Skip to content

Welcome to the Youtube Public Domain Resource – Part One – Why This Resource Exists

September 11, 2012

Hello, and welcome to the Youtube Public Domain Resource.

Before I begin, I want to establish the fact that despite the fact that this blog and the associated Youtube channel are called “The Youtube Public Domain Resource,” neither are actually affiliated with Youtube in any way. This is the work of one Youtube user frustrated with Youtube’s system of dealing with copyright claims and disputes, and the fact that the Youtube system often makes it difficult or even impossible to use public domain content freely. I would also like to add the disclaimer that I am not a lawyer and nothing contained on this blog or the associated Youtube channel are to be viewed as legal advice. All information is presented as-is with no guarantee of accuracy. That said, I hope that this resource will prove to be both accurate and useful, even if I am unable to offer any guarantee of it being so. I also invite constructive criticism and corrections: if you notice something wrong anywhere on this blog or the Youtube channel, let me know in the comments or in an email and I will try, as time permits, to research the matter and correct things as I see fit.

This is Part One of my introduction to this blog, and it covers my reasons for creating this project. The next post will explain how I hope to run the blog and Youtube channel.

Now, onto the proper introduction.

My name is Leonard Kirke. For a thorough introduction of who I am, you can read the first post on my personal blog, “The Dizziness of Freedom.” For now, though, I’d like to explain a bit about why I started this blog and the Youtube Public Domain Resource channel on Youtube.

My primary aspiration is to be an author of fiction, but over the years I’ve also developed an interest in other media. Since my years in junior high, I’ve indulged a great love for video-making. In the early years of my little experiments with video production, undertaken with the help of friends, videos were shared primarily by being burned to a DVD and then passed around. Just as my high school years were coming to a close, a new website came on the scene: Youtube. Youtube, I’m sure you don’t need to be told, changed everything.

I remember that when Youtube began the primary appeal of it, at least for my friends and classmates and I, was to search out old TV shows and movies we’d seen as children but had never been able to find on VHS or DVD. I suspect this was the same for many who used Youtube early on, which is ironic. After all, one of Youtube’s biggest issues today is that of copyright infringement, as huge media corporations such as Viacom and Time Warner have cracked down on uploads of material on which they own the copyright, yet it is arguable that Youtube would not have become as popular as it is without being a hub of illegal uploads of copyrighted material in those early days.

As the “You” in “Youtube” implies, though, the site was always intended for people to upload content they created themselves, and sure enough, many people did. I was one of them. My friends and I had plans during our sophomore and junior years of high school to produce a sketch comedy series. We shot a very basic promo and uploaded it to Youtube. However, as we all know, most videos and movies benefit greatly from a soundtrack. On all the movies my friends and I had shot before and then shared with others via burned DVDs, we had used music we enjoyed as a soundtrack, and like most people, the recordings of music we enjoyed were classic, popular, and very much copyrighted.

Still, we weren’t lawyers, nor especially informed citizens when it came to copyright law, or even really what copyright was in any detailed sense. So we uploaded our promo with a copyrighted song to Youtube. After all, who reads the Terms of Service of anything, anyway?

It wasn’t long after that, though, that headlines about big, corporate record labels suing those who engaged in file-sharing for insane sums of money began to appear in the news. Paranoid of being sued, we took our video down.

I didn’t upload another video to Youtube for three years. When I finally did, at the time my friends and I began making videos again during our early years of college, I was still too spooked to try using a copyrighted soundtrack. So I uploaded videos with no music at all. Naturally, this left them a little dull.

By the end of that year, though, I discovered something that greatly improved our ability to make halfway decent amateur movies: the music of Kevin Macleod. On his website http://www.incompetech.com, composer Kevin Macleod offers a HUGE treasure trove of his recordings of his own music, for anyone to download and use for any purpose, entirely for free. The only caveat was that if one used his music, either to sell on a CD for profit, to share with a friend, or, as in my case, as the soundtrack for a video, he had to be given credit. I couldn’t and still can’t imagine a more generous and reasonable license between a composer and those who make independent, no-budget videos.

