Organization That Plagiarized Guide On Making Science Posters Has Pricey Lawyer Threaten Original Creator With Copyright Claim

from the where-do-they-find-these-people dept

Mon, Apr 8th 2013 9:46am — Mike Masnick

A bunch of folks have been sending in variations on the story about Colin Purrington, a guy who apparently created a "guide" to creating posters for scientific conferences that is somewhat popular online. The crux of the story is that Purrington, who has left academia, still spends time asking folks to take down any copies of his work -- and he's a bit obnoxious about it frankly -- mocking anyone who suggests that a copy might involve fair use. He doesn't seem to recognize that fair use exists.

Contents copyright Colin Purrington (1997-2013). Plagiarizing, adapting, and hosting elsewhere prohibited. Included in the plagiarizing prohibition is paraphrase plagiarism, which is when you copy sentences and phrases but make minor word changes to mask your theft. Also, I have lost my patience with people claiming that Fair Use allows them to bypass my copyright. Really, folks?

Well, yes, actually. That's the whole point of fair use. If it's fair use, it does let you bypass copyright. His copyright claim is a pretty clear example of copyfraud, overclaiming certain rights. Also, while I agree that he certainly may hold the copyright on the work, significant parts of the work are basically just factual statements, which generally aren't subject to copyright protection, or, at the very least, very weak copyright protection.

That said, none of that means he deserves what then happened. He apparently sent one of his "hey stop it!" letters to Purdue University's DMCA takedown address and cc'ing a general catchall email at the The Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research (CPBR) after finding parts of his guide in a document hosted on the Purdue site, which was discussing an upcoming CPBR competition. While I think that Purrington goes way, way, way overboard in his claims about his own copyright, it does seem fairly clear that CPBR copied significant portions of Purrington's own work. The original file is no longer on the Purdue website, though you can see it here (or embedded below). As the folks at Retraction Watch have pointed out, it's pretty clear that the CPBR version copies heavily from Purrington's document.

For what it's worth, while Purrington sent a notice to Purdue's DMCA address, his letter is clearly not a DMCA-compliant / takedown letter, and really does seem to be more of a "hey, you should take this down" admonition, including an exceptionally jokey closing line:

If you can cover the shipping charges, I would be grateful if you to send me the head of the person who did this.

Har har. Still, what came back was quite unexpected. A threat letter from CPBR's very expensive lawyers at big shot law firm, Arnold & Porter. These guys cost a lot. In that letter, they claim that CPBR didn't copy Purrington, but rather that Purrington copied CPBR and that now that they were aware that Purrington had violated the copyright on CPBR, they were threatening him with statutory damages, up to $150,000 for willful infringement, for copyright infringement if he didn't take down his work.

Oh yeah, and they claim that jokey last line is being viewed "as a physical threat against [CPBR staff's] personal safety" and warn that if any further threats are made, they will go to the authorities.

While Purrington's guide has moved around online a few times (and ridiculously, no one covering this seems to link back to the original), you can find the earlier version that supports his story if you look in the Internet Archive for the guide's old address at Swarthmore. CPBR's letter clearly claims that CPBR created the content in 2005. Purrington's guide dates back to 2001, though it is a bit different. Still, you can find both of the key passages highlighted by RetractionWatch in a late 2004 version of Purrington's document (though, oddly, one of the copied phrases only shows up right at the very end of 2004, but that's still before 2005).

CPBR is a big organization. It takes in tens of millions of dollars in government grants and then fees it out to universities to do research. You'd think that it would know better than to claim copyright over something when there's pretty clear evidence that it was the one doing the copying.

While I find Purrington's position on copyright a bit ridiculous (also: his continual confusion between plagiarism and copyright, his refusal to acknowledge fair use within the law, and inability to compose a complaint DMCA takedown notice), it does seem pretty clear here that the party over reacting (massively) is CPBR. When the Chronicle of Higher Education reached out to both CPBR's director and the lawyer who wrote the letter, it appears that both hung up on the reporter. It might be time to admit that they royally screwed up here.

Purrington Arnold Porter Letter 1 (PDF)Purrington Arnold Porter Letter 1 (Text)

Purrington Cpbr Appendix 5 (PDF)Purrington Cpbr Appendix 5 (Text)

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: colin purrington, copyright, fair use, plagiarism, science posters, threats
Companies: consortium of plant biotechnology research, cpbr

51 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

The First Word

“

Re: Anti-copying verbiage

Colin,

You've already discovered that copyright is a weapon (a privilege - a state granted monopoly).

