Step away from that white background

by Eszter Hargittai on May 10, 2014

As you probably know, several of us at CT are big photography enthusiasts. While we seem to be more interested in taking photos of nature and architecture, next time we want to shoot a family portrait or an item, we’ll have to be careful with our approach. The US Patent Office recently granted Amazon a patent for taking photos against a white background. For real. So is their plan to start trolling portrait studios and Ebay/Etsy sellers to see whom they can sue?

I am no lawyer, but the language seems rather vague. For example, “a top surface of the elevated platform reflects light emanating from the background such that the elevated platform appears white”. So what level of off-white should a photographer strive for to avoid litigation?

{ 50 comments }

1

Main Street Muse 05.10.14 at 2:07 pm

WTF is the matter with the US patent office!!!!!!!!!

I don’t see how this is enforceable, but Amazon can make it hell on photographers who use a white background. The artists cannot afford to fight against big companies with big legal guns to throw at everyone else.

Here’s an example of portraits against a white backdrop from a guy who died before this concept was owned by Amazon… http://bit.ly/1g7nLSl

And now I guess I need to boycott Amazon. What a bunch of jerks. Oligarchs own everything (and the Washington Post too.)

2

Main Street Muse 05.10.14 at 2:14 pm

Here’s Avedon’s In the American West series – I saw this at the Art Institute of Chicago years ago – thought it was breathtaking… http://bit.ly/1sxwBdU

3

Frank Davies 05.10.14 at 2:31 pm

The people over at the stack exchange patent website have a request out for prior art on this one. Someone there pointed out that the patent is very specific about details of the setup (ISO and f-stop).

http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/6543/photography-lighting-amazon-issued-patent-prior-art-request

4

Donald A. Coffin 05.10.14 at 2:58 pm

“a top surface of the elevated platform reflects light emanating from the background such that the elevated platform appears white”

Sounds like if the background really *is* white, you’re OK.

5

Eszter Hargittai 05.10.14 at 3:03 pm

Thanks for those interesting links, MSM.

And DAC, nice.:)

6

Sasha Clarkson 05.10.14 at 3:19 pm

It reminds me of when Rupert Murdoch claimed to own the “Sky” in Skype:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/online/rupert-murdoch-claims-to-own-the-sky-in-skype-2048607.html

It has always amazed me that companies can patent words which, as part of the English language, have been common property for centuries. But now they are patenting our genes as well.

As for Mr Murdoch, some of us consider that he also owns part of a well known town in north-Lincolnshire ….

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe_problem

7

novakant 05.10.14 at 4:28 pm

So is their plan to start trolling portrait studios and Ebay/Etsy sellers to see whom they can sue?

Their thinking is probably the other way around: preemptive patent trolling.

Nevertheless it’s scary that the patent office would even consider such stuff, but then there were the one-click and tab patents so they have been bonkers for a long time.

8

idonthaveacoolname 05.10.14 at 4:39 pm

So no one but Amazon can assert white background privilege now?

9

Pascal Leduc 05.10.14 at 5:09 pm

Gonna have to read through that thing to find what is the novel invention there. There has to be something that makes all the prior art inapplicable.

10

R. Porrofatto 05.10.14 at 5:43 pm

The Supreme Court now measures voting rights and college admissions against a white background, so perhaps it’s something in the air these days.

11

chris 05.10.14 at 6:03 pm

Passport photos are taken on a white background. Maybe they can sue Homeland Security for requiring an infringement on their patent.

12

heckblazer 05.10.14 at 8:20 pm

The full text does actually specify how much white would be infringing:

“equivalent to a white background when converted into a web color hexadecimal triplet corresponding to a true white . . . A hexadecimal triplet corresponding to a true white according to various browser standards . . . can be represented by three bytes corresponding to a red parameter, a green parameter, and a blue parameter, each with a maximum value of 255. “

While the patent fails the novelty and non-obvious tests, the set-up and claims are pretty specific.

13

Dogen 05.10.14 at 8:29 pm

Hmm, I’m not sure WTF this patent is about, but it seems unlikely that it’s simply about a white background. The language is incredibly specific, it specifies an 85mm lens without specifying camera type (the same length lens on different camera types produces different results).

For example does anyone know what this torrent of verbiage below means?