That license is called “Creative Commons Attribution 3.0.” Researching this license listed on Kevin Macleod’s website, I discovered that the Creative Commons organization was created as a non-profit to aid artists who wanted to give blanket, non-exclusive licenses to the public. Copyright, in the U.S. and in many other countries, exists legally from the moment an idea is placed “in a tangible form,” and it lasts for 70 years after an author’s death (this is a simplified explanation, as there are variations, such as when a work is done for-hire). One couldn’t simply release one’s copyright on a work, even if that was desired by the author him or herself. Artists like Kevin Macleod, however, do want their works to be freely available, as it provides them with the greatest possible exposure; after all, I’d guess that no other composer’s work is as widespread amongst works distributed primarily over the Internet as that of Kevin Macleod. In fact, I’d guess that no other composer’s own recordings are used as widely in any medium as those of Kevin Macleod. Sure, there are the works of Beethoven, Mozart, Bach and many others who have proven themselves cornerstones of Western musical culture. Yet all of these artists, despite their music now having become part of the public domain, lived prior to the era of sound recording, and essentially nearly all sound recordings in existence are copyrighted in America.

Creative Commons, in response to this need of artists like Kevin Macleod, created a set of open, non-exclusive licenses which any copyright holder could place on his or her work, allowing others to use that work without the hassle and uncertainty of asking for permission directly, saving time for both those who would re-use a work and for an author who doesn’t want to be deluged with requests for permissions. Some CC licenses included restrictions, such as No Derivatives, Non Commercial use only, or Share-Alike, which means that any derivative works had to be shared under the same Share-Alike license, ensuring that the original work was not only freely shared, but that other works which sample it also add to the wealth of free works available. The most free license of all, though, was By Attribution, the one used by Kevin Macleod, which required only credit to the original author in any copies or derivative works.

Kevin Macleod’s music then became a staple of the videos my friends and I made during those early college years. It wasn’t the popular music we might have chosen were we somehow exempt from copyright laws, but it was truly excellent music nonetheless…music that, ironically, we’d almost certainly never have even heard if Kevin Macleod hadn’t made it available under the Creative Commons By Attribution 3.0 License. We’ve not only used his music for making videos: my friend used Macleod’s work (including one of my favorites, “With the Sea,”) in his independently-produced video game “Didgery.” Kevin Macleod’s music has even become a staple of my regular iPod listening habits (“Somewhere Sunny” is one of my favorite songs).

After 2008, I once again became inactive in regards to video-making. School and fiction writing took up most of my time. Still, ideas for short films were popping into my head just as often as they ever did, and in late 2010, I became a contributor and founder of The Jeremy Kellerman Advice Hour Archive, a repository of the works of a mysterious public access advice show host from Michigan and a hub of dada/surrealist art. As part of this project, I wrote fiction for the Kellerman blog and once again began making videos.

This time around, however, I’d had time in the intervening years to research copyright issues and was now aware of a valuable, though all-too-scarce resource: the public domain.

“Public domain,” broadly speaking, refers to the status of a work without copyright. Traditionally, a work became a part of the public domain when the copyright on the work expired. This, however, does not happen often. Copyright laws have changed several times over the years since America was founded. Prior to the 20th century and a particular landmark policy change in copyright law known as the Berne Convention which occurred in the 1800s, copyright was much shorter and less broad than it is today. In America’s early years, copyright had to be registered to be obtained, and it only lasted 14 years, with the option to renew for another 14 years. So during this era, copyright lasted no more than 28 years, and was not automatically gained. In the era since the Berne Convention, however, thanks to a series of term extensions and more policy changes, copyright is now automatic, meaning that it exists as soon as a work is created (registration with the U.S. Copyright Office is optional but it claims to offer added benefits), and thanks to several additions to the law, such as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, copyright now extends to 70 years after the death of the author (and that applies to cases in which a single author acted alone rather than in the employ of another, there are variations for other such situations that may make copyright last for a shorter period of time or even longer).

Due to the (in my opinion, utterly excessive) length of copyright terms today, not many works will enter the public domain for decades. The only other way, traditionally, that a work became public domain in America was if it were created by an employee of the U.S. government in the course of his or her official duties. The U.S. government, however, isn’t exactly known for churning out an endless stream of popular music, movies, or literature, so this isn’t much of a help in keeping the public domain thriving. Also, thanks to the fact that federal copyright law didn’t properly cover sound recordings during the early years of the existence of recording technology, most early recordings exist with a seemingly perpetual copyright based in state rather than federal law.