You are now discovering that it is not a weapon with fixed power, like a gun, but a weapon that amplifies the power of its wielder (ultimately, in the interest of the state that created it) - just like Sauron's ring �.

If you have the impertinence to allege copyright infringement against someone significantly more powerful than yourself (especially an immortal corporation), they will simply use copyright back against you - as you have found out.

Copyright is not about justice, or determining the truth of of a work's provenance. A court is only involved in arbitration when both party's litigation budgets are within reach of each other.

Consider yourself lucky you aren't facing extradition, decades in jail, or mere bankruptcy. CPBR evidently admire your spunk enough to let you live to fight another day.

The remaining question for you is whether, like Boromir, you repent, or, like Sm�agol, you sell your soul in futile pursuit of a power never intended for mere mortals.

—Crosbie Fitch

”

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Akari Mizunashi (profile), 8 Apr 2013 @ 8:14am

Live by the sword, get sued by the sword.

Poetic justice, as I opine on the internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 8 Apr 2013 @ 9:54am

Re:
Amen sister.

We need more of those along with those Apple patent fails to push ppl to stop and think "okay, this IP thing is broken, let us scrap it and start over to avoid generalized obliteration"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2013 @ 9:55am

GREAT! CPBR has established that they believe there isn't a fair use claim, and that copying it is actionable. They've eliminated their defense in a counter-suit, and established how much they believe whoever was copied should be owed.

That should be fantastic news for Purrington.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 8 Apr 2013 @ 10:04am

You keep mistaking what sue-crazy lawyers do with copyright.
Must be part of your lawyer fetish, plus your intent to demolish copyright.

Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Where economist Mike brags of hanging out with the really cool kids: lawyers!
06:04:32[h- 17-5]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AC Unknown, 8 Apr 2013 @ 10:06am

Re: You keep mistaking what sue-crazy lawyers do with copyright.
If you don't like what Mike has to say, then go start your own blog. It's that simple.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2013 @ 10:10am

Re: Re:
It is tempting to smirk and say "Karma, eh?", but perhaps this might be a turning point for Colin. I'd like to hope that rather than entrenching into a tenuous copyright defense, he'll see the light and become an evangelist for freedom of thought and expression through more clear and limited copyright. Over-assertion of copyright is the face of the problem here, and he can fight it on that front.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
squall_seawave (profile), 8 Apr 2013 @ 10:28am

Re: Re: You keep mistaking what sue-crazy lawyers do with copyright.
i think what he dont like is people getting aware of the failures of current copyright laws
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JP Jones (profile), 8 Apr 2013 @ 10:29am

Re: Re: You keep mistaking what sue-crazy lawyers do with copyright.
If you don't like what Mike has to say, then go start your own blog. It's that simple.

Nobody could read OOTB's blog. You'd be violating copyright by viewing it without prior permission. I can see the opening page now...a link to his email asking for personal permission before you can read the first entry.

Why isn't anyone reading his blog? Piracy! Obviously.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
el_segfaulto (profile), 8 Apr 2013 @ 10:33am

Re: Re: Re: You keep mistaking what sue-crazy lawyers do with copyright.
I think most sanitariums frown on blogging.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish (profile), 8 Apr 2013 @ 10:38am

"none of that means he deserves what then happened."

Yeah, it sort of does. Karma's a bitch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Colin Purrington, 8 Apr 2013 @ 10:39am

Anti-copying verbiage
If anyone has suggestions on how I might word a less-obnoxious "do not copy my text" section, I'd be grateful. It's obnoxious in part because earlier, less obnoxious versions were hugely ineffective. And about the Fair Use part, I added that after a rather large university in sunny southern california claimed it had the right under Fair Use to copy/paste my stuff without proper attribution (they eventually said that was untrue and took it down).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
artp (profile), 8 Apr 2013 @ 10:39am

Copyright trolls and biotech
It's a match made in hell!

One owns every thought they've ever had, and anything similar, the other patents life, which they did not make, but discovered. And yes, I am aware of how biotech works. Very poorly. Do your patented process, grow out the results, and throw away everything that doesn't match what you wanted. Bah, Humbug!

