Jump to content


Photo

Donation button


Best Answer garynorman , 25 July 2016 - 09:29 AM

Gary you are indeed corrent, the very reason I offered access to designers was to avoid this issue. When I get time I will attempt to alter the authors name to the designers, sure it can be done somehow.

 

If your database follows usual Wordpress templates you would struggle to amend the poster each time because the field in the wp_posts table for that data (most likely post_author) is linked to the wp_users.id field, meaning that you would have to add a new user for each designer and then log in as them to post or write an update script to amend your user id to the desired one based on the post id.  In my opinion you'd be better off just changing the text on the template to 'posted by' and have a 'written by' line in the main text.

Go to the full post


  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

#21 Dogga

Dogga

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 65 posts
  • LocationUntied Kingdom

Posted 21 July 2016 - 05:34 PM

Totally - Definitely a "tip jar" type of model and certainly not a "pay for the course" type of thing as, to your point, there are loads of issues w/ that.

Tip Jar that's a more English approach, we see the term donation as a charitable term, which indeed if designers want to donate peoples appreciation to a chosen that too can easily be set up, and shown to where it will be sent.  I have some knowledge on issues of copyrite and am already aware of the implication, so fear not. I will be chatting to those concerned at PP and will react after that conversation. Thanks for you responces.



#22 Kablammo11

Kablammo11

    Obscure Person

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,953 posts

Posted 21 July 2016 - 06:05 PM

Dogga, why are Mulligan Municipal, Five Sisters, Xaxnax Borealis and Pommeroy's Golf World still appearing on your site? I was pretty clear that I did not care to get involved in any way. 

You do not have my permission to feature them, Dogga. Nor do you have permission to copy-paste images and course descriptions produced by me into your site. That's plagiarization. This is not about money, but about intellectual property, and from where I'm standing you have no respect for it. Free to play, yes. Free to download from authorised parties, yes. Nothing else.

Buddy, these 4 courses better disappear there pronto! 

 

Also, it's municipal, not municiple. And copyright, not copyrite. Your knowledge of issues of copyrite seems to fall short of spelling. Figures.


  • Fairwayman likes this

>>>>>>> Ka-Boom!





• Mulligan Municipal • Willow Heath • Pommeroy • Karen • Five Sisters • Xaxnax Borealis • Aroha • Prison Puttˆ

• The Upchuck   The Shogun  • Black Swan (•)

 

<<<<<


#23 Dogga

Dogga

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 65 posts
  • LocationUntied Kingdom

Posted 24 July 2016 - 09:48 AM

My question was simple as I thought, those wanting a button, for whatever reason, give it to charity if you wish, or those who don't. I would add, you would not want to add a button to a course that has been copied even if you did call it something else.



#24 Kablammo11

Kablammo11

    Obscure Person

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,953 posts

Posted 24 July 2016 - 10:32 AM

You do not have permission to list my courses. Remove them!


  • Stephen Sullivan likes this

>>>>>>> Ka-Boom!





• Mulligan Municipal • Willow Heath • Pommeroy • Karen • Five Sisters • Xaxnax Borealis • Aroha • Prison Puttˆ

• The Upchuck   The Shogun  • Black Swan (•)

 

<<<<<


#25 Dogga

Dogga

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 65 posts
  • LocationUntied Kingdom

Posted 24 July 2016 - 10:40 AM

You do not have permission to list my courses. Remove them!

K11 I  must refer you to PP whom i beleive the instruction and ability to insist on this act being enforced lies. 



#26 Kablammo11

Kablammo11

    Obscure Person

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,953 posts

Posted 24 July 2016 - 11:50 AM

PP has nothing at all to do with user-made courses. They do not own them. The courses Willow Heath, Black Swan and Karen are official courses belonging to them - if they let you list them, there is nothing I can do about it. All the others are at my pleasure only.

It took OGT less than an hour to remove these courses when I asked this of them a while ago. You compare quite unfavourably, thief.


