Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
JLP
Social climber
The internet
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2019 - 06:27pm PT
|
That’s significant, Norwick said, because there’s a difference between embedding authorized tweets and those containing images never intended for publication. “There may be an overblown reaction because people may interpret the decision to mean any tweet” subjects a publisher to copyright liability. Norwick said that’s not correct: Copyright holders who post images on Twitter can’t turn around and sue for infringement when websites republish their tweets.
https://www.reuters.com/article/legal-us-otc-panic/n-y-judge-says-embedded-tweets-may-violate-copyrights-but-dont-panic-idUSKCN1G02L8
From Reuter’s.
Norwick was plaintiff counsel.
Again - so now we see what happens when high school reading comprehension meets pop infotainment rubbish and freaks the fuk out over nothing.
One might also casually notice twitter images appearing quite frequently these days - on every news outlet on the planet!!
Open a gofundme for some realz legal advice. I’ll chip in. Somehow I doubt your day job covers it.
|
|
RJ Spurrier
SuperTopo staff member
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2019 - 07:53pm PT
|
JLP:
With all due respect for your bold machismo, you are not paying attention to the details of the case law, even in the very article you linked to.
What Norwich said is true, but your broader interpretation is not. Norwich said:
Copyright holders who post images on Twitter can’t turn around and sue for infringement
This is true. What he is saying is if Jane Doe owns a photo, and Jane herself (the copyright holder) posts her own photo on her Twitter feed, she can't sue the Boston Globe for embedding her tweet on their website. That is all Norwich is saying. No more. No less.
But imagine a different case, where John Smith comes along, and John decides he really likes Jane Doe's copyrighted photo that he found in a google image search, and so John hotlinks to Jane's image in a manner in which Jane's copyrighted photo is pulled from Jane's server and yet displays on John's blog; that is copyright infringement under this 2018 ruling. John is free to link to Jane Doe's website, but if John embeds or otherwise displays Jane's copyrighted image on his site, he is violating Jane's rights as a copyright holder and infringing under Federal copyright law.
It is this use-case that is relevant here with regard to the [img] tag.
JLP, you are entitled to your opinion even if it is foolish.
And, I appreciate the bold and cavalier attitude you have expressed about copyright infringement, the kind of "bring it on" machismo of someone who is sincerely committed to applying unlimited resources to fight a legal battle of dubious ethics to serve your beliefs or interests. It is kind of fun to watch. I wish I had your presumably impressive financial resources to take on these kinds of dubious legal battles as a hobby, but I admit I don't have either the resources or the interest. SuperTopo LLC doesn't either.
But, I'd ask you to consider whether this bold battle you seem to relish joining into, to allow websites to freely display someone else's copyrighted work, is really grounded in a proper moral stance? Is this what you seek to do to make the world a better place before you die JLP, to lead the charge to give websites the right to use the copyrighted works of others free of charge or accountability?
Is it Moral to Use Other People's Copyrighted Work?
I personally don't see it as a right to use someone else's copyrighted creative property for display on a website without a license. I don't think that would be a good thing for our society or economy. I have very good friends who are professional photographers. They make amazing and beautiful work. Why should I, or you Mr. JLP, have the right to use their work for your personal purposes and public display on your website, without having to fairly obtain a license to their work (and thus, properly "own the rights")? Is your need to show that image on ST or other sites a greater good for society than the photographer's right to set a fair market price for their work and make a living? Is it your ethic that copyright law is completely wrong, and those darn artists can just pound salt if they are unwilling to accommodate your desire to do what you please with their work?
The policy that SuperTopo has always had, and that Chris posted a reminder about, is simply that, on this site, please post only images you own the rights to.
It isn't that complicated. It never has been. And, I really don't consider that long-standing policy as unreasonable.
JLP, you might do otherwise on your own site, and it is your right to choose a policy that differs on your own site. But, I'd ask you to respect Chris's reasonable policy here and quit with your ignorant and misinformed insults. If you don't agree with the policies here, that is your right, and you are free to go elsewhere; please don't hesitate to do so. Quite frankly, the policy on ST is not materially different in practice than the stringently enforced image upload rules on Wikipedia, which require you to prove you have the rights to post an image (try it: I think you'll find their rules and requirements of proof to be considerably more rigorous and cumbersome than the ST policy).
rj
|
|
A Essex
climber
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2019 - 07:57pm PT
|
its like 1999, dial up speeds
retro is the new
soon Google will be alll 'bing bing bing
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2019 - 08:01pm PT
|
rj.. you could have led with these understandings. Instead you come across as draconian. Causing a number of good people to decide to leave, and pissing off others, one of whom you deleted. A person most of us appreciated.
|
|
JLP
Social climber
The internet
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2019 - 08:09pm PT
|
But imagine a different case Your confukulated example makes zero sense. It is a case no different than what’s protected.
