Author Topic: Advise needed re selling Rights Managed. (Read 10390 times)

kuriouskat · « **on:** February 09, 2013, 09:07 »

With everything that has been going on recently, I know it is time that I concentrated more effort on selling RM, rather that just giving everything I have to the Micros. I have a small Alamy port of RF images and a hard drive of images that are suitable for RM - just need some processing and uploading time. I know I can't sell any of my RF stuff as RM but that is about the extent of my knowledge!

Before I invest too much time getting things wrong, I just want to clarify a couple of points.

Firstly, if I submit RM to Alamy can I also sell the same images RM elsewhere? Can I also sell the same images on places like Fine Art America? In short, is the rule simply that I don't sell the same images as RF?

Secondly, I notice on Alamy that images that would perhaps sell as editorial on the Micros are clearly photoshopped more than an editorial image should be. One example I saw was very similar to an image I have, and was clearly taken from the same position, but mine has power cables cutting across it and the processed one on Alamy had the cables removed. I am used to just tidying up images for editorial - exposure/contrast/curves, etc. Is this kind or treatment acceptable for Alamy/RM? Also, at what point do I have to declare that it has been 'digitally altered'? I'm really not sure what 'digitally altered' constitutes - would that be anything that has been adjusted in PS or is it for substantial image manipulation? The image I mentioned with the removed cables was marked as NO to the 'digitally altered' bit.

Thanks

aspp · « **Reply #1 on:** February 09, 2013, 09:14 »

Quote from: KuriousKat on February 09, 2013, 09:07

Secondly, I notice on Alamy that images that would perhaps sell as editorial on the Micros are clearly photoshopped more than an editorial image should be

Editorial is a usage. Most RM images at Alamy are not inherently restricted to editorial use only. Only if specific licensing restrictions have been set which prohibit all except editorial use.

Bear in mind that many RF images both at Alamy and elsewhere will also be used editorially.

You need to say that it has be altered digitally if you have changed the content. Added or removed stuff. It's a matter of using your judgement. Lots of great reportage over the years has been heavily processed and looks like it does because of how the film was processed and then printed. Or because of the film stock used.

ShadySue · « **Reply #2 on:** February 09, 2013, 09:28 »

Alamy has no exclusivity, so you can sell the same pics RM elsewhere, at FAA etc.

Don't take what other people do as an example of good practice. For example, do a search on Edinburgh Tattoo, model releases, and apart from the many irrelevent results, look at the ones which are marked that they have Model Releases. A few might be genuine, but I certainly don't believe that they all got releases for every one of the performers in some of the images.

So just because someone says they didn't manipulate an image, doesn't mean they didn't. Where you draw the line as to what consitutes 'manipulation' is to some extent up to you. I tend not to count e.g. taking out cigarette stubs from kerbs. If something is reasonably permanent, I'd count it as manipulated if I took it out. Also there's nothing to stop you submitting both a 'real' and a 'cleaned up' version, each designated appropriately.

I'm not sure how much trade you'd lose by cleaning up all litter etc and designate them as being altered - I don't know how many buyers require totally uncleaned-up.

Good luck!

StanRohrer · « **Reply #3 on:** February 09, 2013, 09:37 »

Alamy is an open site (not exclusive) so you can load to other sites as you wish. Typically it is a good idea to keep the same/similar images in about the same price points when selecting other sites. It's not a very good idea to put the same image on a high priced site and also on a dollar priced site for the same/similar license type.

Fine Art America likely has a very much different license than Alamy (I've not read it) so FAA should not be any problem.

RM and RF are just different licenses. Images can be sold as both. But the price points and stock sites may impose restrictions back and forth. There are ongoing discussions where people do not completely agree with my assessment so you need to read the rules at each site - at a minimum.

RM and/or RF Exclusivity clause of image use does indeed restrict what else can be done with an image. Tracking exclusive rights for buyers use becomes more and more painful as the image is supplied to more and more stock sites. Most photogs will not offer exclusivity unless we have very special images or want to sell from only one site.

For Alamy, the RM buyer picks his own restrictions of license so that reduces conflicts as well with other sites and pricing to some degree.