However, in 2009, the Creative Commons organization released a new tool, this time specifically for those who would like to intentionally enrich the public domain. Called “Creative Commons Zero,” often abbreviated to “CC0,” this tool is not a license like the other CC tools, but a waiver. In essence, this waiver is a declaration from the creator/copyright holder of a work of his or her intent to release the work, as much as legally possible in any given jurisdiction, to the public domain. Sadly, in my experience it does not appear that very many people have embraced this opportunity and few have used the CC0 waiver so far. Still, of those few who have made use of it, some truly wonderful things have been dedicated to the public domain. However, I will list some of those things later.

In addition to the scant resources for works released with a CC0 license, since 2010 I’ve been mining The Internet Archive, which can be accessed at http://www.archive.org, for materials that are in the public domain due to expired copyrights. The Internet Archive is home to the Prelinger Archive, a collection of various informational and educational shorts primarily from the first half of the 20th century, and I believe that all of these are in the public domain. One can find instructional shorts on topics such as good hygiene, supporting the war effort during World War II, giving a speech, and what to do on a date (if you’re an awkward 1950s teenager). I believe that the majority of these shorts are in the public domain due to expired copyrights, as they were created when it was still necessary to place copyright notices on a work and to register them with the U.S. Copyright Office, and being such niche and generally non-commercial films, nobody bothered to maintain the copyrights on them. Some of them might be works of the U.S. government and therefore ineligible for copyright. Regardless, via the Prelinger Archives collection on The Internet Archive, these often strange old films are free for anyone to watch and enjoy, or even to reuse and remix (there’s even a section on there for Prelinger Mash-Ups!). It’s also worth nothing that a number of these shorts will be familiar to fans of the cult classic TV show “Mystery Science Theater 3000.”

While posting videos to the Jeremy Kellerman Youtube channel, which used some of these obscure public domain videos for various remixes and mash-ups, I discovered a serious problem with Youtube that eventually led me to the creation of this project and the blog you’re reading right now.

Due to pressure from big media companies, some years ago Youtube implemented a system to detect the use of copyrighted content, known as the Content ID Match System. This system is intended to be able to detect when an uploaded video contains copyrighted content, whether that includes video, audio, or any other sort of material that someone might own a copyright on. Companies registered with Youtube upload their content to Youtube’s system and then it is able to search for that content uploaded by other users.

When the system detects that a video matches a copyrighted work, it gives the person or company that registered their copyrighted material with the system several options. They can choose to have the video simply taken down. However, the alternative choice would be to monetize the video, which causes ads to be placed on and next to the video, a link to be added to buy the work on a service such as iTunes, and for money to be made for the copyright claimant each time the video is viewed. So, for example, if you upload a video of your family picnic, and a radio in the background is playing Bob Dylan’s “Like a Rolling Stone,” Bob Dylan’s record label and/or the record label’s online distributor can then place an ad at the bottom of the screen, one next to the video, which earn them revenue when clicked, a link to buy “Like a Rolling Stone” on iTunes or Amazon, and also, each time your family members watch the video to relive some happy memories, the record label then gets a royalty for those views.

This might seem reasonable enough (at least to those, unlike myself, who still consider copyright itself a wholly reasonable policy)…if the system always worked correctly. Sadly, in my experience, it does not.

There are a number of problems. Let’s begin with how Youtube handles these claims: it more or less doesn’t handle them. If someone places a claim on your video and the claim isn’t valid, Youtube provides a claim dispute page, but no Youtube representative reviews it or deals with you personally. Instead, review of the dispute is left to the claimant, which I suspect, based on reading several articles and reading of others’ experiences on this subject, are as equally automated and non-personalized as Youtube itself, as claims are often just rejected without explanation. In some cases, unscrupulous entities may even knowingly reject a legitimate dispute in order to keep profiting from work that isn’t theirs. This is known as “copyfraud” and you will likely read more about it as this project, and this blog, progress.