Please open a gofundme to get legal advise. You’ve done incredible and deep damage to the community and it needs to be fixed asap. It’s much larger than your ego. Your ISP has backups, please preserve them.
Regardless of your interpretations - between your LLC, whatever insurance policies surround it and you two personally - IMO there’s just no way anyone ever will get a dime out you for copyright - nor would anyone even bother trying.
|
|
RJ Spurrier
SuperTopo staff member
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2019 - 08:48pm PT
|
SomebodyAnybody:
I think the situation is quite regrettable. There is no denying that deep damage has occurred. It hurts to lose valued content. But, if people upload images they don't the rights to and leave them on the site (in some cases hundreds or even thousands of infringing images), it creates a complex and unfortunate situation that begs the question of "what is the right thing to do now?"
...for reasons that are either being concealed, or alternatively because you have a profound lack of understanding of the law.
But, oh my, SA, that comment is a little bit dramatic.
Nothing is being "concealed."
The ST policy regarding copyright infringement is completely transparent and exactly the same as it always has been.
And, the ST copyright infringement policy is neither complex, counter-intuitive, nor conspiratorial.
A policy that says "please don't upload stuff you don't own the rights to" conceals nothing and is quite simple. Nothing, literally, nothing about the policy on uploading images has changed on this site in 18 years. The policy is moral. It is ethical. It is not even overly burdensome. It is a reasonable policy.
You may have a different interpretation of the law than the copyright attorneys that ST has engaged with. That is fine, and we respect the right to your differing opinion. Law cases are based on people with differing opinions. Disagreement is part of the magic that makes us human. But, your insults are not helpful, and I rather question whether your expertise and legal advice is better informed that the actual copyright expert attorneys advising SuperTopo.
|
|
throwpie
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2019 - 08:49pm PT
|
Someone built a really nice bulletin board, put it up in the public square and invited the public to put sh#t on it. So here you have it.
|
|
nah000
climber
now/here
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2019 - 08:58pm PT
|
RJ:
0. thanks for engaging.
1. you [and apparently your legal advisers] don't seem to accept that a major intent of the DMCA was to "limit the liability of the providers of online services for copyright infringement by their users." ie. if you don't feel like fighting about it or wasting your time, all you need to do when sent a DMCA notice is to delete the "offending" material.
2. your justin goldman instigated legal decision was a case where someone "shared a photo privately" and then when a DMCA notice was given to news providers, they chose to fight the notice. see how this doesn't apply to you [assuming you plan to comply with DMCA notices]?
3. your version of the internet ["I personally don't see it as a right to use someone else's copyrighted creative property for display on a website without a license. I don't think that would be a good thing for our society or economy."] is frankly and from my perspective, insane. in that version there is no reddit, there is no facebook, and apparently there is no supertopo. as someone who makes my living creatively, i completely agree that we need to find a way to make sure creative content providers are compensated. that said, that principle also needs to be balanced with a public's ability to have discourse. this is what the fair use principle allows for ["Examples of fair use in United States copyright law include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, and scholarship."] and the DMCA provides a way of navigating the grey between the black of privately owned and the white of publicly owned.
4. IF YOU ONLY READ ONE POINT PLEASE READ THIS ONE: while you and i aren't likely to agree on the above, that is ultimately fine. you [and supertopo] have the right as business owners to make whatever decisions you'd like and believe in.
as your recent actions seem like something you/supertopo are committed to i have only one request: PLEASE ENABLE LINKED/EMBEDDED PHOTOS FOR ONE WEEK. this would allow the folks who have poured countless uncompensated hours into this site, to backup the work they did, or that others did that they appreciated.
while you may or may not know, i for one, created a compendium of user nominated threads called "Supertopo Climbing Gold". i had started to back it up, but it was a lengthy job and i was unable to make it all of the way through before this happened. it would be a sign of good faith if you/supertopo would revert the code that enabled outside hosted photos to be displayed for one week so that folks could archive the work that a whole community contributed to.