Alamy images can be altered - perfectly fine. Just be sure to mark the appropriate digitally altered box and all is good. Your competitor could get in trouble with Alamy if his edit is discovered and not disclosed. Alamy has been known to kick out people for misrepresentations such as incorrect data (especially model releases).

Alamy has some guidelines somewhere on "digitally altered". Minor brightness and contrast adjustments are OK if they do not change the "story" portrayed by the image. Be conservative and tick the altered box if you have any concern. The buyer can then decide if alterations are a problem with his use (e.g. hot news story would not want alterations - travel guides probably OK). Certainly any moved objects and removed items (wires) count as alterations to me.

kuriouskat · « **Reply #4 on:** February 09, 2013, 09:51 »

Aspp, Sue and Stan - thanks very much - you have confirmed what I thought but I wanted to be sure.

Regarding 'digitally altering' , I'll take another look at Alamy and see if I can find the guidelines. It is not something that has been an issue before, as the Micros don't ask the question for normal submissions and I was aware that editorial images should be only tidied up and not essentially changed.

Thanks again

ShadySue · « **Reply #5 on:** February 09, 2013, 09:56 »

Quote from: StanRohrer on February 09, 2013, 09:37

Fine Art America likely has a very much different license than Alamy (I've not read it) so FAA should not be any problem.

If FAA have licences, they're not easy to find. But I wouldn't expect them, as they're selling prints and cards - you don't get any sort of licence with a print or card you buy in a shop.

wordplanet · « **Reply #6 on:** February 09, 2013, 11:47 »

Depending upon the editorial use - travel guides or even travel articles vs straight news - different outlets have different rules for digital alteration - what I do is tick "digitally altered" if I've cleaned up stuff and in the "description" section I mention what has been changed so the buyer can decide if it meets with their guidelines.

FAA doesn't license images - you're selling a print so you can manipulate them as much as you wish and selling there won't interfere with RM on Alamy unless, perhaps, if you're marking your photo as RM exclusive - and possibly not then either. If you want to place an RM license with Alamy exclusively I'd ask - I have all my RM images from Alamy as non-exclusive.

Good luck.

I was licensing a lot more RF images at Alamy a few years ago but now the RM images seem to be selling more often, so I'm more inclined to put most of my new images there as RM. They've been doing a sort of hybrid RM/RF image licensing deals there anyway.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #7 on:** February 09, 2013, 13:32 »

Just one point about Editorial

You can not remove or add anything. You can't remove cables, power lines, trees or a foot. You can't add clouds, sky or props. You can adjust within limits, but one that got dinged was someone turning a grey fir photo into an orange scenic. You can't clone anything in or out...

Yes Alamy has a button for "was this image altered" so that is a notification for buyers.

Further Reading for anyone who cares to understand the limitations and allowances. From Reuters the people who gave us added clouds and bombs over Baghdad and other faked photos.

http://handbook.reuters.com/index.php?title=A_Brief_Guide_to_Standards%2C_Photoshop_and_Captions

Allowed:

Cropping
Adjustment of Levels to histogram limits
Minor colour correction
Sharpening at 300%, 0.3, 0
Careful use of lasso tool
Subtle use of burn tool
Adjustment of highlights and shadows
Eye dropper to check/set gray

Not Allowed:

Additions or deletions to image
Cloning & Healing tool (except dust)
Airbrush, brush, paint
Selective area sharpening
Excessive lightening/darkening
Excessive colour tone change
Auto levels
Blurring
Eraser tool
Quick Mask
In-camera sharpening
In-camera saturation styles

ShadySue · « **Reply #8 on:** February 09, 2013, 13:52 »

If you don't want to go the 'two versions' route, but want to clean up bird droppings or odd litter etc., maybe think if the particualar image is likely to be used as news, in which case leave it natural, or secondary editoria, in which case alter it and annotate appropriately.
Maybe (or maybe not) a guidebook photo editor (for example) would clean up a photo, but maybe they'd just choose one that needed no work. Who knows?

aspp · « **Reply #9 on:** February 09, 2013, 15:17 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 09, 2013, 13:32

Just one point about Editorial

You can not remove or add anything. You can't remove cables, power lines, trees or a foot. You can't add clouds, sky or props. You can adjust within limits, but one that got dinged was someone turning a grey fir photo into an orange scenic. You can't clone anything in or etc

You are completely confusing editorial (which means nothing other than a type of usage) with best practice with respect to reportage and news reporting. Editorial does not (necessarily) mean news or reportage.