From the Amazon patent – 8,676,045: Claim 1. A studio arrangement, comprising: a background comprising a white cyclorama; a front light source positioned in a longitudinal axis intersecting the background, the longitudinal axis further being substantially perpendicular to a surface of the white cyclorama; an image capture position located between the background and the front light source in the longitudinal axis, the image capture position comprising at least one image capture device equipped with an eighty-five millimeter lens, the at least one image capture device further configured with an ISO setting of about three hundred twenty and an f-stop value of about 5.6; an elevated platform positioned between the image capture position and the background in the longitudinal axis, the front light source being directed toward a subject on the elevated platform; a first rear light source aimed at the background and positioned between the elevated platform and the background in the longitudinal axis, the first rear light source positioned below a top surface of the elevated platform and oriented at an upward angle relative to a floor level; a second rear light source aimed at the background and positioned between the elevated platform and the background in the longitudinal axis, the second rear light source positioned above the top surface of the elevated platform and oriented at a downward angle relative to the floor level; a third rear light source aimed at the background and positioned in a lateral axis intersecting the elevated platform and being substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, the third rear light source further positioned adjacent to a side of the elevated platform; and a fourth rear light source aimed at the background and positioned in the lateral axis adjacent to an opposing side of the elevated platform relative to the third rear light source; wherein a top surface of the elevated platform reflects light emanating from the background such that the elevated platform appears white and a rear edge of the elevated platform is substantially imperceptible to the image capture device; and the first rear light source, the second rear light source, the third rear light source, and the fourth rear light source comprise a combined intensity greater than the front light source according to about a 10:3 ratio.

14

js. 05.10.14 at 9:05 pm

That is… bizarre? And an 85mm lens and 320 ISO speed aren’t exactly the most common (tho given the prevalence of zoom lenses, the first might not be all that true).

15

Hob 05.10.14 at 9:18 pm

They’re talking about a particular arrangement of the light sources and backdrop, and a raised platform with some light sources hidden behind it, the idea being that the white platform will blend smoothly with the white backdrop if you light things correctly. So it’s more specific than just “white background”, but still it’s hard for me to imagine that any number of photographers who know their stuff wouldn’t have essentially duplicated this many times before.

16

mbw 05.10.14 at 10:22 pm

Warner Brothers once threatened to sue the Marx Brothers over “A Night in Casablanca”. See, WB owned the name “Casblanca”. The Marx Brothers then threatened to countersue over the name “Brothers”.

17

Frank Ashe 05.11.14 at 1:57 am

Was this patent filed a month or so back? Very early April?

18

The Temporary Name 05.11.14 at 2:02 am

Pee in the snow before you photograph against it. Just in case.

19

The Temporary Name 05.11.14 at 2:36 am

still it’s hard for me to imagine that any number of photographers who know their stuff wouldn’t have essentially duplicated this many times before.

Yes. If you do an image search for “glasses” you’re going to get a vast amount of pictures that meet the specifics of the white background values heckblazer identifies.

If this silly thing ever stood up – in the form of policing images – most online shopping sites would have to change. It’s an amusing and ridiculous threat, but let’s hope it costs Amazon money more than anyone else.

20

Matthew Ernest 05.11.14 at 5:07 am

“The US Patent Office recently granted Amazon a patent for taking photos against a white background. For real.”

For not real. No claim consist solely of a white background.

Reading between the lines, it looks like Amazon is trying to find IP protection for a specific style of product photography so that they can establish a “look”.

21

Tim Worstall 05.11.14 at 9:53 am

“It has always amazed me that companies can patent words which, as part of the English language, “

Not so much. You can trademark a word but not patent one.

Which seems fair enough. If you’ve got a brand as “Apple” in computing then it seems fair enough that no one else can start calling their computers “Apple” as well. And if you’ve got a brand in music called “Apple” then it seems fair enough that Apple the computer company can’t start issuing music under that “Apple” brand. Which is what the fight between The Beatles and Apple was all about.

You only own a trademark in the specific field that you’re working in. Bass, one of the oldest trademarks, applies to beer and possibly booze only. Anyone and everyone can still sell bass fish, bass guitars and bass speakers.

22

Sasha Clarkson 05.11.14 at 1:22 pm

Ha Tim (@21) :D you’re right – and it serves me right for being imprecise in my language – quite unforgivable to confuse a patent and a trademark!