again, thank you for directly engaging with us here... [even if i couldn't possibly more thoroughly and fully disagree with your fundamentals, your interpretation of supporting examples, and/or especially with your/supertopo's sudden and unnotified actions to a whole community that has contributed to your successes.]
edit: JLP: that works for many first pages of long threads. ironically i have backed up the entire list of trip reports that had been nominated and which are only one page long. unfortunately for threads that span multiple pages, most of the non-first pages are not on the wayback machine. sometimes, but not always nor usually. if i was given one week, i would do what i had started and click on "show all" before saving on the wayback machine... in that way entire threads could be archived. thanks for the suggestion below though.
|
|
JLP
Social climber
The internet
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2019 - 09:00pm PT
|
RJ, with a janitor’s wherewithal for law and business, not to mention common decency, has thus made it clear he is in charge here, and he has spoken.
It appears we’ll all have to accept this shameful and unnecessary loss.
It seems DMT figured it out quicker than the rest of us - as usual...
EDIT:
nah000 - I believe you can accomplish what you are requesting on the wayback site. It’s more tedious as search doesn’t appear to work - but it seems possible - utilizing a combination of google, this site and the wayback site.
|
|
micronut
Trad climber
Fresno/Clovis, ca
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2019 - 09:05pm PT
|
RJ I appreciate that you are at least still here, chiming in and dialoguing a little bit. This has really been a sad few days for Supertopo and I hope the owner(s)/Chris understand the damage they are doing to a unique and valuable online community. There is probably a reason most of us don’t understand, and that’s your business, but the fairly quick, insensitive broad brushstroke manner that the images were removed will have consequences to the forum and the way this has gone down is quite disingenuous to your users in my opinion.
Supertopo has been a wonderful platform for creativity for myself and others over the years.
I think I posted a total of over 40 trip reports over the years. Each one of them meant a great deal to me.
When I was out there climbing, I often took photos specifically thinking of the trip reports and stories I would share with the members here. I took hundreds of hours to write trip reports and post my photos with them because the process brought me joy in the creation and because I know people enjoyed and continue to them. I know others felt the same.
And the powers that be here at Supertop have literally ruined many of these little works of art..,,labors of love.... that so many of us worked so hard to create. I just want somebody to hear how hurtful it is. Life will go on, this is a first world problem for sure, but it’s sad to watch. I’ve met some fantastic friends and have now climbed and flyfished with many people I never would have had it not been for Trip Reports, and let’s be honest photography is the driving force behind these reports. Mark Hudon, Vitaliy, WTF, Stimbo, Limpingcrab....these guys have become great friends, their friendships borne out of Trip Reports and the way their stories and photography inspired.
Just hear us in the harm that has been done to this forum, its past present and future and the platform many of have truly appreciated over the years. I’ll never write another trip report here again, and thats a sad day if you ask me.
Again, thanks RJ for being somewhat present here this week. I hope Chris takes some time to think it over and engage just a little bit in the conversation with us.
Sincerely,
Scott
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2019 - 09:05pm PT
|
This is an issue that is arising in various places at the present. For instance, the EU is instituting stricter copyright conditions:
"BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Google will have to pay publishers for news snippets and Facebook filter out protected content under new copyright rules aimed at ensuring fair compensation for the European Union’s $1 trillion creative industries."
In a twist and on a personal level, I was contacted a month or so ago by a German media firm that wanted to use a couple of my photos in a short historical video they are creating for a sponsor. I sent them a letter granting permission to use the photos specifically in that work, but that was not good enough. They sent me a lengthy and bizarre form that essentially gave away all rights to them to use the material in any way they wished. I refused to sign it, and have not heard from them since.
|
|
RJ Spurrier
SuperTopo staff member
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2019 - 09:26pm PT
|
Micronut:
I am confused by your comment:
...the powers that be here at Supertop have literally ruined many of these little works of art [trip reports]..,,labors of love.... that so many of us worked so hard to create.
Help me understand what you are saying, Micronut.
I just looked at a number of your trip reports.
They all seem to be perfectly fine and to be displayed as intended.
Why are you saying they are "literally ruined?"
