C’mon, open your eyes! We live in a time where more personal rights and freedom are at stake than ever before. Globalization and electronic data highways have been coming at a pace that simply overburdens the majority of people today.
Now what would be a proper reaction to this? A lot seem to be whishing for the old days, when you could sit on your veranda with your winchester, shooting (’rightfully’) anyone having put a foot on your ground without your permission.
While you still are allowed to own and foster your winchester, you aren’t allowed to take someone others live anymore. (Sidenote: this is where laywers jump in).
I have good friends in the U.S. who talk upright and proud of their country; and among a lot of good and desireable values they mention in the same breath, there is one word that just makes their eyes shining a bit more: freedom.
Unfortunately their tone gets a little meek when recent changes are brought up, that don’t fit too well into a culture of freedom. Take increase in public surveillance, tapping phone and mail communication, taxes spent for CIA, NSA, DHS etc. as examples.
These increasing numbers mark the desperate attempt of a clueless administration to cope with a completely new generation of challenges. And the clueless citizen truly believes that these obvious cutdowns in personal rights and freedom are ok because they’re happening in her/his own interest? Wake up is all I can say! And get informed. Keep up with the technical revolution that is happening all around you. Do you actually know how easy it is for criminals to transport encrypted messages over the internet? Do you think more (tax) money for surveillance can be a remedy to this? If yes, you should talk to a mathematician or physicist.
Our world has been changing, and Danielle just happened to become reminded of a tiny little fraction of this by the way she handled that pic of hers.
Above I asked what would be a proper reaction to a rapidly changing world? There is no simple answer, and politicians today clearly have none. Personally, being “male, young and well-educated” plus working in a high-tech profession, I can just try to keep up with the pace in which my surrounding becomes more complex and information-loaded. I do know this is not a solution for the whole society, though.
What I also do know is that politicians acting for the sake of acting, aiming at Orwell-like conditions won’t bring us any further.
Life is not simple, and is becoming more complex every single day. Evolution has brought forward mankind. Mankind has put technology on the track of evolution. This development increased in speed and is just about to explode due to its exponential nature. While we all can benefit from many desireable achievements (e. g. latest results in medi-robotics) there is always the other side of the medal - the technology we created requires us to master it, and I mean that in more than one way.
Speaking about sides of the medal: it is interesting to read comments here of people who rant about image “theft” while they in the same glimpse advise Danielle to “sue the pants off them”.
Maybe that Czech store took pic from the public domain in order to prevent fees for a commercial pic. If so, the reason presumably was a form of greed. And greed is exactly what I would call the motivation for calling to “sue the pants off them”. At this point Nick, I politely ask you to think about principles and justice again and to the end.
In a world that keeps increasingly changing, where technology has the potential of putting mankind on the sidetrack of evolution, a very near answer for us could be to keep up what has been defining mankind ever since: values, virtues, and ethics that make us superior to other animals on planet earth.
Future lies in our own hands, demanding us to act. Every day and every minute.
Whoever wants to deny that will find her- or himself calling more and more things “creepy” - which is one of the terms that is used most often in the comments above.
Wake up!
vt
@vt: Sorry vt, it seems you have drunk the free culture cool aid. I suggest you wake up and think about the incivility of using other people’s creations without their permission. I know there are millions of people out there desiring free materiel to make their own efforts more interesting. How do you feel about those who wan to make money from other peoples efforts with out paying them for their efforts. That thought pattern is very old, not new. and it goes by some ugly names…
WOW…that is why I am afraid to put pictures of myself and family on the web.
Flattering, but it’s beyond creepy.
Hello,
@Britt: You state there are million sof people out there “desiring free material to make their own efforts more interesting.” I cannot tell if this holds true or not, for I cannot judge about those who download others’ stuff and for what reason. I do see a web full of uploaded content though, and it is often rather easy to tell for which reasons. Among those craving for recognition, exhitionism and other forms of narcicism appear to rank rather high. Do you think a place like the internet works like this, that one league -let’s call them the exhibitionists- satisfy their needs while others are expected to obey “just watch, but don’t touch” rules, neglecting their own desires (for using or modifying other’s data)? There will always be some kind of equilibrium, and if one puts content to the public domain, then she or he has to accept the consequences.