Heavily processed commercial RF stock images, product shots and even computer generated images are often used editorially. Including images with, for example, people and logos removed. Editorial is simply a type of use. It does not, of itself, imply truth.

Despite the confusion which often arises, the only way that an image at Alamy can be editorial (as in editorial only) is if you specifically restrict all other uses in the optional restrictions section. Uploading an image without releases does not mean that the image is, of itself, editorial. Whether or not the image has been significantly altered does not fundamentally determine whether it can be used editorially. It may determine whether best practice or even local laws allow it to be used in the context of news and or reportage. That is a completely different issue.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #10 on:** February 09, 2013, 22:40 »

Yes I consider Editorial News as that. You are correct. I wasn't speaking about all photos without releases. But NEWS and RM. Also the tendency for people who have an image with no release to just dump it off as "editorial" is kind of weak.

News Editorial Ethical considerations. Absolutely. And you noticed I quoted Reuters who have been caught with their pants down a few times.

Good source for more than careful ethical considerations, because people will watch them closer than other sources.

Anything intended to be used as Fair Use, editorial, journalism purposes, should be effectively as it was in reality. Fair use applies to NEWS not commercial or for advertising. Other fair use is education, and libraries are allowed to make copies of things (Research). Parody, comment or criticism are also protected.

The way people are just calling everything without a release "Editorial" is playing it a little loose. Maybe some people understand why Editorial on some sites needs a newsworthy caption?

Using a logo as Editorial is not altering the truth. Using a persons image, is only allowed under Fair Use. So once again, you can't sell anything for commercial purposes or advertising just by calling it Editorial.

What purpose will people have for uploading a heavily altered photo that can only be used for Education, News, Parody, or Research?

And people complain about food looking better than it is, models having been Photoshopped, as unethical? But trying to sell an altered version of reality for personal profit, then it's OK?

You're right, I am confused.

Quote from: aspp on February 09, 2013, 15:17

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 09, 2013, 13:32
Just one point about Editorial

You can not remove or add anything. You can't remove cables, power lines, trees or a foot. You can't add clouds, sky or props. You can adjust within limits, but one that got dinged was someone turning a grey fir photo into an orange scenic. You can't clone anything in or etc

You are completely confusing editorial (which means nothing other than a type of usage) with best practice with respect to reportage and news reporting. Editorial does not (necessarily) mean news or reportage.

Heavily processed commercial RF stock images, product shots and even computer generated images are often used editorially. Including images with, for example, people and logos removed. Editorial is simply a type of use. It does not, of itself, imply truth.

Despite the confusion which often arises, the only way that an image at Alamy can be editorial (as in editorial only) is if you specifically restrict all other uses in the optional restrictions section. Uploading an image without releases does not mean that the image is, of itself, editorial. Whether or not the image has been significantly altered does not fundamentally determine whether it can be used editorially. It may determine whether best practice or even local laws allow it to be used in the context of news and or reportage. That is a completely different issue.

ShadySue · « **Reply #11 on:** February 10, 2013, 05:13 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 09, 2013, 22:40

What purpose will people have for uploading a heavily altered photo that can only be used for Education, News, Parody, or Research?

Education, news, parody and research.
Obviously.
But hey, there's a whole world of secondary editorial usage out there. Despite what SS thinks, 'news' is only a small subset of editorial. Most magazines use editorial photos; loads of non-fiction books ...

There's a very famous American building which is one of the continent's 'most photographed'. I've been there. It has a very ugly black cable right in front of it. I guess with some extreme pancake lens you might be able to photograph it without the cable, but most people must just clone it out. Not sure what 'Joe Public' did before digital, though.

aspp · « **Reply #12 on:** February 10, 2013, 05:15 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 09, 2013, 22:40

You're right, I am confused.

You are. And you are convoluting relatively simple issues. Editorial is a type of non commercial use. Use is largely determined by users and not sellers. You can choose to apply restrictions for example editorial-only (how micros do it) or by restricting specific uses (eg Alamy). If you apply restrictions you may prevent perfectly legitimate use.