I can understand and empathize with the frustration of those folks who used the [undocumented and unsupported] [img] tag for hotlinking since copyright law has forced us to change how that tag is handled. But, to be fair, that [img] tag is not a documented or supported way to add an image to a page on ST, and it hasn't been offically supported on ST for 15 years.
It appears your trip reports use the normal and fully supported photo facility, which works fine, and is the only image inclusion method that has been supported and documented for use on the site for many, many, many years. And, trip reports that use that method are unaffected.
rj
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2019 - 09:30pm PT
|
Public domain, permission, gift, purchase, trade, barter, inheritance ...
Ownership "rights" accrue in many ways
How was ownership assessed before the mass deletes occurred?
It would help immensely if ST would explain how it determined the ownership of the images it questioned.
Just so everybody knows the process.
|
|
10b4me
Social climber
Lida Junction
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2019 - 09:47pm PT
|
RJ, with a janitor’s wherewithal for law and business, not to mention common decency, has thus made it clear he is in charge here, and he has spoken.
It is interesting that Chris has not said a word about the fallout.
Maybe it's true, as others have said, that he no longer cares about the community he helped create.
|
|
micronut
Trad climber
Fresno/Clovis, ca
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2019 - 09:58pm PT
|
RJ thank you for taking the time to respond. I was talking about other guys here who have had their trip reports and thread content nuked of photos. I was also trying to point out how much it affects the nature of a trip report to have all those photos removed. I was pretty sure mine were safe because I only use my own photos, but I was letting you know how much trip reports meant to me and how much time, energy effort and creative juice creating them took.
My point was the way this has all gone down. It would’ve been really cool if some of those guys would have had the opportunity to slowly and thoughtfully remove what they needed to to keep their trip reports and contributions intact.
I think there’s a good chance some of the more prominent posters here, (several of whom I know in real life) will be leaving for good and that’s a real bummer.
Like many here, it’s the fact that many of these guys had so many their original photos removed so quickly because of having some of the “illegal” images in play. A more thoughtful and considerate approach would have been truly appreciated.
Scott
By the way, let me know if I’m mistaken. I thought those guys got a bunch of their photos whacked because they used or had other photos in their possession/trip report/content that were not theirs. Are we talking method of inclusion or the fact that they had photos posted for which they didn’t own permission? Maybe I’m confused. (and I just spent three hours going through nearly 4000 photos of mine to remove anything that I had innocently cut and pasted off the web over the years thinking it was OK as long as I didn’t claim them as mine in the credit.)
————————————————
One last thought while I have your ear here RJ. What it be possible for you maybe to post something letting people know how to properly post trip reports with their images intact? The Vitaliy just wrote an awesome one and all of the images are “clickable links” and it’s really lame. Lots of folks are complaining about it and I don’t blame them. I know you are busy but posting something up perhaps on that thread and starting a new thread explaining how to do it right might be really worth the time and would be really appreciated. Especially with all the knee-jerk reactions going on right now around here.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2019 - 10:12pm PT
|
I can understand and empathize with the frustration of those folks who used the [undocumented and unsupported] [img] tag for hotlinking since copyright law has forced us to change how that tag is handled. But, to be fair, that [img] tag is not a documented or supported way to add an image to a page, and it hasn't been offically supported for 15 years.
so you don't say anything or enforce the rule for 15 years, allowing things to build up. Then you decide to enforce the rule with virtually no warning, which messes up years of effort by people.. Then when people get upset you delete them. ( Tad )
And you delete entire photo porforlios wrecking peoples years of effort with nearly no warning. What was it? 1 or 2 days before you started deleting peoples files.
Don't you see how draconian this appears? Don't you see how people can start to not trust you to safe guard their efforts?
And then you don't explain your interpretation of what constitutes ownership. Its simple to you. Its not to many people here. Many people here posted photos that don't belong to them. Those photos belong to their friends. They often have unwritten permission to post those photos. But to you this is against the law and instead of giving people a thorough chance to adjust to the changes you planned, you just went through with it.
you messed up and instead of recognizing that, you keep saying that it was the rules all along.
If it was the rules all along, but you didn't enforce it, then was it really the rules all along? I don't actually have a problem with you not enforcing the rules, and then deciding that you needed to enforce them because of changing times. But how you handled it was poor. You owe Tad and the community an apology. You devalued peoples efforts here.