Several commenters have correctly mentioned how to handle data the proper way in order to mark it as copyrighted. In many cases this is a legitimate and necessary act. Getting upset over foreign use of data put to the public domain is pointless and a sign of unawareness.
Danielle pointed out that she has learned at least two things from the story: that she should have resized her pic before putting it online, plus reading the legal terms of the online service she was using for free and where she uploaded her pic to.
From my point of view she is one step ahead of many commenters: she has reflected, identified her mistake, and learned how to to make it better next time. This is what is called intelligent behaviour.
I came here from dpreview.com forums, and don’t intend to return another time now since I added a few points to your discussion that noone other did bring up before and that seemed important to me.
I mean no offense, but pink websites are not exactly my cup of tea.
Farewell,
vt
That’s a really cute picture btw
I’m really interested in the logic that this qualifies as a submission to the public domain. Is this web design public domain? How about your company’s? Can I go ahead an lift that, too? Just because it is publicly available does not mean it has been submitted to the public domain.
It is clear to me, vt, that you concept of public domain is the work being publicly available and able to be copied. Your understanding is absolutely dead wrong. Just because a work is publicly available without a copyright notice or watermark does not make it a work belonging to the public domain. Unless Danielle’s photographer explicitly states that she has submitted her photographs to the public domain - then they’re not in the public domain.
There is no such thing as de-facto submission of a work to the public domain. This isn’t something that can be done unintentionally!
@vt: It is very clear now that you think you are being a realist; you think you see the world as it really is; that if you can touch it on the web, it is yours to use as you wish; that there are now new rules that old fogies are just not willing to recognize.
I would liken that to a teenager who has just been given a new car. You can drive it on the left or on the right side of the road. you can stop at read lights or not, you are making your own rules. It would behoove you to follow the commonly agreed upon rules of the road, or someone will get hurt. There are reasons for rules (most rules). There are also good reasons for protecting the property and creative efforts of individuals. Those without the ability to build and protect some personal possessions and wealth are called slaves and surfs. Is that how you see the artists and photographers who’s creations you are willing to take without permission or compensation? You do indeed seem to had serious misconceptions about the rules of the road for Public Domain.
Danielle,
I just saw this thru LinkedIn. My company has been sued for doing this before. Claim was north of $1M and we had to cease the advertisement. Good luck.
Matt
Hello!
I’m working with advertising myself - and often we use pictures like this, just for layout -and of course because it is a picture who is large enough, and I think it COULD be forgotten that it was only for that purpose, and then they print it. Many times, private photos like yours is more “alive” than the photos you can by.How would you react if they had ask you to use it, and get you money for it? I’m just curiose, I have never deard to asked someone yet.
Thats crazy!
I read an article about it, and now I think I know where someone got a hold of it.
You you go to Google, and click the “images”
link, and then you’ll see “any size” near the top right corner.
click it, and then click “Extra Large”
then, type in “Happy Family” and theh “Search images” you’ll then see your family on the first page of google, so someone must of picked the best picture on the first page and put it on a billboard!
Your Welcome!
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&um=1&sa=1&q=happy+family&btnG=Search+images&aq=f&oq=
Thank you, Samantha. I am aware our picture still appears, despite having been deleted from the site where it was posted. (Of course, that begs the questions - how do you get down? Can you?)
In previous searches under ‘happy family’, the picture appears, but links also to my site (this post in particular) and mentions a copyright. Also - that photo - while ‘large’ in resolution, should not have been large enough to be increased to life size without some additional work and doctoring - at least that is what I have been told.
I appreciate your post.
I think this is why my wife was opposed to having a blog. I know from my own experience of being an illustrator, that this is too common in art. A family photo though, that is far more personal. As long as it stays in the creepy realm and not the dangerous realm…I think this is going to become more common sadly. Keep your spirits up, you have a lot of supporters!