All of the stuff about photoshopping, reality etc is spurious and pointless. Here are some examples:

1. The old Stockmarket catalogues used to have had a selection of images related to 'issues'. I can remember, for example, that there was a series of images about cocaine abuse. These were art directed, model released, studio images of models pretending to use cocaine (!). These images were about illustrating themes. There was nothing to stop them being used editorially and they often were. Quite legitimately. Despite them clearly not illustrating the truth.

2. Unreleased (sold unreleased) images have frequently ended up being legitimately used in advertising or in other commercial contexts. Including many famous adverts. Often airbrushed or photoshopped. What happens is that the advertising agencies do the legal footwork. Or sometimes the image is manipulated such that it can safely be used. This is normal practice.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #13 on:** February 10, 2013, 06:06 »

There's no "editorial license" on Alamy as far as I know. I presume that the "is it altered?" question is there so that editors can determine whether or not they are using an altered image and I can think of plenty of editorial usages where it wouldn't matter two hoots (if, for example, the background had been removed from currant buns being used in a cookery feature). So it's up to the buyer to decide whether an altered image is acceptable for his usage.

ShadySue · « **Reply #14 on:** February 10, 2013, 06:11 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 10, 2013, 06:06

There's no "editorial license" on Alamy as far as I know. I presume that the "is it altered?" question is there so that editors can determine whether or not they are using an altered image and I can think of plenty of editorial usages where it wouldn't matter two hoots (if, for example, the background had been removed from currant buns being used in a cookery feature). So it's up to the buyer to decide whether an altered image is acceptable for his usage.

Indeed, and in the UK, and IIRC the EU, a small incidental item in a photo does not count as any sort of copyright/trademark infringement.

Poncke · « **Reply #15 on:** February 10, 2013, 06:28 »

Quote from: ShadySue on February 10, 2013, 06:11

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 10, 2013, 06:06
There's no "editorial license" on Alamy as far as I know. I presume that the "is it altered?" question is there so that editors can determine whether or not they are using an altered image and I can think of plenty of editorial usages where it wouldn't matter two hoots (if, for example, the background had been removed from currant buns being used in a cookery feature). So it's up to the buyer to decide whether an altered image is acceptable for his usage.
Indeed, and in the UK, and IIRC the EU, a small incidental item in a photo does not count as any sort of copyright/trademark infringement.

Sue, I got a different answer in the forum. Does this photo need a release for the cans on the table and the bag on the chair D31R6Y

ShadySue · « **Reply #16 on:** February 10, 2013, 06:46 »

Quote from: Poncke on February 10, 2013, 06:28

Quote from: ShadySue on February 10, 2013, 06:11
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 10, 2013, 06:06
There's no "editorial license" on Alamy as far as I know. I presume that the "is it altered?" question is there so that editors can determine whether or not they are using an altered image and I can think of plenty of editorial usages where it wouldn't matter two hoots (if, for example, the background had been removed from currant buns being used in a cookery feature). So it's up to the buyer to decide whether an altered image is acceptable for his usage.
Indeed, and in the UK, and IIRC the EU, a small incidental item in a photo does not count as any sort of copyright/trademark infringement.
Sue, I got a different answer in the forum. Does this photo need a release for the cans on the table and the bag on the chair D31R6Y

I can't see the cans clearly, and don't know about the bag: the T-shirts are an issue unless home-designed and released.
But all of these are incidental in the image, so wouldn't be a problem in most contexts. That, however, is up to the buyer.
I always err on the side of caution, but I prefer my images to be used editorially anyway. I often put 'MR needed' when I'm sure iS would accept them.
The issue would be if a buyer cropped heavily into shoe the product and used only that part of the image. Then you have covered yourself, and the responsibility is his/hers, as set out in the Alamy conditions of use.