Edit:
By the way, let me know if I’m mistaken. I thought those guys got a bunch of their photos whacked because they used or had other photos in their possession/trip report/content that were not theirs. Are we talking method of inclusion or the fact that they had photos posted for which they didn’t own permission? Maybe I’m confused. (and I just spent three hours going through nearly 4000 photos of mine to remove anything that I had innocently cut and pasted off the web over the years thinking it was OK as long as I didn’t claim them as mine in the credit.)
Its both. Hot linking has been blocked messing up some threads AND some peoples entire photo files that were hosted here have been deleted. ( Fritz's for one )
|
|
RJ Spurrier
SuperTopo staff member
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2019 - 10:19pm PT
|
Micronut:
Thanks very much for your reply and that additional background info.
Regarding:
It would’ve been really cool if some of those guys would have had the opportunity to slowly and thoughtfully remove what they needed to keep their trip reports and contributions intact.
There is nothing to prevent someone from switching from using the [undocumented and unsupported] [img] tag, to simply uploading those images they have the rights to use in the normal and documented photo upload manner you use. I can appreciate that is an unexpected hassle, and we didn't expect it either. But, we also have not encouraged, documented, or supported the use of the [img] tag for more than a decade.
The time it takes to upload images in the supported manner on ST, as you did in your own Trip Reports, is not terribly long, probably about 10 sec per image if converting from [img] tags to uploading, and thus less than 3 minutes of effort for a typical trip report. And, if that feels too much time, then do nothing and please understand that folks can still click on those externally hosted images to view them today.
I recognize that this is 3 minutes of unanticipated conversion work on only those trip reports that happened to use the undocumented [img] hotlinking, and thus an undesirable turn of events for folks who chose to use that method.
But, I object to the idea that the change in how [img] tags are handled amounts to more than a speed bump. And, for people who, like you, used the documented method of adding images to a TR, there is no work required at all. It is only those people who made a choice to use an undocumented and unsupported legacy [img] tag that find themselves with 3 minutes of work required to restore their TR to displaying images on the page instead of a displaying a link to see the image.
rj
John M:
I appreciate your thoughts.
Regarding:
Then when people get upset you delete them. ( Tad )
Tad asked to have his posts removed.
His request was acted on.
Regarding [img] tags being deprecated as a feature 15 years ago:
so you don't say anything or enforce the rule for 15 years, allowing things to build up. Then you decide to enforce the rule with virtually no warning, which messes up years of effort by people...
We continued to support the [img] feature, not because we wanted to encourage people to use an undocumented feature, but simply to honor the people in 2001-ish who used it as a documented feature. I don't think it is fair to suggest that we somehow encouraged the use of an undocumented feature more than a decade after it was replaced with the currently documented photo upload feature.
Furthermore, it doesn't mess up "years of effort". That is overly dramatic. All the content for an undocumented [img] tag is still viewable today by simply clicking on the image link (to comply with copyright law), and anyone who would rather have those images display in the page can take about 2 or 3 minutes to convert from using the unsupported [img] tags and use the supported photo upload method (which is the only supported and documented way to put photos in pages for the last 15 years).
I can appreciate and empathize with the frustration of someone like Fritz who had unfortunately uploaded more than 7,600 images that included many, many, many copyright infringing images onto SuperTopo in violation of copyright law and SuperTopo's long-standing policy. But, his situation is unique to what he chose to upload. When someone intermixes a huge number of copyright infringing images in a massive body of thousands of image uploads, it creates a situation. Most people have made different choices about what images they uploaded and either didn't have obviously copyright infringing images, or they took the time to simply delete their infringing images.
|
|
micronut
Trad climber
Fresno/Clovis, ca
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2019 - 10:33pm PT
|
Ok thanks for the clarification RJ. What are your thoughts on creating a quick thread to explain that so you dont lose some great contributors in the process?
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2019 - 11:23pm PT
|
RJ,
Help me out here, please.
When I started out on Supertopo in 2006, the use of off-site photo linking services such as Photobucket was the only game in town, as far as I knew.
Maybe I'm off base here: but didn't Supertopo institute its own photo hosting function in late 2009 or early 2010?
Your statement:
It is only those people who made a choice to use an undocumented and unsupported legacy [img] tag that find themselves with 3 minutes of work required to restore their TR to displaying images on the page instead of a displaying a link to see the image.