Hi Danielle,
You wrote:
————
“If the photographer was to sell that photo without my permission, and I found out about it, she would be paying me royalties, UNLESS I had signed a release. (This is NOT the case, as Gina does not sell stock photography)”
————
FYI: Gina Kelly currently has 438 stock images for sale through Alamy, one of the largest stock agencies. Most mid-range photographers tend to sell through multiple agencies to maximize profit, so it is not unreasonable to think she may have other accounts not as easily found.
This is going around in circles. Your best bet is to contact the Czech company. Their agency may have bought it legitimately somewhere, and they would be able to prove it in matter of minutes with an invoice. If so, you have recourse against the photographer. If they didn’t buy it, you have recourse against them.
You wrote:
————
” Also - that photo - while ‘large’ in resolution, should not have been large enough to be increased to life size without some additional work and doctoring - at least that is what I have been told. ”
————
There is no mystery there. The photo was taken with a CANON EOS 30D, max resolution of 3504 x 2336. That’s the same resolution as your photo. It probably needed some careful upscaling and processing, but the results on the window show it clearly was big enough to be printed that large.
The same thing happened to a friend of mine, but not as crazy. A photograph was taken of her and used in a magazine, with the photographers concent. Then a mutual friend was in a club in Tulsa, Ok (about 1500 miles away) and saw a 20ft tall poster of her along the back wall. The photographer never gave concent to the club to use the image. Not as impressive but still creepy.
ProPhoto/Zagg - I appreciate your note - but want to clarify again - there are TWO Gina Kelly photographers - the one you mention - is NOT the Gina Kelly who took my pictures.
I won’t argue with you about the max resolution, but since I have had a converstation specifically about this topic with Gina, and I trust her implicitly, I do have to mention that Gina did not provide me with the largest resolution of the picture - she still has that stored in her studio.
Thanks,
Danielle
This reminds me of that commercial where this kid is walking out of a school with her friend and someone says hello to her by name. She thinks it is cool, then realizes that everyone from the cool guy to the creepy weirdo recognizes her. The message is that you should not post pictures you don’t want others to see, or use because once they’re out there you can’t take them down. My point is, copyright or not, if you put it out there, you should expect for others use it. If you do not want to fall victim of someone using your picture without your permission, then don’t put it out there.
Yes, sue the guy in Praque… you’ll not get far, waste money and time and will quickly realize that the world you live in is not the be all and end all of how humans live. If a poor family in India liked your photo and hung it on the wall to help them be more popular with the neighbors would you sue them too… realize that your imperialistic capitalism stops at the US border. As soon as the world realizes this it will be a much more pleasant place to live in.
You guys are a good looking group. Great story!
@Mick Walsh Re:” realize that your imperialistic capitalism stops at the US border.” - Does that mean that if I can get your work product for free, I can sell it’s use and keep all profits for myself? You will not object, right?
@Mike Walsh: Apparently you’ve never heard of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Contracting parties include the US, Czech Republic, and about 50 other countries.
In reality, our imperialistic views are shared by many countries that have agreed that it, in fact, does NOT stop at our borders (or their borders).
Do you have any more nonsense to spew at us?
WOW - this is too crazy/weird/creepy/funny. I don’t what else to say but glad you have an old college friend in the Czech Republic! It certainly makes for a good story. We live in such a small world.
That is weird. And strange. And interesting. And creepy.
WOW. I, personally, would sue. Hard economic times…you may as well go ahead and get the money you deserve for that picture. Very cute family!!
wow, a friend just emailed this story to me. I agree that is pretty creepy. How bizarre to find a life size pic of you in Czech Republic. I’m naive too - how do you change the resolution setting as you had mentioned?
The person who said it’s not theft unless you add a note re copyright is WRONG!
The minute you write or photograph something it’s covered by copyright.
Unless you explicitly signed a release for the photographer to sell your photograph to a marketing company etc., then they can’t legally do it. If you had the photos taken for your personal use (i.e. as a family photo - which I’m guessing you did), they have no legal rights to sell it. Anywhere.
If it were me, I’d definitely be taking legal action.
I’m a writer, and have been plaguarized three times. I threatened the person (yes, the same one each time!) with legal action, and the problem was rectified.