However: although I see no problem about a logo being “owned” as part of a trademark, I’m very uneasy about common names and words being similarly owned. The former is fair enough as part of consumer protection, but I see the latter as an infringement of liberty.

Take a genuine case: about three miles from where I live, there was a café owned by a Mr McDonald. In this day and age it would have been foolhardy for him to try use his own name for his business, so he called it the ‘Busy Bee’ instead. But it’s not inconceivable that some multinational would use that name as part of a trademark: which would mean that another common phrase would be off-limits to the ordinary businessperson.

McDonalds of course think that they own “Mc” too – a contention which has not always been upheld in the courts!

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/sep/08/mcdonalds-mccurry-legal-fight-malaysia

And their attitude is Orwellian: even trying to control the slang they helped create, as the “McJob” controversy illustrates.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6469707.stm

23

Jake 05.11.14 at 7:35 pm

This patent covers taking photos against a white background in the same way that 47% of people pay no federal taxes. It’s technically true given specific and unstated qualifications, but most people who hear the statement will end up with a mistaken belief.

24

Stephenson quoter-kun 05.11.14 at 7:56 pm

This sort of thing has been going on for years, and has been a running joke for quite some time. The scary thing is that companies which have grown up with the absurdly broad applicability of software patents are increasingly filing patents on “real world” activities such as how to set up lighting on a photo shoot. This patent might also be linked to a recent spike in the number of patent approvals which has occurred since a new head of the USPTO was appointed with a brief to clear the backlog of applications.

The situation has caused a sufficient backlash in the last decade that some companies such as Twitter have agreed with their employees that any patents filed by those employees will be used for “defensive” purposes only – that is, Twitter will only seek to assert those patent rights if sued by another company for patent infringement (the notion that Twitter might reasonably be able to avoid infringing the patents of other companies is sadly absurd given the ridiculously quantity and breadth of widely-used technologies that are somehow patent-encumbered).

Sadly, there is widespread institutional support for the patent system. American universities profit considerably from the patent system (sometimes appropriately, other times not), and the fact that patents can be sold means that institutions which want the money but not the bad PR can simply sell their patents at a discount to someone else who will pursue claims through the courts. Major tech companies are now in a “mutually assured destruction” scenario, where they each have to acquire – by any means – a large patent portfolio so as to discourage their rivals from suing them. It’s not unusual for failed tech companies to be bought, even for billions of dollars, simply for access to their patent portfolio.

In the meantime, if you would like to help strike down this latest patent, or any other, you can go to the StackExchange Patents site and contribute any examples you may have of prior art – the easiest way to get a patent thrown out is to prove that it’s not a new idea.

25

maidhc 05.11.14 at 10:05 pm

I couldn’t tell if this is a design patent or a utility patent. If you are trying to patent a certain look, then a design patent is appropriate. Apple claimed the design of having beveled edges on a tablet, for example. I wouldn’t think you could get a utility patent on a photographic lighting set-up because of the huge amount of prior art, but a design patent is on the boundaries of being plausible.

I’m not sure of the value of this patent. If they tried to stop some other website from using pictures taken with a similar set-up, I think they would get a huge amount of bad publicity.

26

Francis 05.12.14 at 1:59 am

Okay, I’m actually a (mediocre) patent prosecutor. First of all, the easiest way to find the patent is on google patents here.

Second, the second independent claim (which is much broader than the first one) requires three distinct light sources, each in a very specific position in relation to the platform, and a light shield.

Highly technical patents issued in a really broad area make for really poor commentary. The only way to infringe is to build your studio in the exact same arrangement, so this patent does not (NOT!) give the patent owner the right to send cease-and-desist letters to every photo studio in the US. And because it’s so specific, this patent is trivial to avoid infringing — just move one of the light sources out of the specified position.

Now, it also looks like the patentee and the examiner together found a grand total of one piece of prior art. So either this particular arrangement is in fact innovative (one possibility) or both the patentee and the examiner didn’t work all that hard at looking for prior art (another possibility).

maidhc — It’s a utility patent.

27

Jerry Vinokurov 05.12.14 at 4:31 pm

And because it’s so specific, this patent is trivial to avoid infringing — just move one of the light sources out of the specified position.