I have 121 threads, many/most of them rich with historical photographs, mostly my own, and plenty which I now understand violate your terms. Sorry about the latter. I thought there was a fair use exemption. Apparently I am remiss there, and you make the rules. Understood.
I have 6100 photographs in my photobucket, all for the purpose of creating content for this forum. Most of my work, certainly my best work, occurred between 2006 – 2009.
Are you suggesting I had another choice in those years? I'm ignorant of this phrase undocumented and unsupported legacy tag.
Again, wasn't [img] the only game in town in those years?
The reason I ask this last question, is that I think I'm reading that you say we can convert [img] posted photos to your photo hosting function. But I think you are referring only to trip reports.
Can I really do that to all the threads I started that are NON-trip reports? I styled very few of my threads as trip reports, even when that became available in late 2006. In fact I only have 1 trip report that I established. You guys actually built, on your own accord in late 2006, presumably to encourage people to migrate to the trip report tab, 3 trip reports from threads which I had authored, making 4 total in my trip report cache. So if this convertibility only applies to trip reports, my 121 threads are sunk. Because I'm telling you: those were all photo rich environments and that is the strength upon which they stood. They were, in effect, quite a lot of them trip reports. And very few of the photos showed up in the first post. I built them over time over many, many posts to cultivate interest.
I thought changes to anything but the first post in a thread required the edit button to be functional, which by my lights is defunct after 11 days.
Even if I could go through my 121 threads and entertain conversion, can you imagine how much work it would take me to redirect 6100 photographs? Wouldn't that likely far exceed 3 min. per thread given the large number of photographs I have in each thread? Never mind that I am disabled and use voice control to do everything. Even by hand that would be monumental, no? And of course a good chunk of those 6100 photographs are linked to other people's threads. And a good chunk of them are linked multiple times to various threads. There is no way that I'm aware of to restore all of that. I suppose you guys could convert every one of those photographs to your photo hosting function, but then with the question of me trying to cull those photographs for infringements of your policy, forget about it.
And from my understanding, your point about convertibility only applies either to first posts of threads, or to the initial post of any trip report. So again, all the content I generated for this forum over those 121 threads is pretty much done. People just won't be using the click through option for every individual photograph. You can take most everything I built to raise the standard of this forum and stick a fork in it, as far as I can tell.
………………………………………………………………………
You are truly informing me that in those years in particular, 2006-2009, prior to your institution of a photo hosting option, and in the years thereafter where I continued to use photobucket, primarily because I preferred the quality and the ability to size my photos somewhat larger, I was somehow misbehaving?
Regards,
Roy McClenahan
|
|
ß Î Ø T Ç H
Boulder climber
ne'er–do–well
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2019 - 12:21am PT
|
─▄▀▀▀▀▄─█──█────▄▀▀█─▄▀▀▀▀▄─█▀▀▄
─█────█─█──█────█────█────█─█──█
─█────█─█▀▀█────█─▄▄─█────█─█──█
─▀▄▄▄▄▀─█──█────▀▄▄█─▀▄▄▄▄▀─█▄▄▀
─────────▄██████▀▀▀▀▀▀▄
─────▄█████████▄───────▀▀▄▄
──▄█████████████───────────▀▀▄
▄██████████████─▄▀───▀▄─▀▄▄▄──▀▄
███████████████──▄▀─▀▄▄▄▄▄▄────█
█████████████████▀█──▄█▄▄▄──────█
███████████──█▀█──▀▄─█─█─█───────█
████████████████───▀█─▀██▄▄──────█
█████████████████──▄─▀█▄─────▄───█
█████████████████▀███▀▀─▀▄────█──█
████████████████──────────█──▄▀──█
████████████████▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▄──█──────█
████████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄──█──────█
▀████████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀──────────█
──███████████████▀▀─────█──────▄▀
──▀█████████████────────█────▄▀
────▀████████████▄───▄▄█▀─▄█▀
──────▀████████████▀▀▀──▄███
──────████████████████████─█
─────████████████████████──█
────████████████████████───█
────██████████████████─────█
────██████████████████─────█
────██████████████████─────█
────██████████████████─────█
────██████████████████▄▄▄▄▄█
─────────────█─────█─█──█─█───█
─────────────█─────█─█──█─▀█─█▀
─────────────█─▄█▄─█─█▀▀█──▀█▀
─────────────██▀─▀██─█──█───█
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!