I should note here that there is one area in which this faulty system really negatively impacts Youtube users: it impedes legitimate exceptions to copyright law. What are legitimate exceptions? One is fair use, which allows works to be sampled for purposes of criticism, education, parody, and a few other cases, generally all of which involve some form of commentary on the work that is sampled itself. Fair use is a somewhat fuzzy concept for many, I often see it cited in cases where it may not really apply. I’ve also heard that it only really comes up when defending a case in court; one can’t simply declare or register something as fair use beforehand. Nonetheless, I believe it is an important right, as taking it away would severely impact free speech and education. For example, how can one criticize a political speech if not allowed to quote from it? How can one learn about Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous “I Have a Dream” speech if it is made unavailable due to a copyright claim (yes, this speech IS copyrighted, despite its historical significance and cultural importance!).

Youtube’s system gives total power to a copyright claimant, whether they have legitimate claims or not, and as far as I know, they have no process for vetting the legitimacy of anyone who registers a work with their system. This is a rather unsettling development; Youtube is a pervasive part of our current culture, it is a central platform in which people create and share art and cultural works and ideas (and, yes, lots of videos of cats and people doing stupid things).  Yet if I were to post a video critiquing a political speech, and sampling a small part of a recorded version of it for clarity and emphasis, I could, potentially, be silenced by the subject of my critique using copyright as a form of censorship of my views. I don’t know about you, but that bothers me.

In addition to legitimate exceptions to copyright laws, such as fair use, Youtube’s system has given rise to another problem, both as a result of the system’s inaccurate automation and sometimes of intentional copyfraud: that of false claims being made upon public domain works.

In cases of errors in Youtube’s system, I can provide a personal example. One video I uploaded some time ago used clips from the 1950s public domain film noir “Daughter of Horror,” also known as “Dementia.” (It’s the movie playing in the theater when the Blob attacks in “The Blob.”) This video was flagged as containing copyrighted material from “ReBEAT Digital,” an Austrian digital distribution corporation. The material in question was an ambient music track recorded by a European band which used samples of the opening narration of the film, but because Youtube’s Content ID Match System can’t tell the difference between a public domain work and a copyrighted work that samples a public domain work, Youtube’s system viewed my use of the audio from “Daughter of Horror” as the audio from the European ambient song. In these situations, the company the copyright claim is registered to isn’t necessarily to blame for anything; in fact, ReBEAT Digital actually had a customer service email address set up to deal with just this kind of problem. When sent an email politely explaining the mistake, a personal reply was given which was most polite and friendly and the claim was released within hours. So kudos to ReBEAT Digital for being one of the few companies to step up and actually deal with this sort of problem.

Sometimes Youtube’s system makes a more perplexing and nonsensical mistake. They mention on their FAQ the “rare” possibility that someone’s home movie could be mistaken by the system for a scene from the film “The Godfather.” I’ve heard of a few examples in which strange mistakes like this have actually happened. One popular Youtube artist I spoke with earlier this year told me that a video of his was flagged once as containing a copyrighted song, yet the only audio in the video included nothing more than the pops of a record being playing with no music or sounds.

The other and more sinister case of claims being made upon public domain works are cases of deliberate copyfraud. In these situations, a corporation (perhaps a dummy corporation created just for this purpose as a fraudulent get-rich-quick scheme) simply enters a popular public domain work into Youtube’s Content ID Match System, registering it for themselves despite the fact that it is a public domain work and they have no exclusive copyright to it at all. For example, “Night of the Living Dead” is in the public domain (due to an error of lacking a copyright notice when it was first released, as copyright notices were required at that time) so it isn’t unlikely many people would upload and remix this film. Yet from what I have heard, it’s a popular target of copyfraud, in addition to claims made due to errors in the system.

It was due to a system error that I finally felt fed up enough with Youtube’s unreliable and troublesome system to start the Youtube Public Domain Resource.

In early 2012, a noble and excellent project came to fruition: The Open Goldberg Variations. Seeing the need in our culture for public domain recordings of public domain music, so that all can rightfully enjoy material that ought to have been public domain for years, Robert Douglass and his wife, classical pianist Kimiko Ishizaka, began a campaign to fund the recording and release of a complete version of J.S. Bach’s Goldberg Variations into the public domain. The project was set up on crowd-funding platform Kickstarter, and their financial goal was met and exceeded. With a high-quality donated piano and donated studio space in Germany, and with the contributions of a classical music recording producer, the recordings were completed and finally released in May of 2012. On the official website, anyone can download the recordings in their entirety for free, and by releasing them with the Creative Commons Zero Waiver, they are now in the public domain and free to be reused and remixed as anyone sees fit.