By this logic, literally every distinct position of any of the light sources is itself patentable, which is obviously absurd. This is akin to saying that if I use metric instead of imperial screws in my design, that’s a distinct implementation.

28

Alex 05.12.14 at 5:27 pm

It’s telling that this surfaces a week after the Apple vs Samsung case ended with one party paying the other less than their legal fees and essentially no significant change to anything at all. US patents seem to me to be a bit like high-end gambling; sums of money are randomly shuffled about between the rich to no obvious purpose, except that the casino (i.e the lawyers) takes a substantial cut.

29

roy belmont 05.12.14 at 6:32 pm

McDonald’s has nothing to do with anyone named McDonald.
Never did.
But they own that name, and will until the system that grants them that “privilege” is brought down like the house of cards it is.
Whoops, can’t use that metaphor anymore.

30

Francis 05.12.14 at 6:52 pm

Hmm, bad link. Try here for the google patents link.

Jerry: the general idea is that the PTO issues patents for novel products. The patentee claimed a novel studio arrangement with multiple light sources, and disclosed a single piece of prior art. Since I know absolutely nothing about studio photography, I have no idea whether the particular arrangement disclosed in the patent application was an obvious extension of the existing art, or even already disclosed. If so, the patent should not have issued.

But assuming (for sake of argument) that the patent was validly issued, then you can’t get a patent on a new, slightly different arrangement, because that new arrangement likely would be obvious in light of this patent and therefore not patentable.

31

The Temporary Name 05.12.14 at 7:31 pm

McDonald’s has nothing to do with anyone named McDonald.
Never did.

It was started by two brothers named McDonald.

32

Jerry Vinokurov 05.12.14 at 8:16 pm

Jerry: the general idea is that the PTO issues patents for novel products. The patentee claimed a novel studio arrangement with multiple light sources, and disclosed a single piece of prior art. Since I know absolutely nothing about studio photography, I have no idea whether the particular arrangement disclosed in the patent application was an obvious extension of the existing art, or even already disclosed. If so, the patent should not have issued.

As far as I can tell from my reading, photographers have been using this technique for a long time. So the “prior art” exists, in the sense that it exists in the actual practice of photographers themselves. There’s no way that this can be a novel product.

33

The Temporary Name 05.12.14 at 8:29 pm

Photographers are going to set up and do what they do regardless of the patent: they’re going to put lights in the places they want lights. It’s like saying a guitarist can’t hit the low E with a thumb instead of spanning the whole neck with a finger.

Is there any other way of identifying patent infringement in this case other than noticing that a guy has produced an image of a product against a white background?

34

Bernard Yomtov 05.12.14 at 11:39 pm

js@14,

“And an 85mm lens and 320 ISO speed aren’t exactly the most common (tho given the prevalence of zoom lenses, the first might not be all that true).”

Actually fixed focal length 85mm lenses are quite common, and are often used as portrait lenses.

ISO 320 is not uncommon either, and the notion that this is part of some novel idea is insane.

As for “prior art,” well, how would they find it? How many photographers write down and publish their precise setup for every shot?

35

Bernard Yomtov 05.12.14 at 11:42 pm

Jerry Vinokurov@31,

By this logic, literally every distinct position of any of the light sources is itself patentable, which is obviously absurd. This is akin to saying that if I use metric instead of imperial screws in my design, that’s a distinct implementation.

Indeed. So is whether you used sunlight, a reflector (held at such-and-such an angle), and so on. Is every photograph now patentable?

36

roy belmont 05.13.14 at 12:40 am

30:

McDonald’s as presently established has nothing to do with anyone being the son of Donal.
There was a hamburger stand called that, yes, in SoCal, started by two brothers, yes. It was purchased, name and all, by the founding person of the chain we all know as McDonald’s. So technical point, yes.
But the owning of the name, no.
It isn’t as fuzzy as current law would make it.
Two brothers named McDonald can no longer start a restaurant of any kind, and call it after themselves. No one can have a food place of any kind and call it after themselves, if their name is McDonald.
Brand dilution! Consumer confusion!
“We got here first” is the name of that. Which says some interesting things to the kids coming up.