>>>>>>> Ka-Boom!





• Mulligan Municipal • Willow Heath • Pommeroy • Karen • Five Sisters • Xaxnax Borealis • Aroha • Prison Puttˆ

• The Upchuck   The Shogun  • Black Swan (•)

 

<<<<<


#27 Dogga

Dogga

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 65 posts
  • LocationUntied Kingdom

Posted 24 July 2016 - 12:53 PM

Again I must refer you to PP

Posted 18 March 2016 - 09:58 AM (Mike Jones)

As always Personal attacks are not allowed in the PG forums. We want this to be a nice place for people to visit and contribute constructively. If you have nothing to contribute other than an attack on another poster, please think twice before posting.



#28 Harald

Harald

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 201 posts
  • LocationNuremberg, Germany

Posted 24 July 2016 - 02:58 PM

@Dogga, legal Rights and Laws like the Ownership (Copyrights etc.) of Courses have nothing to do with PP if these courses are not a Part of the Game. If you a're a bussines men normaly you should know that you are not allowed to broke these Rights. As PP is stated in USA here some facts for you.

 

The Copyright Law of the United States tries to encourage the creation of art and culture by rewarding authors and artists with a set of exclusive rights. Copyright law grants authors and artists the exclusive right to make and sell copies of their works, the right to create derivative works, and the right to perform or display their works publicly. These exclusive rights are subject to a time limit, and generally expire 70 years after the author's death.

United States copyright law is governed by the Copyright Act of 1976. The United States Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to create copyright law under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8, known[1] as the Copyright Clause. Under the Copyright Clause, Congress has the power.

Copyright law protects the "expression" of an idea, but copyright does not protect the "idea" itself. This distinction is called the idea–expression dichotomy.[8] The distinction between "idea" and "expression" is fundamental to copyright law. From the Copyright Act of 1976 (17 U.S.C. § 102):

In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

For example, a paper describing a political theory is copyrightable. The paper is the expression of the author's ideas about the political theory. But the theory itself is just an idea, and is not copyrightable. Another author is free to describe the same theory in their own words without infringing on the original author's copyright.[9]

Although fundamental, the idea-expression dichotomy is often difficult to put into practice. Reasonable people can disagree about where the unprotectable "idea" ends and the protectable "expression" begins. As Judge Learned Hand put it,

“Obviously, no principle can be stated as to when an imitator has gone beyond copying the ‘idea,’ and has borrowed its ‘expression.’ Decisions must therefore inevitably be ad hoc.” Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp., 274 F.2d 487 (2d Cir. 1960). Compilations of facts and the sweat of the brow doctrine

 

Mere facts are not copyrightable. However, compilations of facts are treated differently, and may be copyrightable material. The Copyright Act, § 103, allows copyright protection for "compilations", as long as there is some "creative" or "original" act involved in developing the compilation, such as in the selection (deciding which facts to include or exclude), and arrangement (how facts are displayed and in what order). Copyright protection in compilations is limited to the selection and arrangement of facts, not to the facts themselves.

The Supreme Court decision in Feist v. Rural clarified the requirements for copyright in compilations. The Feist case denied copyright protection to a "white pages" phone book (a compilation of telephone numbers, listed alphabetically). In making this ruling, the Supreme Court rejected the "sweat of the brow" doctrine. That is, copyright protection requires creativity, and no amount of hard work ("sweat of the brow") can transform a non-creative list (like an alphabetical listing of phone numbers) into copyrightable subject matter. A mechanical, non-selective collection of facts (e.g., alphabetized phone numbers) cannot be protected by copyright.[10]

 

Works by the federal government
For more details on this topic, see Copyright status of work by the U.S. government.

Works created by the federal government are not copyrightable. 17 U.S.C. § 105. This restriction on copyright applies to publications produced by the United States Government, and its agents or employees within the scope of their employment. The specific language is as follows:

Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.