In early September I released a video on the Jeremy Kellerman Youtube channel in support of my friend’s PC game, “Didgery.” Realizing I had not yet made use of any of the Open Goldberg Variations, I used the first track of the Open Goldberg Variations, the Aria, as background music. I even included a credit and special thanks for Kimiko Ishizaka at the end of the video.

As soon as the video finished uploading, I received an email notifying me that the audio in my video was matched as someone’s copyrighted content.

When I checked the claim, I found that Kimiko Ishizaka’s recording was mistaken for another recording of the Goldberg Variations, one by a pianist named Remi Masunaga. The Masunaga recording was listed as being represented by, and thus the content was supposed to be owned/distributed by something called IDOL. Instantly, intrusive ads were placed on and beside the video. I don’t know about you, but I find on-screen ads to be infuriating.

I did a few Google searches and the closest match I could find to an IDOL was a music distribution company based in Paris, France. I emailed them, much as I did with ReBEAT Digital, but unlike in that earlier case, IDOL sent me no reply more than 24 hours later. Frustrated, I finally filed a claim dispute, and was annoyed to find that Youtube’s option for claiming the work you used is in the public domain is also inaccurately worded for my case; specifically, the language of the dispute forces you to say that the public domain work you’re using is THE WORK IN QUESTION but is public domain. There was no way for me to say “No, this is Kimiko Ishizaka’s public domain version, not Remi Masunaga’s copyrighted version.” I explained it all in the notes of the claim nonetheless. It’s been a week since then as of the date that I’m writing this, and the claim dispute hasn’t been given a response by IDOL, nor has my email to them ever received a reply. The ads were taken down for the time being, thanks to the claim dispute process which is also automatic, until the claim-dispute is settled. IDOL apparently has until October 5th, 2012 to respond, a little under a month away. I don’t know what happens then if they don’t respond; I assume the claim is automatically dropped.

After researching the problem and realizing this had happened to other users of the Open Goldberg Variations (apparently it is tough for Youtube’s Content ID Match System to differentiate between different versions of the same music such as the Goldberg Variations) I emailed the Open Goldberg Variations project to inform them. Speaking to Robert Douglass, I wrote out the whole story of my experience in the hope that he would pass it on in case others came to him with the same problem. That way, at least my experience would give someone else an idea of what to expect when using the Open Goldberg Variations on Youtube.

This, however, gave me an idea: why not create a Youtube channel which contains only uploads of public domain works, and then chronicles what claims are made against these uploads, what evidence can be found for or against a work’s copyright status, and whether or not a claim can easily be released by contacting the claimant or disputing the claim within Youtube’s system?

That is why I’ve created this blog and the Youtube channel. While I can’t promise definitive information, and least of all about copyright statuses of works believed to be in the public domain (again, I’m not a lawyer so one shouldn’t take anything I say as definitive), I believe that by simply testing out various public domain works on Youtube and then reporting on the results, I can perhaps save others some time and frustration. I may also post anecdotal stories from other Youtube users if I believe their information is genuine. My hope isn’t that people, seeing the results of my uploads, will shy away from public domain sources. In fact, I hope this will inspire people to fight false claims more vigorously, and to do research about various sources so that we all may benefit from a little more knowledge of the law (if any copyright lawyers out there want to do some research for the public’s benefit into the copyright status of various works, you have my blessing and thanks!). At the very least, while I hate for people to refrain from using public domain works, as the public should have a right to use them, I hope that this resource will allow content creators on Youtube to make an informed decision about the risks of using certain public domain works in their own works that are uploaded to Youtube.

In my next post, I will recap how this project is to be used and add a bit of additional explanation. A brief explanation can already be found in the “About” section on this blog.

Thank you for reading and I hope that this blog and the associated Youtube channel will prove helpful to you.

All the best,

Leonard Kirke

Advertisements

From → Introduction

8 Comments
  1. Here is a very simple experiment that I have done.
    Upload an old 8mm home movie of a parade. Use “Stars & Stripes Forever” audio track by U.S. Army Band.
    It is flagged by “rumblefish”. I dispute it (1896 composition by J.P. Sousa, performed by “gov’t” band). A few days later, the dispute is dropped.
    One week later, I post a different parade, using the same music. Same flag by “rumblefish”, which I disputed. They dropped claim 2 days later.