Apple2 (computer) didn’t bow to Apple1 (records) on principle, they backed off because the record Apple was big enough to lawyer up on them all the way. If Apple1 had been some indie start-up they would have been eaten alive, and forced to change.

This jots and tittles horseshit dances around the obscenity of merchants owning the language, owning as much as they can get of everything really.
It’s part of the larger obscenity of merchants owning some of the most central things in human society, basically whatever they can get their grubby little hands on.
This has gone far beyond the protection of honest work from dishonest predation.

37

The Temporary Name 05.13.14 at 12:48 am

McDonald’s as presently established has nothing to do with anyone being the son of Donal.
There was a hamburger stand called that, yes, in SoCal, started by two brothers, yes. It was purchased, name and all, by the founding person of the chain we all know as McDonald’s. So technical point, yes.

It’s actually fairly important to the history of McDonald’s that you know there were two brothers named McDonald who got pushed out of the operation they set up and refined. It wasn’t a simple purchase, it was a template.

38

roy belmont 05.13.14 at 1:02 am

36:

Well okay then.
That exegesis would have fit better in your first snippet there wouldn’t it have?
It just thickens the sauce doesn’t it?
The name is owned. Ownership is more important than the name. The name’s another commodity. Valueless except as a commercial thing. An empty signifier.
Except that Scots are cliched as thrifty, frugal, tight, and the franchise’s burgers are cheap.

39

Helen 05.13.14 at 2:22 am

40

bad Jim 05.13.14 at 7:03 am

Look: a patent claim is A and B and C. If what you’re doing isn’t exactly A, or not quite B, or not at all C, it doesn’t apply. The entire ensemble has to be present. If anything’s missing you’re off the hook.

In other words, the more verbose the claim the less it covers.

Moreover, if people were already doing anything like this, no patent could cover it. Prior art, y’all?

I’m not sure what I could do with “at least one image capture device further configured with an ISO setting of about three hundred twenty and an f-stop value of about 5.6″ using my little digital Nikon. I don’t know what it does when I point it and click. Most of the color film I used in my old Pentax wouldn’t qualify, and 5.6 was a setting I nearly never used.

41

bad Jim 05.13.14 at 7:29 am

People, I’m a reliable reference. My not entirely inconsiderable fortune, and my late mother’s reasonably sizable estate, are in no small part due to my close reading of a competitor’s patent and my lengthy tutelage by a patent lawyer who was also so close a family friend that he and my father went years without speaking to each other. I have a few patents of my own and some experience with litigation. Such are always federal cases. A summary judgment motion ran $50k in the 90′s.

I shouldn’t really say this, since it goes without saying, but Amazon has a “picture patent”, obviously in the sense that it’s about pictures, but because it’s so detailed the slightest departure from the specification escapes its coverage.

42

Oliver 05.13.14 at 4:47 pm

re : Scunthorpe Problem.

This causes such a problem for the Guardian sports pages that when talking about Scunthorpe Football Club the club is now referred to as Firewall F.C.

43

roy belmont 05.14.14 at 4:48 am

The doo-wop groups of the 50′s were many of them hornswaggled by vastly more sophisticated persons who had a much more intricate grasp of the popularization technologies of that era. Also were more connected.
So fortunes were made, not by the bringers of the sound that was sold so widely, but by the legal owners of that sound, who had bought it from naive poor kids dazzled by sums that were paltry compared to real earning potential, but bigger than anything they’d ever seen.
Legal, parasitic, and a betrayal of the source, a dishonoring of the place the music came from.
But legal.
All that’s changed is the sophistication on both sides of that sucking chest wound.
Musicians have a fairly clear take on the market, and the merchandizers have a far more precise way to estimate potential sales.
But the betrayal’s intact, the dishonor’s a fact of life.
So we discuss how far the creeping grasp of that thing can go before some kind of moral regulation steps in. It’s absurd and futile.

Amazon’s marketing robotics can’t tell the difference between a bound book with an ethical conscious printer behind it and some scammy little asshole working with a shitty copy machine who’s figured out how to bind up a “book” that can then be sold for the going rate of real books.

It is the same thing doing the same thing. Same as it ever was. It is a betrayal of something finer, lucrative as hell, but going nowhere furthering.