A "work of the United States Government" is defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101 as work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties. Note that government contractors are generally not considered employees, and their works may be subject to copyright. Likewise, the US government can purchase and hold the copyright to works created by third parties.

The government may restrict access to works it has produced through other mechanisms. For instance, confidential or secret materials are not protected by copyright, but are restricted by other applicable laws. However, even in case of non-secret materials there are specific prohibitions against automatic access to work otherwise covered under 17 U.S.C. § 105 for commercial purposes.[15]

Federal and state laws are not copyrighted
Main article: Edict of government

Federal statutes are in the public domain and no copyright attaches to them. The same is true of court decisions. It is not difficult to see the motivations behind this:

The citizens are the authors of the law, and therefore its owners, regardless of who actually drafts the provisions, because the law derives its authority from the consent of the public, expressed through the democratic process.[16]

As a matter of longstanding public policy, the U.S. Copyright Office will not register a government edict that has been issued by any state, local, or territorial government, including legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials. Likewise, the Office will not register a government edict issued by any foreign government or any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties.[17]

However, several states, such as Oregon and Georgia, have claimed that the annotated editions of their laws are copyrightable. In July 2015, Georgia sued open information activist Carl Malamud, founder of Public.Resource.Org, in Federal court in Atlanta for copyright infringement. Malamud had posted the Official Code of Georgia Annotated on his website. In the complaint and in press releases, the State of Georgia claimed that this constituted “piracy” and “terrorism.”[18][19]

Authorship, Ownership, and Work for Hire

The initial owner of the copyright to a work is the author, unless that work is a "work made for hire."

  • Works for hire. If a work is made "for hire" within the meaning of the Copyright Act, then the employer or commissioning party, is deemed to be the author and will own the copyright as though it was the true author.[23] The circumstances under which a work may be found to be a work for hire are:
    • Work prepared by an employee within the scope of their employment. In Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989), the Supreme Court held that the term "employee" in this context should be interpreted according to common law agency principles. If the person doing the work is an "employee" within the meaning of the common law, and the work was done within the scope of their employment (whether the work is the kind they were employed to prepare; whether the preparation takes place primarily within the employer's time and place specifications; and whether the work was activated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer), then the work is a work for hire and the employer is the initial owner of the copyright.[24]
    • Specially ordered or commissioned works. Works created by independent contractors (rather than employees) can be deemed works for hire only if two conditions are satisfied. First, the work must fit into one of these categories: a contribution to a collective work, part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, a translation, a supplementary work, a compilation, an instructional text, a test, answer material for a test, or an atlas. Second, the parties must expressly agree in a written, signed instrument that the work will be considered a work made for hire.[25]

If a work is not a work for hire, then the author will be the initial copyright owner. The author generally is the person who conceives of the copyrightable expression and "fixes" it in a "tangible medium of expression." Special rules apply when multiple authors are involved:

  • Joint Work. The authors of a joint work are co-owners of a single copyright in the work. A joint work is "a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or independent parts of a unitary whole."[23][26]
  • Collective Works: A collective work is a collection of independent, separately copyrightable works of authorship, such as a newspaper, magazine, or encyclopedia.[23] In the absence of an express assignment of copyright, the author of each individual work in the collection retains copyright in that work.[27] The compiler, or author of the collection, owns copyright in the expression he or she contributed, which is primarily the selection and arrangement of the separate contributions, but may include such things as a preface, advertisements, etc., that the collective author created.[23]
Transfers and licenses

Three types of transfers exist for copyrighted works.

  • Assignment
  • Exclusive license
  • Non-exclusive license

The first two, assignment and exclusive licenses, require the transfer to be in writing. Nonexclusive licenses need not be in writing and they may be implied by the circumstances. Transfers of copyright always involve one or more of the exclusive rights of copyright. For instance, a license may provide a right to perform a work, but not to reproduce it or to prepare a derivative work (adaptation right).[28]

The terms of the license is governed by the applicable contract law, however there is substantial academic debate about to what extent the Copyright Act preempts state contract law principles.[29]

An author, after transferring a copyright, can terminate the transfer under certain circumstances. This right to terminate the transfer is absolute and cannot be waived.[30]

Duration of copyright

Copyright protection generally lasts for 70 years after the death of the author. If the work was a "work for hire", then copyright persists for 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever is shorter. For works created before 1978, the copyright duration rules are complicated. However, works created before 1923 have made their way into the public domain.

 

So my Advice to you. Take Care!!!


I7-6700k, Asus Z170 Pro Gaming, Palit GTX 1070 Super Jetstream 8GB,16 GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200, Enermax Revolution87+ 850 W ATX 2.4, SSD Samsung 850 Pro, Eizo Color Graphic CS270 - 27", Win 10 Pro (64bit)

#29 DPRoberts

DPRoberts

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,610 posts

Posted 24 July 2016 - 03:23 PM

Harald that's quite a bit to get through. I'll have to believe your point. I also feel common sense should be at play here. I don't really see why PP has any ownership to K11 ideas simply because it was conceived in their software. That is inherent in a design software. Does AutoCAD own all buildings and roadways conceived on their products. If you write a novel in Microsoft Word they have rights to it? These are obvious no's. Dogga has shown on his Facebook to be a bit of a fire starter. It's unfortunate because I still have no idea on the value of his site. At this point, it feels awkward, like an infomercial or something you will surely download a virus from. Not being mean or calling you names, just saying something hasn't seemed right from the get go and hasn't improved really.
  • Richard likes this

#30 Mulligan

Mulligan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 787 posts
  • LocationVirtual Private Network

Posted 24 July 2016 - 03:38 PM

What does the Perfect Parallel's TOS say about ownership? That's all that really matters here.

 

There is nothing to do with criminal US law going on here, no idea about Europe. This is all civil and depends on a contract, if there even is one. If not, good luck ranting and threatening Kablammo. If there is a case for ownership here, good luck finding a lawyer that won't laugh at you.



#31 mebby

mebby

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,517 posts
  • LocationCharlotte, NC

Posted 24 July 2016 - 03:47 PM

To me the right thing to do is simply to respect K11's wishes.  He was very clear with Dogga up front and Dogga didn't respect his wishes.  So all the legal ease BS aside... if K11 doesn't want his courses on Dogga's site then Dogga should just remove them.  It's what I'd do if it were my site.

 

Frankly - 100% of this should've been handled offline because it's impossible to stay clean in a mud fight.


  • Bob5453 likes this

Steam Name: Turnerm05

Swing Type: RTSC | Tour Pro | XB1 Wireless

 

Intel i7 4790K 4.0GHz

GTX 1080 Founders Edition

16GB DDR3

1 TB Samsung 850 EVO


#32 Dogga

Dogga

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 65 posts
  • LocationUntied Kingdom

Posted 24 July 2016 - 03:47 PM

Harald that's quite a bit to get through. I'll have to believe your point. I also feel common sense should be at play here. I don't really see why PP has any ownership to K11 ideas simply because it was conceived in their software. That is inherent in a design software. Does AutoCAD own all buildings and roadways conceived on their products. If you write a novel in Microsoft Word they have rights to it? These are obvious no's. Dogga has shown on his Facebook to be a bit of a fire starter. It's unfortunate because I still have no idea on the value of his site. At this point, it feels awkward, like an infomercial or something you will surely download a virus from. Not being mean or calling you names, just saying something hasn't seemed right from the get go and hasn't improved really.

Fire starter would like not agree a point you would like to beleive with, or as stated if PP who I have been granted permision from to set up a new Club, offer competitions, on courses freely available.  If PP do not wish to enforce the terms by which these courses to date have been produced that's their decision, and as stated they will be removed if they ask. That may or may not set a precedent that may or may not cause issues for them, as stated i refer to them.

