This thread was locked on 2009-07-26 10:22:56 by Kevin Connery. Reason: Duplicate of http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=480730
Forums > General Industry > About that istock TIME magazine cover

Photographer

Star

Posts: 17958

Los Angeles, California, US

http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/ … style.html

"Times are tough for everybody, especially, apparently, Time Magazine. Used to paying a stock fee of $3,000 for a cover, or $1,500 or so if it's an assignment (last I checked), take a guess how much the cover below cost Time?"

this blog makes references to the Model Mayhem thread. I think it is insightful. The writer of the blog is a very well known editorial photographer named John Harrington.

http://www.johnharrington.com

Jul 25 09 10:25 pm Link

Photographer

Lumigraphics

Posts: 32694

Detroit, Michigan, US

Star wrote:
http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2009/07/real-new-frugality-time-style.html

"Times are tough for everybody, especially, apparently, Time Magazine. Used to paying a stock fee of $3,000 for a cover, or $1,500 or so if it's an assignment (last I checked), take a guess how much the cover below cost Time?"

this blog makes references to the Model Mayhem thread. I think it is insightful. The writer of the blog is a very well known editorial photographer named John Harrington.

http://www.johnharrington.com

It sounds like a whiny rant to me. Too fucking bad for him.

Jul 25 09 10:49 pm Link

Photographer

Star

Posts: 17958

Los Angeles, California, US

Lumigraphics wrote:

It sounds like a whiny rant to me. Too fucking bad for him.

Do you understand that you are calling one of the great photographic business minds of our time a whiny ranter?

Next time maybe you should research who you are calling names before actually calling someone a name.

Jul 25 09 11:00 pm Link

Photographer

Travis Sackett

Posts: 1613

Los Angeles, California, US

Star wrote:

Do you understand that you are calling one of the great photographic business minds of our time a whiny ranter?

Next time maybe you should research who you are calling names before actually calling someone a name.

It does sound like a whiny rant. An unnecessary one at that. I read the thread, it seemed to me the photographer was just fine with the $30.00( After all it was just a stock photo, pulled off a stock photo website). In fact he seemed excited to have a tear sheet of that caliber. So why can't people just be happy for him?


- Travis Sackett
www.TravisSackett.com

Jul 25 09 11:13 pm Link

Photographer

Lumigraphics

Posts: 32694

Detroit, Michigan, US

Star wrote:

Do you understand that you are calling one of the great photographic business minds of our time a whiny ranter?

Next time maybe you should research who you are calling names before actually calling someone a name.

Yes I realize who he is. Doesn't matter, its still a whiny rant. You'd think he would be above that kind of thing.

Jul 25 09 11:13 pm Link

Photographer

T-D-L

Posts: 10303

Los Angeles, California, US

He had me mostly agreeing with him until he basically insulted the guy for his desire to shoot TF....wtf was that about?  Cheap shot really.  Not everyone can be a big time editorial photographer, no need to insult those that aren't.  Other than that it was well written and made a lot of sense.  I agree after reading the (original) thread in addition to this that it's a shame how stock photography has pretty much devalued the work of photographers.

Jul 25 09 11:14 pm Link

Photographer

Boho Hobo

Posts: 25351

Portland, Oregon, US

Star wrote:
http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2009/07/real-new-frugality-time-style.html

"Times are tough for everybody, especially, apparently, Time Magazine. Used to paying a stock fee of $3,000 for a cover, or $1,500 or so if it's an assignment (last I checked), take a guess how much the cover below cost Time?"

this blog makes references to the Model Mayhem thread. I think it is insightful. The writer of the blog is a very well known editorial photographer named John Harrington.

http://www.johnharrington.com

Lumigraphics wrote:
It sounds like a whiny rant to me. Too fucking bad for him.

I don't think making the observation that a $3000 cover was had for $30 is a whiny rant.  It's probably (coming from a professional stock /editorial photographer with some serious chops), closer to moral indignity or outrage.


And it's not really just too fucking bad for him.   The implications of all of this actually have a bearing on a number of people who made/make a living wage doing stock that's not micro and/or RF.

Jul 25 09 11:15 pm Link

Photographer

DarkSlide

Posts: 2217

Alexandria, Virginia, US

Star wrote:
Do you understand that you are calling one of the great photographic business minds of our time a whiny ranter?