The con’s being run on a timid confused mark, generations deep, a multitude of johns, a mass collective hick rube, with just enough chance for just enough opportunists to get in and get some of that easy money.
It’s about the money first and foremost.
And that’s okay with most of us now, because with most of us now it’s about the money first and foremost, too.

44

maidhc 05.14.14 at 9:32 am

In trademark law the question is whether the consumer is confused. This is known as the Aunt Jemima Doctrine. This goes back to a case where the Aunt Jemima pancake mix people sued a company that was producing Aunt Jemima syrup. The decision was that consumers would be confused because syrup is a similar product to pancake mix.

In the Apple Computer vs Apple Records case the court judged that consumers would not be confused by Apple Computer selling music under the name iTunes. (This was in England, but the law is much the same in the US.)

Locally some years ago MacDonald’s sued a vegetarian restaurant named MacDharma’s. Of course you can say that MacDonald’s can hire a lot more lawyers than some little hippie restaurant. But I feel that really the hippies were riffing off the MacDonald’s name. So MacDonald’s was justified in protecting their mark. The hippies changed their name to Dharma’s and everyone was happy.

So much for trademarks, but what about this patent?

A utility patent is supposed to demonstrate a novel utility that is readily apparent to someone skilled in the relevant art. I don’t claim to be skilled in the art of photographic lighting, but I haven’t heard any experts defending the novelty of this patent.

45

roy belmont 05.14.14 at 6:33 pm

maidhc:
“But I feel that really the hippies were riffing off the MacDonald’s name. “

So did everybody else in Capitola and environs. But your phrase isn’t complete.
It should read “But I feel that really the hippies were riffing off the MacDonald’s name, and it’s not okay to do that.”
Then you have the onerous task of clarifying why it’s not okay.

I was around there then, not everyone was okey-doke with that outcome, but many of us had already experienced the swinging truncheons of societal disapproval, so a logo-takedown was small beer, comparatively.
Sigh, shrug, what ya gonna do?

Plus aesthetically, the riff is an upful and uplifting one, replacing a basely motivated nutritionally dishonest appeal to immediate sensual gratification with an appeal to a healthier more conscious and life-affirming one.

Morally it’s not as settled as the law would have it.
It’s not chocolate versus vanilla. It’s artificial fruit-like flavoring versus genuine fruit-derived unadulterated juice. And the genuine lost in court.

46

TM 05.14.14 at 6:59 pm

It sounds like a stunt somebody would pull to ridicule the patent office and they fell for it.

47

maidhc 05.14.14 at 10:19 pm

roy belmont: I’m no fan of MacDonald’s as far as their food is concerned, but I think they have the right not to have competitors piggybacking on their trademark, even small competitors.

48

Main Street Muse 05.15.14 at 12:17 am

It’s McDonald’s, not MacDonalds!

And WHY OH WHY OH WHY would a veggie restaurant seeking consumers who are seeking Buddhist bliss try to piggyback on McDonald’s name?

49

roy belmont 05.15.14 at 1:41 am

maidhc:

Dude I’m sorry, I appreciate your politesse, but there is no rational substance behind this phrase:
“not to have competitors piggybacking on their trademark”.
No one went to McDharma’s because they thought they were going to get a BigMac. That’s the only sane objection to commercial use by one corporate entity claiming to own a family’s surname.
And let’s not obscure the granular here, they won on the “McD” alone. A pretty elemental piece of the language there.
McDaniel, McDavies, McDalrymple, McDavit, McDowell, McDougal. These names and quite a few others are taken down in the same gambit.

The most piggybacking you could sensibly pull from that co-optive use is customers responding, “Heh. Yeah, right. Mcfuck those guys.”
Which is not venal piggybacking by any stretch.

And the fact that the fact that Dharma/McDharma’s main intent was to present a healthy alternative to convenience food isn’t even a legit part of the legal conversation just puts the whole thing starkly in the light of depraved greedhead amorality.

But again, thanks for your mannerly responses.

50

Sasha Clarkson 05.17.14 at 11:02 am

Roy, maidhc etc. This is not a “logical” argument: it’s an emotional one about human dignity, and what kind of society we wish to live in.

I rather like the rant (below) by Banksy, especially these words: “You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy.”

“Heh. Yeah, right. Mcfuck those guys.”

http://www.thefoxisblack.com/2012/02/29/banksy-on-advertising/

Comments on this entry are closed.