Copyright laws are world-wide, so it doesn’t matter where the photo was taken, or where it’s published - it’s still covered.
If it were my kids (or grandkids), I’d want it removed.
For the sake of writers and photographers the world over, I hope you take the appropriate action. (Because doing nothing sends the wrong message to plaguarizers.)
Cheryl, no offense but you claim to know about copyright law because you’re a writer who has been “plaguarized three times.”
It’s `plagiarized.’
That aside, it’s nice to see this (online borrowing/”stealing”) has all gone away somewhat quietly. It should have much earlier because it happens thousands of times a day, everyday, online. This case was only different because it happened in the exotic locale of the Czech Republic, which isn’t exotic at all, which is the point.
Cheers Danielle!
This is nuts… it makes me wonders what photos of mine are just running around all over the world…
Nothing surprising. If one were to read the fine print when accepting the rules and regulations of most sites like FB, you would learn that all data we post on said sites is their property, and they can sell it to anyone who might want it, such as survey companies.
no kidding, and many of them do assert control…. this is one thing our users told us quickly and we learned when we launched 2 years ago - user data is the user’s, not ours….. !
Danielle,
i just saw your family picture on a restaurant lunch advertisement in Santiago, Chile.
i read the news long ago and i found amusing that i saw it today around the corner.
Chris
I’ve scrolled through several of the comments and have yet to see anyone mention the website listed on the ad http://www.grazie.cz/ . I opened it up and it appears to be a food delivery service. I’d assume it would be a local thing, which makes me wonder what it was doing in Santiago, Chile as well (according to a july 26th post). It would seem that either an ad agency has claimed you’re picture and is usinjg it worldwide, or someone in Europe and someone in South America both had the same idea and stole the same image from the internet for an ad.
Crazy world we live in. I would contact the food delivery service and try and found out who made the ad for them and go from there.
Hey Bill - I really appreciate your comment. Yes, Grazie is a high-end grocery store - they deliver food to customers who order. They also have offices in Great Britian and in Italy. Our picture has been taken down. The store owners told the Associated Press they began the process of redoing the ad as soon as they discovered we were a ‘real family’
As for the Santiago comment - I have no way of verifying that - so many comments are posted anonymously. What made this situation especially unique was not only that the picture was stolen, but that we found out and were sent pictures as proof.
Thanks again, Danielle
Wow, I would really like it when someone would use my pic in this way. But I can imagine your surprize! Perhaps you can contact the story and send them a bill for your “modelingwork” and of course for the royalties/copyrights of the photographer? Best wishes from Holland, x Martine
http://www.adsavvy.org/the-death-of-copyright/
MAN U IS FIT !!! FIT I TELL YA !!
ERIKA CHRISTENSEN NUDE
http://www.ibibo.com/erikachristensenlnude - ERIKA CHRISTENSEN NUDE
ERIKA CHRISTENSEN NUDE
http://www.ibibo.com/erikachristensenlnude - ERIKA CHRISTENSEN NUDE
BROOKE BURNS NUDE
http://www.ibibo.com/brookeburnslnude - BROOKE BURNS NUDE
BROOKE BURNS NUDE
http://www.ibibo.com/brookeburnslnude - BROOKE BURNS NUDE
SOPHIE ANDERTON NUDE
http://www.ibibo.com/sophieandertonlnude - SOPHIE ANDERTON NUDE
SOPHIE ANDERTON NUDE
http://www.ibibo.com/sophieandertonlnude - SOPHIE ANDERTON NUDE
KARINA SMIRNOFF NUDE
http://www.ibibo.com/karinasmirnofflnude - KARINA SMIRNOFF NUDE
KARINA SMIRNOFF NUDE
http://www.ibibo.com/karinasmirnofflnude - KARINA SMIRNOFF NUDE
TARYN MANNING NUDE
http://www.ibibo.com/tarynmanninglnude - TARYN MANNING NUDE
TARYN MANNING NUDE
http://www.ibibo.com/tarynmanninglnude - TARYN MANNING NUDE
Send them a bill!