Despite Mike comments, I think they both deserve all that they can dish at each other.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Reality Check (profile), 8 Apr 2013 @ 10:41am

Re: You keep mistaking what sue-crazy lawyers do with copyright.
You keep mistaking the voices that whisper in your head with lucid thoughts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SirThoreth (profile), 8 Apr 2013 @ 10:41am

Re: Re: Re: You keep mistaking what sue-crazy lawyers do with copyright.
It's worth than that: reading OOTB's blog while believing in copyright sanity would violate his blog's terms of service, opening you up to federal charges under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, unless you live under the 9th Circuit Court's jurisdiction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris ODonnell (profile), 8 Apr 2013 @ 10:42am

My office is located one floor below Arnold & Porter. I wonder how they would react to somebody from the Internet showing up at their reception desk?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2013 @ 10:44am

If I kill the person responsible for this treachery will it be considered murder or copyright enforcement?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2013 @ 10:58am

Purrington?
Hmm. I had a cat named Purrington.

Bad Kitty!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2013 @ 11:12am

Re: You keep mistaking what sue-crazy lawyers do with copyright.
Lawyers don't sue without instructions from clients, boy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2013 @ 11:15am

Re: Anti-copying verbiage
Good question.

I think the most important thing is not to overstate. When the a sports league states that "descriptions" of the game are prohibited without written consent, they just look ridiculous, and aren't going to stop anyone from describing the game. And they don't have the legal authority to stop them. So, along those lines, don't say anything that you can't legally back up if you have to.

Paraphrasing is probably OK under fair use... but changing a word or two is not really paraphrasing, that's copying with edits. I think that's what you meant by "paraphrase plagiarism", but apparently not everyone gets that.

Anyway, good luck with this case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josef Anvil (profile), 8 Apr 2013 @ 11:16am

Re:
Your comment is exactly what I was thinking as I read this article.

You STOLE my intellectual property!!!

I will be contacting Arnold & Porter for representation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Digitari, 8 Apr 2013 @ 11:20am

Re: Anti-copying verbiage
Honey Vs Vinegar

Have you tried "please"? have you tried Humor? have you asked to be at least credited?

Big Sticks and Hammers rarely work online, but shame is universal as is humor....

I know it's hard but sometimes the "Streisand Effect" is the most effective tool, use it to Your advantage.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 8 Apr 2013 @ 11:20am

Re: Re: Re:
Aha, like Paul during the Church infantile days. Indeed it may be a good way out. But still... Karma's a bitch eh? ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2013 @ 11:23am

Re: Re: Re: You keep mistaking what sue-crazy lawyers do with copyright.
It would be locked behind a paywall. Whenever anyone used snippets from his blog posts in a fair-use way he would sue them. He would then blame lack of sales on piracy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 8 Apr 2013 @ 11:26am

Re: Anti-copying verbiage
If anyone has suggestions on how I might word a less-obnoxious "do not copy my text" section, I'd be grateful. It's obnoxious in part because earlier, less obnoxious versions were hugely ineffective. And about the Fair Use part, I added that after a rather large university in sunny southern california claimed it had the right under Fair Use to copy/paste my stuff without proper attribution (they eventually said that was untrue and took it down).

First off, thanks for stopping by and asking.

Second, I doubt whether or not making the message more obnoxious (and less accurate legally) helps anyway. Some people are *always* going to copy.

What we've seen time and time again is that a clear, friendly message explaining WHY you'd prefer they link instead of copy, written in a nice *HUMAN* way seems to work wonders.

Something along the lines of (and this is off the top of my head):
Thanks to everyone who seems to appreciate this site and find it helpful. I've been working on it for over a decade, and continually update it to make sure it is continually a useful reference to academics everywhere. As such, I recognize that it's tempting for many people to copy much or all of this page and post it on their own site, and I really wish you would not do so for the following reasons:

I put a lot of work into this, and knowing who is reading it helps me make sure that I'm best serving your needs.

I constantly tweak and update the work, so copying it almost ensures that your version will be obsolete and out of date.

It's the nice, neighborly thing to do. The internet is built on sharing and links, so linking back to me is good for everyone.

Finally, this is the result of my efforts, and I'm asking nicely, that if you like this, that you help promote it by sharing a link, rather than copying. I hope that you would follow my wishes on that front.