Next time maybe you should research who you are calling names before actually calling someone a name.

One of the Great Photographic Business Minds of our Time -- whew -- John will love this.

Jul 25 09 11:20 pm Link

Photographer

Cherrystone

Posts: 36719

Columbus, Ohio, US

DarkSlide wrote:

One of the Great Photographic Business Minds of our Time -- whew -- John will love this.

What's his MM number? lol

Jul 25 09 11:22 pm Link

Photographer

THRobinson

Posts: 869

London, Ontario, Canada

Sucks... but at the same time, when you upload your photos to iStock you don't really expect to get anything more than $30 anyway. TIME is a big name magazine no doubt, but still a business buying a stock photo the same as any other business buying a stock photo for use in an annual report or brochure.

I'm sure the guy was happy... even though only got $30, he can frame the cover and say 'I did that'. Most of us can't because many of us haven't made it to the cover of TIME.

Jul 25 09 11:28 pm Link

Photographer

fine art nudes by paul

Posts: 3284

Berkeley, California, US

isn't it the mind set that photography isn't worth anything that is driving this?  Think about the fact that time's circulation is huge, it's insulting to photographers that a photo made only a portion of a cent per print.  Hell, even if time's circulation was only 10,000, the photo was sold for 1/3 of a cent per copy.

Would ANYONE on here even consider a third of a cent payment for a portrait?

Jul 25 09 11:41 pm Link

Digital Artist

drawpixels

Posts: 1005

Calabasas, California, US

BS to the blog writer.  If his photo wasn't at iStock he wouldn't have $30 and a kick ass tearsheet.  Why?  Cause Time would never heard of him.

Jul 25 09 11:43 pm Link

Photographer

Boho Hobo

Posts: 25351

Portland, Oregon, US

nudes by paul wrote:
isn't it the mind set that photography isn't worth anything that is driving this?  Think about the fact that time's circulation is huge, it's insulting to photographers that a photo made only a portion of a cent per print.  Hell, even if time's circulation was only 10,000, the photo was sold for 1/3 of a cent per copy.

Would ANYONE on here even consider a third of a cent payment for a portrait?

ON MM?????

are you kidding me?  OF course they would. 

What people rant about on here are about escorts and photographers who perv and models who flake and panties that have been worn and does nudity = porn and are his/her/their boobs too big, but certainly not getting paid too little.

Jul 25 09 11:47 pm Link

Model

theda

Posts: 21716

New York, New York, US

nudes by paul wrote:
isn't it the mind set that photography isn't worth anything that is driving this?  Think about the fact that time's circulation is huge, it's insulting to photographers that a photo made only a portion of a cent per print.  Hell, even if time's circulation was only 10,000, the photo was sold for 1/3 of a cent per copy.

Would ANYONE on here even consider a third of a cent payment for a portrait?

If the cover photo had been sold at the standard rate of up to $10k, that would still be a fraction of a cent per issue.  Their circulation remains in the millions. We're not talking about a portrait client or a fine art print.

Jul 25 09 11:47 pm Link

Model

The Main Man

Posts: 4135

Sacramento, California, US

Lumigraphics wrote:
It sounds like a whiny rant to me. Too fucking bad for him.

+1 and the last paragraph of that blog is a cheapshot to the photographer. Uncalled for in my opinion. Not to mention he talks shit about everyone that was congradulating the photographer for the Tearsheet.

Jul 25 09 11:49 pm Link

Model

The Main Man

Posts: 4135

Sacramento, California, US

Cherrystone wrote:
What's his MM number? lol

Thats what I was thinking too. He obviously was in that thread as well lol

Jul 25 09 11:50 pm Link

Photographer

MisterC

Posts: 15162

Portland, Oregon, US

Is Mr Harrington jealous?

Have any of his photo's ever graced the cover of Time magazine?

Jul 25 09 11:58 pm Link

Photographer

DarkSlide

Posts: 2217

Alexandria, Virginia, US

The Main Man wrote:

Thats what I was thinking too. He obviously was in that thread as well lol

John is not a MM member.

Jul 26 09 12:02 am Link

Model

theda

Posts: 21716

New York, New York, US

MinisterC  wrote:
Is Mr Harrington jealous?

I very seriously doubt that.

Jul 26 09 12:03 am Link

Photographer

SLE Photography

Posts: 68937

Orlando, Florida, US

I posted to his Blog, for some reason my Google ID didn't post correctly so it came up anonymous.  sad
http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/ … 8913491412

Jul 26 09 12:12 am Link

Photographer

Lynn Helms Photography

Posts: 382

Austin, Texas, US

Here's the thing... The guy who put his photo on iStock had no idea that Time Magazine was going to use it on their cover. Everyone acts like it's his fault. He just put up a photo to use for stock.

I also think it was kind of mean to take excerpts from his profile and rag on him.

Jul 26 09 12:13 am Link

Model

The Main Man

Posts: 4135

Sacramento, California, US

SLE Photography wrote:
I posted to his Blog, for some reason my Google ID didn't post correctly so it came up anonymous.  sad
http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/ … 8913491412

Thank you for that. I agree with everything you said in that

Jul 26 09 12:16 am Link

Photographer

Chi - Rue99 Eros

Posts: 359

San Francisco, California, US

Star wrote:
http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2009/07/real-new-frugality-time-style.html

"Times are tough for everybody, especially, apparently, Time Magazine. Used to paying a stock fee of $3,000 for a cover, or $1,500 or so if it's an assignment (last I checked), take a guess how much the cover below cost Time?"

this blog makes references to the Model Mayhem thread. I think it is insightful. The writer of the blog is a very well known editorial photographer named John Harrington.

http://www.johnharrington.com

I've heard many experienced photographers here tell newbies that shooting model portfolios for income is a terrible idea, and they need to focus on providing something unique in their market. I think that's good advice and subscribe to the logic. Models are not where the money is since it's so easy for them to build ports for free.

Since the photography equipment to create national print quality images is now within reach of enthusiasts, the same laws of economics that applies to shooting model ports is beginning to apply to stock photos. 

It's the same as online news vs newspapers, online advertising vs print advertising, blogs vs editorial staff, open source freeware vs proprietary vendor software. If a cheaper, better, or faster way to deliver a product is available, expect to see it in use.

Jul 26 09 12:19 am Link

Photographer

Paul Tirado Photography

Posts: 4253

New York, New York, US

While insightful as to the state of the magazine world now and issues and inequity as to usage in microstock, I think the shots and veiled insults to Mr. Lam were quite petty and uncalled for. It is not as if Mr. Lam had taken the shot for Time Magazine and was offered 10,000 and said "nah, just give me 30 dollars and were cool"

Jul 26 09 12:27 am Link

Photographer

SLE Photography

Posts: 68937

Orlando, Florida, US

Lynn Helms Photography wrote:
Here's the thing... The guy who put his photo on iStock had no idea that Time Magazine was going to use it on their cover. Everyone acts like it's his fault. He just put up a photo to use for stock.

I also think it was kind of mean to take excerpts from his profile and rag on him.

Paul Tirado Photography wrote:
While insightful as to the state of the magazine world now and issues and inequity as to usage in microstock, I think the shots and veiled insults to Mr. Lam were quite petty and uncalled for. It is not as if Mr. Lam had taken the shot for Time Magazine and was offered 10,000 and said "nah, just give me 30 dollars and were cool"

+1 to you both.

People like the gentleman who posted that blog (often on this very site) like to take cheap shots at microstock shooters, part timers, and hobbyists.

As I said in my comment on his blog, we're really not threats nor are we trying to be.  So I fail to understand the animus they show towards us, and it's sad that they can't see how their own anger & prejudices keep their points from coming across as anything but anger or jealousy.

Jul 26 09 12:35 am Link

Photographer

MisterC

Posts: 15162

Portland, Oregon, US

theda wrote:

I very seriously doubt that.

I was mostly being sarcastic. I found his blog to be a bit disrespectful. Some of what he said was a little cheap. This is the first I've ever heard of him and the last I'll ever read him.

Jul 26 09 12:42 am Link

Photographer

GDS Photos

Posts: 3328

London, England, United Kingdom

I can see why he the blogger is upset.  However, for this photographer, this is a great tear sheet that he can use to market himself for other better paying work if he wishes.  He may consider this a loss leader.

The world of photography has changed.  Stock photography is now something that many "amateur" photographers shoot as a punt at earning a few dollars.  There is more choice for publishers and so the rates will go down and micro stock will grow. 

This though was a simple shot created without much need for tonnes of equipment or years of practice.  The author of this blog no doubt has both and when a more exacting cover shot is required will probably be in a much better position of landing the commission.

The implication regarding wanting to shoot female models does the author no credit and debases the rest of his argument.

Jul 26 09 12:45 am Link

Photographer

AZZARA

Posts: 932

BRONX, New York, US

There are clearly 2 sides to this. On Model Mayhem which is predominately an amateur site, most photographers would have given the image to TIME for FREE to get that kind of tear sheet. Then you have the "professional photographers" who after 25-30 years are getting peanuts for their work now since digital photography came along. Let's face it, without digital there would be no Model Mayhem and most shooters here would have a day job and instead of shooting models would have a bowling night.
As a 30 plus year photographer, it makes me sick as my monthly statements come in with the lines:
Your share $6.32
I agree Mr Harrington took a cheap shot with the TFP remarks, however for those who USED TO GET $600 to shoot NEW models and take some of that money to pay experienced models like Theda to shoot with them are finding this a thing of the past as well. Professional photographers who have been supporting their families with their CAREER for the past 30 years are finding it harder and harder to do so. They are angry, they feel betrayed, they are screwed. Picture the same happening on your day job and you will understand.
So I tend to understand WHAT was being said but I agree with the complaints of HOW it was said.

Jul 26 09 12:47 am Link

Model

theda

Posts: 21716

New York, New York, US

azzara wrote:
There are clearly 2 sides to this. On Model Mayhem which is predominately an amateur site, most photographers would have given the image to TIME for FREE to get that kind of tear sheet. Then you have the "professional photographers" who after 25-30 years are getting peanuts for their work now since digital photography came along. Let's face it, without digital there would be no Model Mayhem and most shooters here would have a day job and instead of shooting models would have a bowling night.
As a 30 plus year photographer, it makes me sick as my monthly statements come in with the lines:
Your share $6.32
I agree Mr Harrington took a cheap shot with the TFP remarks, however for those who USED TO GET $600 to shoot NEW models and take some of that money to pay experienced models like Theda to shoot with them are finding this a thing of the past as well. Professional photographers who have been supporting their families with their CAREER for the past 30 years are finding it harder and harder to do so. They are angry, they feel betrayed, they are screwed. Picture the same happening on your day job and you will understand.
So I tend to understand WHAT was being said I agree with the complaints of HOW it was said.

Agreed (especially the bit about paying me).

The sad fact is, this influx of cheaper and cheaper photography is making it harder for a lot of us in this industry to make a living.  Economic Darwinism suggest that those being winnowed improve and/or adapt, but not everyone will be able to do that to the point of maintaining their former standard of living. And increased under- and unemployment means decreased capital in circulation and a weaker economy. Apply this phenomenon to enough people in enough industries and you have a problem.

Jul 26 09 12:54 am Link

Photographer

SME

Posts: 21053

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US

I feel pretty bad for the photographer being torn to shreds in that blog, I gotta say.  It made me wince.

With that said:

I'm constantly retorting to professional photographers who complain about my hobby that it doesn't take anything away from them, and they need to shut up and shoot.

I'm forced, with this event, to reconsider that position.

Jul 26 09 01:03 am Link

Photographer

SLE Photography

Posts: 68937

Orlando, Florida, US

This's very interesting.  Like I said, I posted this (anonymously by accident) to Mr. Harrington's blog:

SLE Photography wrote:
While you make some valid points, your tone and unnecessary personal attacks on Mr. Lam (especially your comments implying he has ugly motivations for what he does) do nothing to aid the credibility of your statements and make this whole thing sound like this's a personal issue rather than a professional one.

The world of full time commercial shooters is a small one, with few opportunities for success. Something like this is a big deal for hobbyists & part timers who often go their whole lives without this sort of exposure. None of them are trying to take your job, nor are they likely to do so.

Calling out screwy business practices is fine, but attacking a little guy who got lucky & saying he's probably a pervert is uncalled for.

He responded:

I did not say he's "probably a pervert", I came to some preliminary conclusions based upon a problematic history in the profession of photography. Almost every model on Model Mayhem, where he promotes his model work, feels it necessary to stipulate they don't do nude/etc and have to underscore it by saying "don't even ask just before the shoot...I will bring an escort..." Why is that do you think?

If you are really looking to grow your portfolio, you would be just as eager to photograph men as women. You would have more than just one guy on a website that is otherwise filled with women. You would want the variety of images that demonstrate your abilities.

This isn't personal, it's business. When you slash so severely your fees to the point of ridiculous, and then you contribute to photographers being mis-perceived as looking to interact with attractive girls under the guise of a "I'll give you photos of yourself if you let me take your pictures of you ladies..." mentality further erodes peoples' opinions of professional photographers as, well, professionals.

To date, I have yet to have had my work-product replaced by that of a hobbyist. Further, I have had clients who have left for someone cheaper, only to return because they got inferior quality. However, there is likely a studio photographer in New York City that has one less shot at a Time cover thanks to Mr. Lam, and I care too much about the profession of photography to simply sit back and remain silent.

He CLEARLY doesn't understand how MM works & has a skewed perception of it & its members.  He also exhibits even more of the bias I previously mentioned.  What's fascinating, tho, is that we see here a big time pro admitting that a) he IS threatened by the little guy shooting microstock (something they often strenuously deny while excoriating us for doing it) and b) for all that they like to set themselves part from us & heap scorn on us some pros are worried about us affecting perceptions of them.

Unfortunately, like too many of those individuals, his solution is not to reach out for mutual dialog but to try & force a set of standards on us from a world we're not part of or welcome in, or to try & get us to simply "go away."  It's disheartening to see this attitude.

I responded in a 2 part post:
http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/ … 7407824696

http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/ … 2687588175

I'll be interested to see if he chooses to engage in an open & constructive dialog.  Unfortunately my posts were broken up by someone posting anonymously & name calling, but posts like his will inevitably breed that sort of angry response.  All in all the sort of fighting & negativity that's likely to be inspired by all this do FAR more to make us all look unprofessional & impugn the credibility of photographers than Mr. Lam offering TF.

Jul 26 09 01:21 am Link

Photographer

SLE Photography

Posts: 68937

Orlando, Florida, US

Sita Mae wrote:
I feel pretty bad for the photographer being torn to shreds in that blog, I gotta say.  It made me wince.

With that said:

I'm constantly retorting to professional photographers who complain about my hobby that it doesn't take anything away from them, and they need to shut up and shoot.

I'm forced, with this event, to reconsider that position.

Sita, I brought that up in my reply to Mr. Harrington and I stand by it.  This sort of thing will NOT cause a "paradigm shift" in the market any more than one 5'4" girl getting a one time Vogue cover will "change the fashion industry."

Time chose the microstock image to make a POINT on a cover story about frugality.  There're plenty of reasons why such things won't become the norm, first & foremost that if more magazines started doing this others would change their business models to match.  Do you really think the stock shops won't put in policies about this sort of thing if they see the amount THEY aren't making on such deals, for instance?

While the fall of paper publishing & ready access to equipment & resources will allow more people who would previously never have a shot at the rarefied world of commercial & agency work to have a shot at fame the top talent will always be secure and most people will stay with them.  MM hobbyists aren't going to "ruin the market," no matter how upsetting some of them might find an aberrant event like this.

Jul 26 09 01:26 am Link

Photographer

Bill Clearlake Photos

Posts: 2214

San Jose, California, US

azzara wrote:
There are clearly 2 sides to this. On Model Mayhem which is predominately an amateur site, most photographers would have given the image to TIME for FREE to get that kind of tear sheet. Then you have the "professional photographers" who after 25-30 years are getting peanuts for their work now since digital photography came along. Let's face it, without digital there would be no Model Mayhem and most shooters here would have a day job and instead of shooting models would have a bowling night.
As a 30 plus year photographer, it makes me sick as my monthly statements come in with the lines:
Your share $6.32
I agree Mr Harrington took a cheap shot with the TFP remarks, however for those who USED TO GET $600 to shoot NEW models and take some of that money to pay experienced models like Theda to shoot with them are finding this a thing of the past as well. Professional photographers who have been supporting their families with their CAREER for the past 30 years are finding it harder and harder to do so. They are angry, they feel betrayed, they are screwed. Picture the same happening on your day job and you will understand.
So I tend to understand WHAT was being said but I agree with the complaints of HOW it was said.