Course Forge created content:

USER CREATED CONTENT: The Software may allow you to create content, including, but not limited to, a gameplay map, scenario, screenshot, car design, item, or video of your game play. In exchange for use of the Software, and to the extent that your contributions through use of the Software give rise to any copyright interest, you hereby grant Licensor an exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, fully transferable, and sub-licensable worldwide right and license to use your contributions in any way and for any purpose in connection with the Software and related goods and services, including, but not limited to, the rights to reproduce, copy, adapt, modify, perform, display, publish, broadcast, transmit, or otherwise communicate to the public by any means whether now known or unknown and distribute your contributions without any further notice or compensation to you of any kind for the whole duration of protection granted to intellectual property rights by applicable laws and international conventions. You hereby waive and agree never to assert any moral rights of paternity, publication, reputation, or attribution with respect to Licensor’s and other players’ use and enjoyment of such assets in connection with the Software and related goods and services under applicable law. This license grant to Licensor, and terms above regarding any applicable moral rights, will survive any termination of this Agreement.

But thanks for the advice, those who have given it....



#33 Dogga

Dogga

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 65 posts
  • LocationUntied Kingdom

Posted 24 July 2016 - 04:01 PM

To me the right thing to do is simply to respect K11's wishes.  He was very clear with Dogga up front and Dogga didn't respect his wishes.  So all the legal ease BS aside... if K11 doesn't want his courses on Dogga's site then Dogga should just remove them.  It's what I'd do if it were my site.

 

Frankly - 100% of this should've been handled offline because it's impossible to stay clean in a mud fight.

Mebby I concur that's the real issue here, but it has too many implications for US the user, the players. Should I not be able to set up competitions with any course available? Should their only be one place for US the players to download games? Should US the players run away when others try to assert on us things they have no rights too? Sorry not this this fire stater/Thief



#34 mebby

mebby

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,517 posts
  • LocationCharlotte, NC

Posted 24 July 2016 - 04:26 PM

Mebby I concur that's the real issue here, but it has too many implications for US the user, the players. Should I not be able to set up competitions with any course available? Should their only be one place for US the players to download games? Should US the players run away when others try to assert on us things they have no rights too? Sorry not this this fire stater/Thief

Yes.  If K11 doesn't want his courses to be part of your site then simply exclude them.  That's what OGT did until they got it worked out.

 

Otherwise it just makes it seem like you're trying to cause trouble and I do not think that's what you're trying to do.  Let K11 be the trouble maker - respect his wishes.


Steam Name: Turnerm05

Swing Type: RTSC | Tour Pro | XB1 Wireless

 

Intel i7 4790K 4.0GHz

GTX 1080 Founders Edition

16GB DDR3

1 TB Samsung 850 EVO


#35 Kablammo11

Kablammo11

    Obscure Person

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,953 posts

Posted 24 July 2016 - 04:36 PM

Indeed, I so am the trouble-maker, mebby. How dare I design golf courses and then insist on picking who may use them for what? Or even take responsibility for what happens with my intellectual property? Oh, the nerve of me!

You are right about PM's being a better medium: Ordinarily I'd agree, but this goes beyond an isolated incident. The rights and interests of the designers are at stake here, and in my capacity as longest-serving of the designers I feel it's time to lay down some ground rules on behalf of all of them. And this is why the community is invited to take part in the debates and contribute. This is important, trouble needs to be made.

 

 

If Dogga gets his way to take whatever he wants - without even asking permission, presenting a coherent vision and being clear about his intentions and strategies - what is to stop somebody else from, say, doing the same and asking players to pay money to download courses, to register for seasons or compete in online tournaments? Even to add a donation button only to pocket them as well, for all I know. Slippery slope... As far as I'm concerned, this matter requires a conclusive clarification at best, right about now - and some resolute bud nipping at worst.

 

"US the players"? Yeah, right... If any of you guys enjoyed user-made courses, please spare a thought for "US the designers": We aren't your content slaves.


>>>>>>> Ka-Boom!