    Apparently they can file multiple false claims with no penalty imposed by YouTube. The claims are accompanied by exact text identifying the work. In one case, ads were posted while still in dispute.

    • Hi, Chip. Welcome to the blog and thanks for being the first to comment and share an experience.

      What you describe doesn’t surprise me much at all. Youtube’s system is, if I understand the situation correctly, totally automated, as I note in my post above. As far as I know, no actual human being on Youtube’s end oversees any copyright claims. So it’s not terribly surprising that false claims are often made, as nobody at Youtube is even checking to see if they ARE false, and because an automated system obviously can’t make a decision about the truth of a claim, it will treat them all as valid and therefor allow multiple claims without penalty.

      I must say, though, ads remaining posted while a dispute is active is news to me, and bad news at that.

      The type of experiment you describe is similar to what I will be doing with this project. Considering your example, though, there’s really no need to test the same track with different videos. In my uploads, I will likely include no video at all, just static text on-screen crediting the source material and possibly offering a brief description of the project. The claims are automated by Youtube’s system so a single upload should be a good enough test to determine who’s trying to claim what materials. That’s what I hope to accomplish, many such tests with thorough reports on the results for all to benefit from.

      One last note to you and anyone else reading: I didn’t expect anyone to have found the blog yet, and I’ve done nothing to spread the word at this time because it’s still in the rough stages. I haven’t actually begun any Youtube uploads, I’m hoping to do a video, a vlog-style introductory video before doing my actual test-uploads of various public domain works.

      Thanks again for commenting and sharing your story and I hope this resource proves valuable to you in the future!

      Leo

  2. Leo-
    I got my YouTube postings mixed up and noticed that Rumblefish has not cleared “The Stars & Stripes Forever” music, despite doing so earlier on another video (that took 3-5 days). It looks like I must wait the full 30 days! Maybe I hurt their feelings by referring to Rumblefish in the video.

    Another video was almost immediately monetized (ads w/o my permission) but it was released in 3 days. Where’s my dough, Moe???

    • Good question!

      So far I’ve done uploads of the entire Open Goldberg Variations project and every single one got at least one, if not several, false copyright claims, and some of those didn’t even show up for several days after the video was uploaded.

      Please keep me updated here as you deal with more of this bother. I’m hoping this place can be a little archive of what Youtube users will have to deal with, so every story one has of dealing with this kind of thing is welcome!

  3. Rex permalink

    This site looks very useful. I have found many forums where people are frustrated by these copyright trolls. Hope you expand it! Also, you might want to edit the home page, as 4600+ words require a lot of onscreen reading time (maybe break details, etc. into separate pages).

    • Hi Rex!

      Thanks very much for the kind words!

      As for page breakdowns, that sounds like a good idea to me. I’m running this thing as a bit of a side project, so further edits/restructuring may take some time as I focus on my personal projects. Nonetheless, I think this is a very good idea and I’ll try and do that during my next big update.

      At present, I’ve updated all of the Open Goldberg Variations to Youtube and have dealt with false claims on each and every upload. There are about 6 or 7 uploads left with unresolved claims and I’m waiting for the last of those to finish before I begin updating the blog again. The last claim is set to expire on the 21st of this month.

      I hate to wait so long, but as I said this is a bit of a side-project and takes a backseat to other things. Nonetheless, I hope it proves helpful.

  4. I uploaded a video to YouTube today that uses the Aria da capo e fine played by Kimiko Ishizaka as part of the Open Goldberg project and within hours have a copyright dispute from UMPG Publishing that I am challenging. Hence the Google search that led me here.

    One thing I will say for YouTube’s is that they have now removed the advertising that started when the copyright was disputed and I challenged it.

    • Hi there Viewfinder!

      I apologize for my late replies. I’ve not kept up this blog in many months; I’m way behind on actually updating my experiences with using the Open Goldberg Variations music, but what you describe is pretty much in line with what I experienced. The advertising is always removed when you submit a dispute, that’s par for the course, but if a dispute is rejected the ads will go back up, unfortunately.

      Thanks for commenting, you might just inspire me to finally compile my experiences from last year!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: