|
|
| New NYC street photography rules now official. (649259) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
| (649259) | |
New NYC street photography rules now official. |
|
|
Posted by Bingham C50 on Mon Jul 14 15:39:53 2008 |
|
|
| (649263) | |
Re: New NYC street photography rules now official. |
|
|
Posted by Bingham C50 on Mon Jul 14 15:44:10 2008, in response to New NYC street photography rules now official., posted by Bingham C50 on Mon Jul 14 15:39:53 2008. Here is the discussion on OTChat: |
|
|
| (649267) | |
NYC street photography rules now official. |
|
|
Posted by Bingham C50 on Mon Jul 14 15:47:27 2008, in response to New NYC street photography rules now official., posted by Bingham C50 on Mon Jul 14 15:39:53 2008. Apologies for the technical issues on our end.This is good news...for a change. NYC sets formal rules for filming on city streets By SARA KUGLER Associated Press Writer NEW YORK (AP) -- Filmmakers and photographers who shoot on New York City's streets and sidewalks now have a clear set of rules dictating when they must obtain permits, after years of relying on loose guidelines that civil liberties advocates said were too vague. The rules, which were to appear Monday in the City Record, now state clearly that productions must have permits and at least $1 million in insurance if they plan to take over a lane of traffic or leave less than eight feet of open space on a sidewalk. Permits and insurance also are required for shoots that involve vehicles or use equipment other than hand-held devices or cameras on tripods _ items like props, sets, lights, dolly tracks, screens and microphone devices. Last year, the administration of Mayor Michael Bloomberg agreed to make formal rules for filming and photography as part of a settlement in a lawsuit against the city on behalf of award-winning documentarian Rakesh Sharma, who was detained in 2005 when he was standing on a Manhattan sidewalk, filming with a handheld camera. But photographers, filmmakers and civil liberties advocates were stunned by the first set of rules drafted last summer by Bloomberg's film office. Under that proposal, any group of two or more people who were filming or taking pictures for more than 30 minutes on city property would have needed a permit and insurance. Taken literally, those permit rules would have applied to tourists snapping photos in Times Square and families shooting videos of their children in the park. The city insisted that the rules were only meant to apply to potentially disruptive productions, and agreed to revise the proposed regulations. Before the rules were formally outlined, the dozens of productions that shot outdoors in the city each day typically already obtained permits and insurance if they were going to disrupt city life on sidewalks and streets, but City Hall had never established clear rules for doing so. "We're not really trying to change anything, we're just clarifying some of the positions that have been in place and in practice for a number of years," Katherine Oliver, commissioner of Bloomberg's Office of Film, Theatre and Broadcasting, said in an interview. Many filmmakers and photographers _ both amateur and professional _ had long complained that the old policies were too vague and gave authorities too much leeway to harass artists on the street. Chris Dunn, an associate legal director for the New York Civil Liberties Union, which sued the city in federal court on Sharma's behalf, said the organization approved of the new rules. But he added the city has a way to go in educating authorities about what type of filming requires a permit. ___ On the Net: http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/html/index/index.shtml Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (649270) | |
Re: New NYC street photography rules now official. |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Jul 14 15:49:12 2008, in response to Re: New NYC street photography rules now official., posted by Bingham C50 on Mon Jul 14 15:44:10 2008. Here is the discussion on OTChat:NYC sets formal rules for filming on city streets |
|
|
| (649341) | |
Re: New NYC street photography rules now official. |
|
|
Posted by R Pansepcc on Mon Jul 14 16:41:38 2008, in response to New NYC street photography rules now official., posted by Bingham C50 on Mon Jul 14 15:39:53 2008. Thank you for the info. |
|
|
| (649360) | |
Re: New NYC street photography rules now official. |
|
|
Posted by Bingham C50 on Mon Jul 14 16:51:36 2008, in response to Re: New NYC street photography rules now official., posted by R Pansepcc on Mon Jul 14 16:41:38 2008. Richard, you're more than welcome. |
|
|
| (652323) | |
Here's the statement from the NYCLU. |
|
|
Posted by Bingham C50 on Sat Jul 19 03:54:54 2008, in response to New NYC street photography rules now official., posted by Bingham C50 on Mon Jul 14 15:39:53 2008. http://www.nyclu.org/node/1896/printPublished by the New York Civil Liberties Union (http://www.nyclu.org) Working with NYCLU, NYC Issues New Film Rules Respecting First Amendment Rights of Photographers and Filmmakers July 14, 2008 -- Responding to public pressure and a lawsuit by the New York Civil Liberties Union, New York City today issued rules that respect the constitutional right to photograph and film on sidewalks and other public places. Under the new rules, which the City negotiated with the NYCLU, anyone with a handheld camera or a tripod is free to film on city sidewalks for as long as they please without a permit so long as they don’t establish a physical perimeter around or direct passersby away from more than half of a sidewalk, according to rules released by the Mayor’s Office of Film, Theatre and Broadcast. The rules expressly state that photographers and filmmakers who are simply standing on City sidewalks with cameras and tripods need no permit and no insurance. The rules also expressly state that no permit is required for photography and filming of parades, rallies, protests and demonstrations. In May 2007, MOFTB proposed rules that would have required permits and $1 million of insurance for anyone who spent 30 minutes photographing or filming in a single location. The NYCLU and scores of filmmakers and photographers opposed the proposal, which would have restricted a wide range of casual photography and filmmaking. As a result of the outcry, MOFTB rescinded the proposal in August and worked with the NYCLU to draft the rules issued today. “We are glad the City stepped up and agreed to issue rules that respect New Yorkers’ First Amendment rights,” said Donna Lieberman, NYCLU executive director. “Now the NYPD needs to get its act together and stop hassling photographers and filmmakers.” The NYPD has a history of harassing photographers and violating their First Amendment rights, and the NYCLU has filed two lawsuits recently in an attempt to force the Department to adopt policies and trainings so that officers will understand and respect the constitutionally-protected rights of photographers and filmmakers. Still photographers and filmmakers whose work does not require a permit but are afraid of police harassment may apply for a free “optional permit,” an official document they can present if stopped and questioned by a police officer that explains they are engaged in legal activity. The optional permit does not require insurance. NYCLU Associate Legal Director Christopher Dunn worked with MOFTB to write the rules, and pushed for the inclusion of an optional permit in response to photographer and filmmaker requests for one. “The issuance of these new rules provides an important opportunity for the NYPD to train its officers to understand and respect the First Amendment rights of photographers,”Dunn said. “Photography and filmmaking has a long and distinguished history in New York City, and the NYPD needs to recognize that this activity is not a threat to public safety.” New York City previously had no written rules governing the issuance of film and photo permits, which resulted in certain photographers and filmmakers being denied the right to take photos and make films. The City agreed to adopt written rules and to narrow its permit scheme after the NYCLU filed a federal lawsuit challenging the MOFTB’s permit practices. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source URL: http://www.nyclu.org/node/1896 |
|
|
| (652324) | |
Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU. |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jul 19 04:20:25 2008, in response to Here's the statement from the NYCLU., posted by Bingham C50 on Sat Jul 19 03:54:54 2008. Good news! Now ... did the city promise to issue an actual bulletin to patrol officers during roll call stating all this? |
|
|
| (652328) | |
Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jul 19 05:06:45 2008, in response to Here's the statement from the NYCLU., posted by Bingham C50 on Sat Jul 19 03:54:54 2008. Good news. |
|
|
| (652331) | |
Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU. |
|
|
Posted by Bingham C50 on Sat Jul 19 05:31:10 2008, in response to Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU., posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jul 19 05:06:45 2008. It's wonderful news.We're winning the battle...and we have a lot of folks to thank for this. |
|
|
| (652332) | |
Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU. |
|
|
Posted by Bingham C50 on Sat Jul 19 05:34:31 2008, in response to Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU., posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jul 19 04:20:25 2008. We don't know as of yet...the NYCLU suit against the NYPD is still pending as we speak.Hopefully this will convince the NYPD to agree to a re-training of its officers in regards of how to deal with law-abiding phtographers. |
|
|
| (652343) | |
Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU. |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Sat Jul 19 07:54:37 2008, in response to Here's the statement from the NYCLU., posted by Bingham C50 on Sat Jul 19 03:54:54 2008. are we allowed to record Police Officers questioning photographers while doing this 'legal activity'? |
|
|
| (652425) | |
Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU. |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jul 19 12:25:46 2008, in response to Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU., posted by monorail on Sat Jul 19 07:54:37 2008. Yes. This is permitted. Maybe unhealthy, but permitted.I bought a cheap recording device that fits in my pocket so that I could record conversations with officers (as well as record train sounds for use on my layout.) courtesy suggests that you let the officer know that he is being recorded. Simply taking the device out of your pocket and turning it on should suffice. He will ask what you are doing, and you are free to say that you wish to record the conversation for possible review with your lawyer. ROARING |
|
|
| (652427) | |
Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU. |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Jul 19 12:40:40 2008, in response to Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU., posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jul 19 12:25:46 2008. And after you regain consciousness in the holding cell ... |
|
|
| (652432) | |
Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU. |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Sat Jul 19 12:45:44 2008, in response to Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU., posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jul 19 04:20:25 2008. That remains to be seen - however the pending lawsuit against the NYPD may have some additional support now that the city agreed in principle to train the officers. |
|
|
| (652433) | |
Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU. |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Jul 19 12:47:44 2008, in response to Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU., posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jul 19 04:20:25 2008. Issuing a bulletin is pointless, it must also have strong disciplinary action associated with ignoring it. We all know that most of the cops who stop foamer photographers probably already know no crime is being committed. |
|
|
| (652454) | |
Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU. |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Jul 19 14:09:52 2008, in response to Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU., posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jul 19 12:25:46 2008. courtesy suggests that you let the officer know that he is being recorded. Simply taking the device out of your pocket and turning it on should suffice.Unfortunately, not. I let Perez know he was being recorded, and he just snatched the camcorder and stole the memory card. :( |
|
|
| (652455) | |
Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU. |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jul 19 14:12:43 2008, in response to Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU., posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Jul 19 12:47:44 2008. The LION was stopped by the cops this summer.It went down like this... I was shooting from the inside RFW on the (1) north to 242nds Street. But the T/O could see the little amber light sensor on my camera and called it in. At 96th Street my batteries crapped out after the doors closed, but what do you know! The doors opened again, so I got out to find me a dealer in batteries. But two police officers approached me and asked about my photography, and asked for an ID card. I handed the officer my license, and he says "You are from North Dakota?" And I tell him my story while the other runs the ID. Yes I come into the city each summer to photograph subway trains. I hand him my folder that shows pictures of my subway layout. We shoot the breeze for a while then they give me my ID back and tell me to have a nice day. I go up to the street to buy batteries, and then continue shooting my way up to 242nd Street. At 242nd Street some train cleaner makes noise at me from across the track on the other platform. I tell him to go call his supervisor. The supervisor does appear, and we talk for some time. He is cool with the photography, and even suggests another place along the line that would also make interesting photographs. ROARING |
|
|
| (652456) | |
Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU. |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Jul 19 14:20:41 2008, in response to Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU., posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jul 19 14:12:43 2008. I have relatively positive stories about police/employee encounters too, but I don't think my civil rights should depend on whether they send an officer who's having a good day when someone complains about perfectly legal photography. |
|
|
| (652477) | |
Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU. |
|
|
Posted by Dan Lawrence on Sat Jul 19 15:22:59 2008, in response to Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU., posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Jul 19 12:40:40 2008. Since the Lion is also a Catholic Monk, the media has a field day. |
|
|
| (652485) | |
Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU. |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Jul 19 16:01:46 2008, in response to Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU., posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jul 19 14:12:43 2008. I love it when car cleaners object to my photography. It fun to mock their lack of power. |
|
|
| (652486) | |
Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU. |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Jul 19 16:03:34 2008, in response to Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU., posted by Dan Lawrence on Sat Jul 19 15:22:59 2008. And then there's the lawsuit. The monastery could finally get HBO On Demand. |
|
|
| (652487) | |
Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU. |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Jul 19 16:05:09 2008, in response to Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU., posted by Nilet on Sat Jul 19 14:20:41 2008. Let's not confuse the issue here. You have no civil right to photograph on MTA property. However, it's a legal act, and that means you shouldn't be denied the opportunity. The MTA could change the law at any time. |
|
|
| (652508) | |
Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU. |
|
|
Posted by Dan Lawrence on Sat Jul 19 18:51:49 2008, in response to Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU., posted by Dan Lawrence on Sat Jul 19 15:22:59 2008. Along with the satellite dish(es) to get the signal. The abbey where he's a monk is in North Dakota, way out of cable system range. |
|
|
| (652577) | |
Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU. |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sat Jul 19 21:49:50 2008, in response to Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU., posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Jul 19 16:05:09 2008. The MTA could change the law at any time.Not exactly. There is a process. And you could challenge it, AFAIK. |
|
|
| (652580) | |
Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU. |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sat Jul 19 21:50:14 2008, in response to Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU., posted by Bingham C50 on Sat Jul 19 05:31:10 2008. do you thank Ron? |
|
|
| (652614) | |
Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU. |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jul 19 22:07:28 2008, in response to Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU., posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Jul 19 16:03:34 2008. We don't *want* HBO on demand. There are already too many channels on basic cable. Besides Saturday night is movie and pop corn night. I'll go up for the pop corn but skip the movie.LION would rather sit here and visit with you than watch some dumb old movie. ROAR |
|
|
| (652623) | |
Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU. |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jul 19 22:10:06 2008, in response to Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU., posted by Dan Lawrence on Sat Jul 19 18:51:49 2008. Nah, we may be out in the middle of the prairies of North Dakota, but we are also on the edge of a small city (pop 600) and that of course gives us cable, optic fiber telco and internet and other such modern amenities such as electricity.Actually we were among the FIRST in North Dakota to get electricity. Of course we generated it ourselves and sold some to the city. DC of course! ROAR |
|
|
| (652766) | |
Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU. |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jul 20 04:29:36 2008, in response to Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU., posted by Terrapin Station on Sat Jul 19 21:49:50 2008. But his statement is still true. They can't secretly change it, but they certainly can change it. |
|
|
| (652822) | |
Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU. |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Jul 20 10:40:38 2008, in response to Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU., posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jul 20 04:29:36 2008. But not at any time. There is a specific process that takes time. |
|
|
| (652845) | |
Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU. |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Sun Jul 20 11:17:12 2008, in response to Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU., posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Jul 19 16:05:09 2008. The MTA could change the law at any time.It's not that easy. For one thing it is not an MTA or NYC rule - it is a state law. (NYCRR = New York Code Rules and Regulations). Therefore it would need legislative support for any change to be made. If the MTA thought they had difficulty changing it three years ago - imagine the trouble they would have now. Artists and photographers organized to fight the proposed MOFTB rules last year. In fact they were able to get over 70,000 petition signatures in 3 days to stop the first proposal. The organizations and connections that were formed as a result of that fight have remained in place and will continue to fight restrictions anywhere. By the way it isn't just railfans who take pictures or like the railfan view. I took this picture with my cellphone cam (hence the poor quality) of two girls that were looking out the disabled* railfan window of an R-160 last night. The girl on the left was using a NIKON D200 (wish I had that camera).  If the MTA were to even mention the words "photo ban" ever again a coalition of artists, photographers, civil libertarians, etc would come together so fast that they would never have a chance to pass it. *I call it the disabled railfan window since it no longer gives a clear view... |
|
|
| (652855) | |
Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU. |
|
|
Posted by Bingham C50 on Sun Jul 20 11:48:39 2008, in response to Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU., posted by Terrapin Station on Sat Jul 19 21:50:14 2008. He has shown and expressed much more support for our efforts than you have.So, to answer your question: yes, I do thank Ron...and many others. |
|
|
| (652858) | |
Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU. |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Jul 20 12:02:23 2008, in response to Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU., posted by BMTLines on Sun Jul 20 11:17:12 2008. exactly |
|
|
| (652862) | |
Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU. |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jul 20 12:15:45 2008, in response to Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU., posted by BMTLines on Sun Jul 20 11:17:12 2008. I know. It's just not a civil right. Changing the law requires due process, and the MTA declined to do so due to public pressure. However, if the public's mood changed, they could begin the process again. Civil rights, OTOH cannot be taken away by the legislative process. That's where people seem to be confused. |
|
|
| (652863) | |
Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU. |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jul 20 12:16:55 2008, in response to Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU., posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Jul 20 10:40:38 2008. Of course. There's no process (legal anyway) which would allow the MTA to decline to allow minorities to ride the subway. That's a civil right. |
|
|
| (652866) | |
Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU. |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jul 20 12:18:49 2008, in response to Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU., posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jul 19 22:07:28 2008. But, you could watch "Curb Your Enthusiasm" at any time. Or watch your predecessors get persecuted on "Rome"...at any time. |
|
|
| (652874) | |
Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU. |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Jul 20 12:32:50 2008, in response to Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU., posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jul 20 12:15:45 2008. Civil rights, OTOH cannot be taken away by the legislative process.Yes they can. Only civil rights that the courts find are inherent in the Constitution cannot be taken away by the legislative process. Congress could, if it chose, overturn the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Of course, public opinion would preclude this from happening, but that's the only obstacle. |
|
|
| (652875) | |
Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU. |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jul 20 12:37:25 2008, in response to Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU., posted by AlM on Sun Jul 20 12:32:50 2008. The Voting Rights Act does not actually give anyone a civil right, it's merely a vehicle to enforce the rights given to all Americans via the 14th Ammendment. The only way to remove a "civil right" via the legislative process is via a constitutional ammendment. The only other way is judicial, via the SCOTUS. |
|
|
| (652879) | |
Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU. |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sun Jul 20 12:40:52 2008, in response to Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU., posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jul 20 12:15:45 2008. Civil rights, OTOH cannot be taken away by the legislative process.Not quite. I distinctly recall Congress voting to repeal the basic right to not be imprisoned without charges, despite this being in the body of the Constitution itself. If Bush had managed to appoint one more supreme court justice, they would have upheld this decision. |
|
|
| (652906) | |
Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU. |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jul 20 13:37:15 2008, in response to Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU., posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jul 20 12:37:25 2008. Voting is not a right in this country, it's a privilege granted by the state. |
|
|
| (652918) | |
Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU. |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jul 20 14:05:20 2008, in response to Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU., posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jul 20 13:37:15 2008. True, but the relevant rights here are the equal protection statutes within the 14th Amendment. The VRA merely provides additional means of enforcement. |
|
|
| (652954) | |
Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU. |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Jul 20 15:55:21 2008, in response to Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU., posted by Nilet on Sun Jul 20 12:40:52 2008. If you are speaking of detainees at GITMO, USA laws need not apply at all.The Geneva Convention specifies how to deal with prisoners of war. It further specifies that un-uniformed combatants may be exicuited upon capture. THAT IS WHAT INTERNATIONAL LAW permits. That we did not do so was an act of mercy, yet we do retain the right to detain them until said combat operations are concluded and peace treaties are in place which will specify how to deal with them. ROARING |
|
|
| (653021) | |
Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU. |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sun Jul 20 18:15:44 2008, in response to Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU., posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Jul 20 15:55:21 2008. Except we're not talking about prisoners of war. No wars were ever declared— not even against Iraq. We're talking about civilians accused of crimes— including US citizens and legal residents, as well as citizens of Canada and Germany (and perhaps other countries) who were abducted (kidnapped) and held (and tortured) without charges.Civilians were held without charges or any form of appeal or judicial oversight and Congress authorized it. |
|
|
| (653126) | |
Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU. |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Jul 20 20:47:52 2008, in response to Re: Here's the statement from the NYCLU., posted by Nilet on Sun Jul 20 18:15:44 2008. No. Combat operations are combat operations be they declared or otherwise. Persons captured on the field of battle are POWs unless they are without uniform or command structure, in which case they are "spys" and my be shot out of hand at the convience of the capturing forces.As I have said, we have gone far beyond what is called for under international conventions. These detainees may be released upon the conclusion of hostilities to their own countries, if they want them, otherwise they can walk home from Cuba. ROARING |
|
|