• Mulligan Municipal • Willow Heath • Pommeroy • Karen • Five Sisters • Xaxnax Borealis • Aroha • Prison Puttˆ

• The Upchuck   The Shogun  • Black Swan (•)

 

<<<<<


#36 Tigers Agent

Tigers Agent

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 769 posts
  • LocationNext Door.

Posted 24 July 2016 - 04:54 PM

If and when CF does go public, there might be a few lessons to be learned from this thread.  as we know, there is quite a large group of players that don't read these forums usually till it's too late for any type of recourse for others actions. I.E the same as reading the fine print.

this needs to be resolved for future reference.



#37 mcthommo

mcthommo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 321 posts

Posted 24 July 2016 - 04:54 PM

This is why the concept of user created courses and ownership are a poisoned chalice- for all intents and purposes, the courses that K11 has painstakingly designed and released for the use of others should give him the right to state to whom and where they are available including any images, words or ideas associated with them.

The issue and problem then lies with the following: as the courses have been designed by software to run on other software- Unity & CF to run on JNPG- does the licence for using these software take precedence over the users rights to intellectual ownership of the designers design/course etc. Although K11 has designed the course from the vastness of his imagination and taken great time to put those down in the finished article, the course can only be played after it is cleared by JNPG so does that then own the course design at that point?

I for one at this time feel that K11 has clearly stated that he does not allow this other website to use his designs and that being said should be the end of the argument. Dogga should either remove the courses presto pronto as K11 has asked him to do so- K11 could request JNPG to remove all these courses for public consumption so for the state of the JNPG community, Dogga just remove the courses please.

If there is a bigger argument to be had, it needs to be behind closed doors with the powers that be who legally have the correct information

I will not even mention the topic of donations as from experience I have seen a similar situation rip apart a community when this was started a few years ago and led to the disbandment of a large following for a similar type game/similuation


Intel 9900k @5GHZ

Asus RTX 3090 Strix OC

32GB Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-3200

Asus ROG Maximus XI Formula Z390

Noctua NH-D15 Cromax 

Fractal Design Meshify S2

WDC WD10EFRX 1TB NVME drive

2x 14TB Hitachi NAS HDD

Colour scheme by Nigel Tufnell- "None more black"

 

 

 

 

 


#38 Mulligan

Mulligan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 787 posts
  • LocationVirtual Private Network

Posted 24 July 2016 - 04:59 PM

How dare I design golf courses and then insist on picking who may use them for what? Or even take responsibility for what happens with my intellectual property? 

 

That's pretty much what the above quoted bit from the license agreement says.

 

 

 

 We aren't your content slaves.

 

Likewise, nobody is making you create courses.



#39 garynorman

garynorman

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • LocationBedfordshire, England

Posted 24 July 2016 - 05:34 PM

My view on this (for what its worth) is that the unity file and the course in it's uncompiled state belongs to me and should not be manipulated or altered in any way without my express consent.  Once I have compiled that course and uploaded it into the public domain then I no longer have the right to say who uses that file providing that it is used for it's intended purposes (ie within the pg software for playing only) and not for profit of any third party (be that directly or indirectly)

 

Back on the original topic, if Dogga wants to set up a donation button for people to 'tip' me for my work I'm not going to say no.  I don't design for profit, I do it for fun, but I'm not going to lie and say that a bit of monetary compensation for my efforts wouldn't be welcomed... 


  • RobC likes this

#40 NoPutt

NoPutt

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,902 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 24 July 2016 - 05:40 PM

Thanks Gary, Ditto


Dry Gulch...................Released                     Smithfield Golf Club...........Released

Millstone Golf Club....Released                      The Walker Course............Released

Kingsmill Woods Course...Released               Pine Lake Golf Club..........Released

Woodhaven Golf Club (9) Released                The Reserve at Keowee...Released

Cliffs at Keowee Vineyards..Released              The Ace Club...................Released

Dry Gulch 2..........Released                               Blackberry Oaks.............Released

 





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users