Yes, this work is also covered by copyright. Fair use *may* allow you to copy segments of it, depending on the context (generally very small segments, if done for educational purposes, and including significant additional commentary), but even in those cases, you're probably still better off focusing people on the original, up-to-date source. Thanks for your support.
The old honey vs. vinegar thing (even if the honey/vinegar cliche isn't actually accurate). Be nice, be human, explain what you want. Some people will still copy. Some people will always copy. But appeal to people's good sides, and you'd be amazed at how they respond.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2013 @ 11:37am

Re: Anti-copying verbiage
And about the Fair Use part, I added that after a rather large university in sunny southern california claimed it had the right under Fair Use to copy/paste my stuff without proper attribution (they eventually said that was untrue and took it down).

Umm, no.

Attribution and fair use are not interdependent.

What probably happened in your story: University made fair use of the work, and told you so, but didn't want to fight with someone who doesn't understand fair use, and you interpreted their removal as "admission".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 8 Apr 2013 @ 11:39am

Re: Re:
No, no, call Prenda Law for our amusement!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2013 @ 11:43am

Re: Re: Anti-copying verbiage
Now, will he copy this word for word, or...?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2013 @ 11:54am

Re: Re: Re: Anti-copying verbiage
No, but I doubt Mike would mind if he did.

Things work a bit differently when you ask someone for advice on how to word something. The person responding to that EXPECTS to be copied.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Danny (profile), 8 Apr 2013 @ 12:00pm

Re: Re: You keep mistaking what sue-crazy lawyers do with copyright.
At this point those lawyers are not going to sue. They are probably having a talk with their clients about that clear WayBack Machine proof that the article existed long before 2005 on Colin's site and the risks they take on for themselves by suing.

All they got for their dollars to the law firm was a nasty legalgram that apparently both pissed off and scared Colin. They have got to be playing defense now.

And the Purdue University General Counsel's Office can't be very pleased either.

If Colin's lawyer sends a nastygram to both the Center AND to Purdue, I bet the Center backs down (without admitting guilt most likely), and says, in effect, no harm, no foul. At that point Colin needs to ask to be made whole for the expenses he has taken on in return for not going after them (assuming he previous,y registered his copyright and has good chance of collecting statutory damages, as the real financial damage is minimal.)

IMHO (i am not a lawyer.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2013 @ 12:10pm

Re: Anti-copying verbiage
Is the current version effective?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RonKaminsky (profile), 8 Apr 2013 @ 12:15pm

What? The Internet Archive copied my work?
I can just see this Purrington dude reading this article, seeing the section where the Wayback Machine stash of his old website is mentioned, and him getting so frothed up that he asks them to delete it immediately...

Oops, there goes the best evidence he has...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Danny (profile), 8 Apr 2013 @ 12:16pm

Re: Re: Anti-copying verbiage
Colin, I suggest clearly differentiating the violation of copyright from the violation of plagiarism. As I am sure you know, they are not the same thing; and you also know that an academic is much more worried about being caught plagiarizing than violating copyright.

Regarding copyright: of course you have registered your copyright by now; if not, do so. As you already do, encourage people to link back to your site. As you probably know, there is no single clear cut test for fair use. What you might do (though it would have zero ti limited validity if ever tested in court) is lay out what you consider fair use to be for your document in the context of a website. Perhaps then, most would follow your guidelines and for those who do not, you would have a clear fallback position to guide them to make things right. A position that is less than your current absolutist position. You might also consider offering to license use of the document for a reasonable fee. Doing so, while it will never raise you significant revenue, will help establish a value should your copyright be violated--though asking price does not automatically constitute real market value. And it will make the free linking to option appear more desirable to many sites.

Regarding plagiarism: I think, in as friendly a way possible, you should make clear that you find non-attributioned borrowing of your work, subsets of your work, and closely paraphrased versions of your work unacceptable. And you should clearly state you will pursue plagiarism cases against individuals and institutions who plagiarize this work.

I think that will provoke much more notice among your academic audience than either the current or a revised copyright notice will.

ASIDE: After I saw your story on Facebook last week, I recommended to a conference I am close to that we link to your site as I think your poster advice is great--and we have many grad student first time presenters who are not at all clear on how to organize or present a poster. Email me if you care to track who this is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2013 @ 12:48pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: You keep mistaking what sue-crazy lawyers do with copyright.
You're all wrong, no one would read or want to read his blog in the first place
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Crosbie Fitch (profile), 8 Apr 2013 @ 1:50pm

Re: Anti-copying verbiage
Colin,

You've already discovered that copyright is a weapon (a privilege - a state granted monopoly).

You are now discovering that it is not a weapon with fixed power, like a gun, but a weapon that amplifies the power of its wielder (ultimately, in the interest of the state that created it) - just like Sauron's ring �.

If you have the impertinence to allege copyright infringement against someone significantly more powerful than yourself (especially an immortal corporation), they will simply use copyright back against you - as you have found out.

Copyright is not about justice, or determining the truth of of a work's provenance. A court is only involved in arbitration when both party's litigation budgets are within reach of each other.

Consider yourself lucky you aren't facing extradition, decades in jail, or mere bankruptcy. CPBR evidently admire your spunk enough to let you live to fight another day.

The remaining question for you is whether, like Boromir, you repent, or, like Sm�agol, you sell your soul in futile pursuit of a power never intended for mere mortals.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2013 @ 1:56pm

Re:
Based on that letter, I'd say "poorly".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2013 @ 1:57pm

Don't those expensive lawyers have a responsibility here to do some fact-checking before taking the case? And once they are aware of the Internet Archive clearly showing that Mr. Purrington's document predates their client's document, don't they have an obligation to not pursue the matter any further?

Since they have already forced him to hire a lawyer, he may as well sue them now. I don't know whether he's registered the copyright, but even if he hasn't, the demand letter will certainly suffice as grounds to bring the case to court.

I also love how they put "Proprietary & Confidential - Not For Public Release" on the legal threat letter. How's that working out for them?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 8 Apr 2013 @ 2:15pm

Re: Re: Re: Anti-copying verbiage
Now, will he copy this word for word, or...?

Ha! He is free to do so if he wants to... In fact, he doesn't even need my permission, as I would argue making use of it is likely fair use. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trails (profile), 8 Apr 2013 @ 2:18pm

Re: Anti-copying verbiage
Mike said it better than I could, just wanted to say kudos on having the stones to turn up and ask.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trails (profile), 8 Apr 2013 @ 2:22pm

Re: You keep mistaking what sue-crazy lawyers do with copyright.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=mxHTwN58scE#t=18s
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 8 Apr 2013 @ 2:29pm

Colin Purrington
I believe we've found a name for Brittany Pierce's next cat.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2013 @ 6:35pm

Re: You keep mistaking what sue-crazy lawyers do with copyright.
Again, it's pretty damning that when people abuse copyright the best response you can come up with is writhe in their defence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2013 @ 7:56pm

Re:
Probably would work better if the law firm labeled the letter distribute and share widely.

They gave him the letter. Now they want to control the letter? If they didn't want the letter shared on the internet they should never have mailed it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 8 Apr 2013 @ 11:40pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: You keep mistaking what sue-crazy lawyers do with copyright.
Can we just lock him/her/it behind a paywall instead? Please!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 8 Apr 2013 @ 11:43pm

Re: Re: You keep mistaking what sue-crazy lawyers do with copyright.
BWahahahahahahaha
[ link to this | view in thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 8 Apr 2013 @ 11:48pm

Re:
You either then have to do this http://xkcd.com/262/

or dress like these http://www.smosh.com/smosh-pit/memes/best-im-internet-meme . The third one down from top would be ok I guess ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2013 @ 4:46am

Re: Anti-copying verbiage
Stepping in and asking is a great way to further your cause and show that perception is just as important to you as results. Good on you, and good luck!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Colin Purrington, 10 Apr 2013 @ 5:40am

Re: Re: Anti-copying verbiage
But the copied text wasn't _attributed_ to me, hence was just simple plagiarism. Fair Use doesn't allow plagiarism, it allows bypass of copyright. Right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Colin Purrington, 10 Apr 2013 @ 5:45am

Re: What? The Internet Archive copied my work?
I'm actually the dude who found and publicized the presence of the Wayback Machine versions, so I wasn't particularly surprised to see them mentioned here. CPBR somehow halted Wayback Machine from archiving its site...wonder how/why.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Colin Purrington, 10 Apr 2013 @ 5:50am

Re: Re: Anti-copying verbiage
Obnoxious version was very effective, actually. Oh, well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Eli Rabett, 16 Apr 2013 @ 6:11pm

Re: Re: What? The Internet Archive copied my work?
It's fairly simple, just insert no robots code in the html

OTOH your CPBR posts appear to have disappeared. Que pasa
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Colin Purrington, 29 Sep 2013 @ 8:29am

Help me!
Please help me fight the dark lords at CPBR by signing this petition:

http://colinpurrington.com/2013/petition-dorin-schumacher-cpbr/

Thanks!

Colin Purrington
[ link to this | view in thread ]