It has been and currently is happening to everyone's day jobs.   Companies are cutting costs any way they can, including layoffs, furloughs, brownouts, moving operations to cheaper states or overseas, replacing workers with technology when possible, and looking for bargains wherever they can find them.

Jul 26 09 01:36 am Link

Photographer

PYPI FASHION

Posts: 36332

San Francisco, California, US

Blog posts are often designed to be inflammatory and controversial. It drives traffic. He pulled a Ken Rockwell and it worked.

Jul 26 09 02:43 am Link

Photographer

SLE Photography

Posts: 68937

Orlando, Florida, US

I replied to your comment, Star.  You're mischaracterizing what I and a few others said.  No one was praising TIME, we were just pointing out that the unnecessary editorializing about the photographer, his motives, and the general populace of MM detracted from the overall conversation.

It's likely that Pat is correct & he wrote it to be inflammatory on purpose,but as seen in these links:
http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?threa … st10510879
plenty of other blogs have had heated discussions about the business aspects & ethics without attacking the shooter on a personal level.

Jul 26 09 02:47 am Link

Photographer

Star

Posts: 17958

Los Angeles, California, US

SLE Photography wrote:
I replied to your comment, Star.  You're mischaracterizing what I and a few others said.  No one was praising TIME, we were just pointing out that the unnecessary editorializing about the photographer, his motives, and the general populace of MM detracted from the overall conversation.

It's likely that Pat is correct & he wrote it to be inflammatory on purpose,but as seen in these links:
http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?threa … st10510879
plenty of other blogs have had heated discussions about the business aspects & ethics without attacking the shooter on a personal level.

I said no such thing. I said that the people replying were hobbiest photographers? true yes?

I then talked about what people should be focusing on, that TIME violated the usage agreement and did not buy the correct license nor did they do the correct crediting

Jul 26 09 02:49 am Link

Photographer

Digitoxin

Posts: 13345

Houston, Texas, US

Star wrote:
http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2009/07/real-new-frugality-time-style.html

"Times are tough for everybody, especially, apparently, Time Magazine. Used to paying a stock fee of $3,000 for a cover, or $1,500 or so if it's an assignment (last I checked), take a guess how much the cover below cost Time?"

this blog makes references to the Model Mayhem thread. I think it is insightful. The writer of the blog is a very well known editorial photographer named John Harrington.

http://www.johnharrington.com

Sorry Star, I really don't see any insight here.  I see a personal attack.  As I wrote in the original thread, I think that the fact that Time - part of a multi-billion dollar organization and one that has ad budgets in the tens of millions -- can pay $30 for the cover of the magazine is dreadful and certainly nothing to be proud of as the photographer.  So, in that respect, I agree with Mr. Harrington.  However, he goes much further than that and strays well into an area of personal attack that is both unfair and unwise for a professional.

Jul 26 09 02:53 am Link

Photographer

Ray Holyer

Posts: 2000

They didn't use the image because it was cheap, they used it to sell the magazine.

Jul 26 09 02:54 am Link

Photographer

Hugh Alison

Posts: 2121

Aberystwyth, Wales, United Kingdom

When I see someone writing crap like this:

"You write on your Model Mayhem page "NO SECOND CHANCES FOR FLAKES", and then go on to say "Photography is an enormous passion for me", but then you say "I am open for TFCD with female models at this time. email to me if you are interested." So, is that passion a ploy to work with female models for trade? What's with that?"

I generally think "Business not going as well as it used to?".

Just to make myself clear, I am referring to the supposedly eminent professional photographer making a personal attack on a little guy. That's called bullying.

Jul 26 09 02:55 am Link

Photographer

Star

Posts: 17958

Los Angeles, California, US

Ray Holyer wrote:
They didn't use the image because it was cheap, they used it to sell the magazine.

They bought the WRONG USAGE. They stole the image, violated the license agreement and are illegally reselling it.

Jul 26 09 02:57 am Link