Remember, you have to declare even pixel blurs as 'people', even though there is no possibility they'd ever be recogniseable. These could be used commercially with no possible comeback from the blobs.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #17 on:** February 10, 2013, 07:05 »

Quote from: Poncke on February 10, 2013, 06:28

Quote from: ShadySue on February 10, 2013, 06:11
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 10, 2013, 06:06
There's no "editorial license" on Alamy as far as I know. I presume that the "is it altered?" question is there so that editors can determine whether or not they are using an altered image and I can think of plenty of editorial usages where it wouldn't matter two hoots (if, for example, the background had been removed from currant buns being used in a cookery feature). So it's up to the buyer to decide whether an altered image is acceptable for his usage.
Indeed, and in the UK, and IIRC the EU, a small incidental item in a photo does not count as any sort of copyright/trademark infringement.
Sue, I got a different answer in the forum. Does this photo need a release for the cans on the table and the bag on the chair D31R6Y

Of course it doesn't need a release, it's RM. You should have labelled it "release needed/not available" unless you have signed releases for all the people and the house (it's clearly taken on private property). If you've got all those and you want to sell it RF then you would still need to have a release for any visible labels or TMs, under Alamy's rules.

They sent me a letter demanding a release for a picture with part of my thumb in it (holding a utensil) and put it back in pending until I wrote out one and sent it in.

Poncke · « **Reply #18 on:** February 10, 2013, 07:39 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 10, 2013, 07:05

Quote from: Poncke on February 10, 2013, 06:28
Quote from: ShadySue on February 10, 2013, 06:11
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 10, 2013, 06:06
There's no "editorial license" on Alamy as far as I know. I presume that the "is it altered?" question is there so that editors can determine whether or not they are using an altered image and I can think of plenty of editorial usages where it wouldn't matter two hoots (if, for example, the background had been removed from currant buns being used in a cookery feature). So it's up to the buyer to decide whether an altered image is acceptable for his usage.
Indeed, and in the UK, and IIRC the EU, a small incidental item in a photo does not count as any sort of copyright/trademark infringement.
Sue, I got a different answer in the forum. Does this photo need a release for the cans on the table and the bag on the chair D31R6Y

Of course it doesn't need a release, it's RM. You should have labelled it "release needed/not available" unless you have signed releases for all the people and the house (it's clearly taken on private property). If you've got all those and you want to sell it RF then you would still need to have a release for any visible labels or TMs, under Alamy's rules.

They sent me a letter demanding a release for a picture with part of my thumb in it (holding a utensil) and put it back in pending until I wrote out one and sent it in.

Thanks, I have all model releases and the property release. But since I dont have the PR for the bag, the t shirt and the cola cans, I have said PR needed yes, PR available no. So its RM. Its exclusive to Alamy. But I figured if I have exclusive RM with all releases, it will be worth more. But as of now, it says PR NO.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #19 on:** February 10, 2013, 11:33 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 10, 2013, 06:06

There's no "editorial license" on Alamy as far as I know. I presume that the "is it altered?" question is there so that editors can determine whether or not they are using an altered image and I can think of plenty of editorial usages where it wouldn't matter two hoots (if, for example, the background had been removed from currant buns being used in a cookery feature). So it's up to the buyer to decide whether an altered image is acceptable for his usage.

How do they know if someone uploads Editorial to anyplace else but Alamy, which has a box for "this photo has been altered"?

On SS someone clones a woman with a dog into a desert scene, adds some pretty clouds and calls it woman walking dog in the desert. It's uploaded as Editorial. (hint: news) But it's altered. Isn't that some kind of fraud?

Alamy same photo, if the sky is added, it's altered, if the sand is added it's altered, if there's no model release, it's Editorial...

Back to the question, How Does The Buyer know how much the image was altered? Do they have to ring you up or ask the agency for every image that they want to potentially use? Or maybe unaltered is easier to sell?

I think it's a deterring factor for sales, and not a way to slip something past that has no release.

You find a photo with a dateline. You assume it's news? Ah but it's not because it's actually just editorial, and has been heavily edited. Slippery slope and dangerous ground to be playing this game.

Yes Sue I agree, wires, trees, a foot, did you see the part about "no auto levels". Talk about nit picking! But one guy who won an award for sports shooting had it revoked, because he cloned out an errant foot. The fire photo was altered from grey and blue to orange and glowing. FAIL. Yes that's news? But where does it end?

People complain about integrity and then want to get a pass when it comes to their own sales. Hey I'm not stealing your image, I'm just using it free on a little blog?

Sure I haven't a release, and I'm labeling it editorial with a news type dateline, but really, it's just "editorial"... no big deal.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #20 on:** February 10, 2013, 11:52 »

Well if you upload somewhere on an "editorial" license then you shouldn't alter it.

It doesn't matter what happens elsewhere, that's not Alamy's business . Their clients rely on their suppliers to be honest in the "is it altered" box. That's the beginning and end of it, really.

In the end, the only way for someone to know if a photo is altered is to take it themselves.

ShadySue · « **Reply #21 on:** February 10, 2013, 11:58 »

Race, do you really not know the difference between 'hot news'/news and 'secondary editorial' or are you just being obtuse/trolling?

The reason school textbook publishers wouldn't buy from micros historically was that they had no way of knowing that a picture had not been altered.

On iStock, editorials should not be altered at all, other than sensor spots and a bit of levels. End of. No tick box: if it's submitted as editorial, the contributor is saying it's unaltered.

Buyers who need unaltered images will not buy from agencies where this is not a requirement. Buyers who don't care can choose where to buy from.

I have no idea what you mean by, "I think it's a deterring factor for sales, and not a way to slip something past that has no release."
I don't know what you mean by 'it' in that sentence.

Also, as far as I know, there isn't a release on any agency which a person can sign to say, "I agree to my image being used in an editorial context but not in an advert or to promote any cause."

Surely you realise editorial is not 'a way to slip something past that has no release'? It's a different sort of image, where reality is key, not some bland generic entity with suggestions of reality omitted or cloned out.

aspp · « **Reply #22 on:** February 10, 2013, 12:03 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 10, 2013, 11:33

Alamy ... if there's no model release, it's Editorial...

No. There are no editorial photographs at Alamy. None. There are just photographs. Some might be used editorially. Editorial is a type of use. Users mostly determine use.

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 10, 2013, 11:33

People complain about integrity and then want to get a pass when it comes to their own sales.

Who ? You keep coming up with these straw man points, inventing arguments which nobody is having. Eg:

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 10, 2013, 11:33

You find a photo with a dateline. You assume it's news?

But no. You shouldn't.

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 09, 2013, 22:40

people are just calling everything without a release "Editorial"

Who is ?

Quote from: ShadySue on February 10, 2013, 11:58

Race ... are you just being obtuse/trolling?

Could be that.

aspp · « **Reply #23 on:** February 10, 2013, 12:12 »

Quote from: ShadySue on February 10, 2013, 11:58

Surely you realise editorial is not 'a way to slip something past that has no release'? It's a different sort of image, where reality is key, not some bland generic entity with suggestions of reality omitted or cloned out.

That is not true either. Not inherently. Editorial is just and only a type of non commercial use. Any image can potentially be used editorially. As in my previous example about the studio images of cocaine abuse which Stockmarket were selling in the late 80s. You are confusing editorial use with an intent which would be, broadly, reportage. Or content which is produced for specific editorial use.

Now it is certainly true that specific collections have rules about what they will accept into their editorial collections. If they have editorial collections. That is a completely different issue. Alamy does not have an editorial collection.

ShadySue · « **Reply #24 on:** February 10, 2013, 14:32 »

Quote from: KuriousKat on February 09, 2013, 09:07

Secondly, I notice on Alamy that images that would perhaps sell as editorial on the Micros are clearly photoshopped more than an editorial image should be. One example I saw was very similar to an image I have, and was clearly taken from the same position, but mine has power cables cutting across it and the processed one on Alamy had the cables removed. I am used to just tidying up images for editorial - exposure/contrast/curves, etc. Is this kind or treatment acceptable for Alamy/RM?

Thanks

Can I just check that you know that RM is only a type of license?
You can sell highly manipulated, or even totally computer generated, commercial images at Alamy, and many other sites, as RM.

'Commercial' doesn't equate only to RF, though Alamy has chosen to make images without releases, (even if you don't actually need the releases as the 'people' are only pixel blurs), as RM.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Advise needed re selling Rights Managed. (Read 10390 times)

kuriouskat

aspp

ShadySue

StanRohrer

kuriouskat

ShadySue

wordplanet

RacePhoto

ShadySue

aspp

RacePhoto

ShadySue

aspp

BaldricksTrousers

ShadySue

Poncke

ShadySue

BaldricksTrousers

Poncke

RacePhoto

BaldricksTrousers

ShadySue

aspp

aspp

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors