I first picked up a camera 3 months ago (borrowed from my mother-in-law) to learn about photography. I didn't know anything about aperture ISO, etc., and just started devouring as much information as I could. Joanie, because of your videos and resources I just landed my first official client! THANK YOU!!
It is safe to say that most clients don't understand the work of a professional photographer. I have worked with different clients who needed specialized content and most of them think it is just "Click" or "Shoot" and that's it. But in fact, it is much more than that. As you mentioned, it takes years to master and develop the skills needed to get a job done. But in this day and age we have to constantly remind them that the process of taking a photo doesn't begin and end in a "Click" I'm pretty sure a photographer knows exactly what that means 😉 Love the video Joanie💙
She nails this tutorial! Coming up I would rarely hear suggestions to cross out, and add your initials to discrepancies on a contract. That is such a key and mature way of dealing with corporate clients. And it is so aggravating for retail portrait clients to demand exclusive rights at retail cost. Uggg!
I’m about to do my first official food photography with a potential client and here I thought I’m ready for it, until I watched this video. Thanks, Joanie!
I learnt more about copyright listening to you dor 16 minutes than I ever have reading and listening to a bunch of others who just beat about the bush. Joanie, thank you for making this topic simpler to understand and approachable to suit my needs. God bless you!
Great video and soooooo important for creators to know and understand! I had a client who decided to hire another graphic designer that was local. I live in Dallas and they are in San Antonio. They asked me to upload all the original source files, photos, etc. and I said of course, but I will need to draw up a contract and price to release everything. They said ok, so I drafted one contract for complete ownership and another for licensing the files with limited use. They saw the price options and were floored, thinking that they automatically owned everything because they paid for my design work and the printed pieces. No, no, no I said to Little Miss Muffet eating her curds and whey. LOL I explained it using the photographer analogy that just because you hire a photographer, you don't own all the original images they shot. We provide you with an end product. Lastly, I explained that if I turned over all my design files that were then passed on to another agency they could use that to create artwork for other clients that would not include them. They would end up making lots of money for original art that I created and I would not get paid, hence the contracts I drafted so I would be paid to turnover my original artwork. IMHO if someone does not understand this or argues that they own the files then I know they have very little respect or understand the work we provide. I run into this all the time with people who claim to be professionals in marketing or ad executives who really have no respect for what we do. My old client is now on their fifth designer and they always have to create art from scratch each time. They lost all the branding and consistency I provided them simply because they didn't want to pay for my files. It's sad because they keep going back to zero and it's failed miserably. Again, thank you for posting this. Creatives need to know that they could literally lose thousands of dollars unless their clients agree to and sign a contract protecting our rights and revenue.
I don’t do commercial but I have taken to putting on my estimates and invoices a detailed list of all the things that I do such as travel time, editing, client communication, etc. so it educates them about the fact my work isn’t just relegated to the hours I’m shooting.
This is great Joanie. I have tried using similar techniques in the past, however one big issue I face here almost 99% of the time is that the potential client prefers to work with photographers who do not have a contract/ licensing terms, (sometimes even if it means paying a few extra dollars). Inspite of educating them, they prefer to stick to ways that "do not complicate" things for them. All they want is the photographer to come in - click the pics - give it to them and go, period. They find the paperwork n stuff a great hassle. Infact I lost 23 clients last month out here only on this - they all declined my services only because of the copyright and licensing, inspite of offering a perpetual digital license - which was actually what they needed. In your experience, have you gone through something like this, that you can help address.
Hi Greta, so sorry but this has not been my experience. I've never had a client resist signing a contract. It's common practice in business to business transactions here in the US for service providers to provide a contract and require it be signed. Perhaps there are some nuances to where your clients or based or the kinds of clients you're serving. But, anyone who would not be willing to sign a contract guaranteeing at least some of the important details like cancellation policy, payment terms, and deliverables, is not a client I would feel confident working with. Small restaurants all the way up to international brands, I always have a contract in place.
This was so helpful Joanie! I just had a client trying to amend their contract to add "Work Fork Hire" but in the clause they have "Client grants Photographer a perpetual, worldwide right and license to use, reproduce, and display the Final Works, Preliminary Works, Working Files, and Inventions in a manner that does not disparage Client." They are saying, "Since we are a private equity firm that is majority owned by us but not all, it is important for "brand name" to own the rights to the content - This i'm not comfortable with and doesn't make sense to me.
Yep, agreed. I'd request revision on that. And if ever you're in a spot where you need help with the negotiation, there are lots of temp reps out there who can help navigate these sticky situations. WonderfulMachine.com has great folks who help with that wonderfulmachine.com/consulting/pricing-and-negotiating/
FYI "work for hire" can mean different things where you live. Consult an attorney for quick advice. You will probably want to amend their contract so the ball is in your court. If they have gone this far with you, they should be able to be amiable to your terms. Good luck and let us know how it goes!
Thank you for sharing, I have a question if we have a food blog website, do you think it’s a good idea to sell the food photos on other sites like shutter stock? I’m curious!
I really like all aspect of any one of your videos. You are the reason I started being a food photographer, and for that i'll be always grateful ! Can I ask you about what device are you using for making the switch between the different camera angles in this video !?
Hi there Joanie, I just bought your book and beginning a new chapter in my life in commercial food and product photography after leaving my full time job in communications. Feel like I'm drinking out of the fire hose as I begin learning about this new world. This video is so timely. if you are recreating recipes and taking photos for a food blogger, do we still own the copyrights even though it is their recipe? If yes, how does one go about determining a suitable license rate if you don't know the size of their blogging business. Thank you!
The subject is very timely for me, my latest nightmare is finding a client taking images off the proof sheets and creating a video on TikTok. They haven't paid the balance of the invoice and I'm planning on contacting my IP Attorney to resolve the issue. Luckily, I registered the images with the LOC before delivering the edited images and they went beyond the number of images licensed.
@@TheBiteShot Yes but I just spoke to an IP Attorney and have sent him the details. The client has tried to bully me on every detail regardless of her signing my estimate. I the LOC registration number and will pursue this as far as I can.
There's a situation that I was confronted with a add agency in the back of their purchase order was the term work for higher, I used to be a freelance art Director, does that terminology apply to photographers also?
What happens if the images used are also for printed menus? Are they still only allowed to have those images in the menu for the period of license agreed upon? How would you know if the client decides to continue to use these menus afterwards?
In a world where good photographers are abundant, this advice is a sure fire way to lose business. Most corporate clients who pay for the photographer’s time for the shoot will need to own the assets outright as a work made for hire. They won’t want you licensing their images to someone else. There are tons of great photogs bidding on jobs that won’t have any problem with this and you’ll lose. In fairness, try to negotiate a right to use the images in your portfolio with attribution to the client. Small clients may not understand all of this, but larger ones will want all of the shoots to be work made for hire. If you think about it, unless you’re a star photog, those images are unlikely going to earn you any extra money anyway…not worth losing the business.
I appreciate your perspective on this. From my own experience, and I'm definitely not a star photog, but I've been able to keep my copyright for the bulk of the work I've done over the years. I accidentally signed a work for hire with an international hospitality group about five years ago not realizing what it was. But, otherwise, the times it has been requested, I've been able to negotiate it and maintain my ownership while licensing the work to the client.
@@TheBiteShot How is this different than hiring a builder to build you a house where you pay for the materials, the labor, and the land…then the builder, because they built the house with their skill, owns the house and leases it to you? This is a remnant concept from the old days where schools and personal photography jobs didn’t want to pay any money, so the photographer was paid by selling photos to parents and to family and friends. School photos still work this way. This is entirely different than a corporate shoot where the client pays for the shoot, the models, the location, the photographer, etc. I don’t know who your clients are or if your shoots are so small that it isn’t worth any legal effort for single use photos, but if there is any value in the shoot, the larger corps are not licensing from photogs for some time now. I suppose it would be good if your followers heed your advice, it will eliminate competition.
Me watching this video then reading 13 page contract prepared by company legal team... yyyeah. If apply methid that I don't like some paragraphs, I would remove page or two. -.-
If a photographer has taken a photo by herself that I want I will gladly license it. But if I'm paying for the whole shoot, the location and the materials etc, then I'm not going to sign a license agreement. I'm paying for a service n the output are the photos, thus I should fully own it. Rather if the photographer wants to use it for her portfolio she should have an agreement with us. Imagine if you commission an artist for an art piece but the artist tells you if you r going to display this in a gallery then you need to sign a license. Like I paid you for the work!!! I'm buying the service and the output.
That is absolutely not how any of this works. Painters own the copyright to their paintings, not the person who bought the original work. The painter or their estate are the only ones who have the right to license the work. The person who bought the painting cannot sell prints of that painting. It’s the same for photographers. We are artists and we own our work unless we choose to sell the copyright. We aren’t your lackeys.
@@gettingoverbeingtypical You missed the point on this. This comment isn’t talking about an artist that creates a work on their own and then sells it. It’s referring to commissioning the work, paying for the commission, and then owning it as a work made for hire. That’s exactly how this works when you hire someone to create a specific output. It’s funny that this video talked about musicians as having ownership rights in the music they create. That’s the exception, not the rule. When you sign with a music label, 9.9 times out of 10, the label will have a work for hire and assignment of all rights as they will be creating the structures to exploit it commercially. Remember when Prince protested against his label and wrote Slave on his forehead because they wouldn’t give him ownership of his works? That was the case there, and he was a legendary superstar. The advice in this video is for the 1% who may have the pull to negotiate ownership…the other 99% will just lose business because businesses will want and sometimes need to own all of their paid for assets. And if you price higher for that, so be it, just keep in mind that others are bidding as well.
@@danliutikas I didn't miss the point at all. I don't understand why you are bringing up the musician analogy and completely ignoring what I said in my comment? People always try to argue with photographers about their copyrights as if we don't know what we're talking about, and I assure you that those of us that have been working in this field a long time actually do. Being commissioned does not in and of itself determine copyright ownership. Also, I consider a commission something that is done more for fine art work than commercial work. But even using your definition, it's still a negotiation. Just paying for my half day or full day rates doesn't entitle a person to my copyrights. Learning how to negotiate is part of being a business owner. People like you are constantly perpetuating this idea that photographers are the only artists that should just hand over their copyrights, and it's one of the reasons why so many people are struggling in this industry. That's why Joni created this video, to educate people about their worth so they can in turn educate their clients.
@@gettingoverbeingtypical People are “always arguing with photographers” not because they don’t understand what they are asking for but rather because it offends their sensibilities of a fair transaction. If you are a school and don’t want to pay for the photographer to take student photos, you might think it’s a good deal to have the photographer make their money by selling the photos/prints to the parents. Licensing works great in this context. If you’re a company and you’re paying for everything related to the shoot such as the location, models, prop rentals, photographer, etc, and need to freely and exclusively use the output that you paid for, it offends basic business sensibilities that a photog gets to “own” those works. The photographer has been bought and paid for. Just like graphic designers, videographers, copywriters, etc. So clients will “always argue” with this arrangement. This video was clearly a product of the PPA trying to get all photogs to read from the same playbook. It would be nice if this channel stayed focused on the creative. Just my .02. Best of luck, I’ll say hi for you to your clients when they knock on my door. P.S. This isn’t a legal issue. The work for hire doctrine was specifically added to the copyright act to deal with the copyright ownership issue. Even when not expressly a work for hire, copyrights are routinely assigned upon payment of the final fees without retaining rights. This is a business issue, not a legal one.
It’s also interesting that this video is sponsored by a nonprofit trade association in photography and is attempting to suggest that photographers should structure photography engagements as licenses and price accordingly if not. That seems to be treading antitrust waters in trying to align the industry to some standard pricing model. Has the PPA reviewed and approved this content?
I first picked up a camera 3 months ago (borrowed from my mother-in-law) to learn about photography. I didn't know anything about aperture ISO, etc., and just started devouring as much information as I could. Joanie, because of your videos and resources I just landed my first official client! THANK YOU!!
Oh my goodness that is awesome!! Congrats to you!!!
It is safe to say that most clients don't understand the work of a professional photographer.
I have worked with different clients who needed specialized content and most of them think it is just "Click" or "Shoot" and that's it.
But in fact, it is much more than that.
As you mentioned, it takes years to master and develop the skills needed to get a job done.
But in this day and age we have to constantly remind them that the process of taking a photo doesn't begin and end in a "Click"
I'm pretty sure a photographer knows exactly what that means 😉
Love the video Joanie💙
She nails this tutorial! Coming up I would rarely hear suggestions to cross out, and add your initials to discrepancies on a contract. That is such a key and mature way of dealing with corporate clients. And it is so aggravating for retail portrait clients to demand exclusive rights at retail cost. Uggg!
You are so amazing Joanie!!!! And so helpful!!! Love the day I discovered you
I’m about to do my first official food photography with a potential client and here I thought I’m ready for it, until I watched this video. Thanks, Joanie!
I learnt more about copyright listening to you dor 16 minutes than I ever have reading and listening to a bunch of others who just beat about the bush. Joanie, thank you for making this topic simpler to understand and approachable to suit my needs. God bless you!
Great video and soooooo important for creators to know and understand! I had a client who decided to hire another graphic designer that was local. I live in Dallas and they are in San Antonio. They asked me to upload all the original source files, photos, etc. and I said of course, but I will need to draw up a contract and price to release everything. They said ok, so I drafted one contract for complete ownership and another for licensing the files with limited use.
They saw the price options and were floored, thinking that they automatically owned everything because they paid for my design work and the printed pieces.
No, no, no I said to Little Miss Muffet eating her curds and whey. LOL
I explained it using the photographer analogy that just because you hire a photographer, you don't own all the original images they shot. We provide you with an end product.
Lastly, I explained that if I turned over all my design files that were then passed on to another agency they could use that to create artwork for other clients that would not include them. They would end up making lots of money for original art that I created and I would not get paid, hence the contracts I drafted so I would be paid to turnover my original artwork.
IMHO if someone does not understand this or argues that they own the files then I know they have very little respect or understand the work we provide. I run into this all the time with people who claim to be professionals in marketing or ad executives who really have no respect for what we do.
My old client is now on their fifth designer and they always have to create art from scratch each time. They lost all the branding and consistency I provided them simply because they didn't want to pay for my files. It's sad because they keep going back to zero and it's failed miserably.
Again, thank you for posting this. Creatives need to know that they could literally lose thousands of dollars unless their clients agree to and sign a contract protecting our rights and revenue.
Wish I'd had this script last week! No more getting flustered when speaking about licensing. Thanks, Joanie!
I don’t do commercial but I have taken to putting on my estimates and invoices a detailed list of all the things that I do such as travel time, editing, client communication, etc. so it educates them about the fact my work isn’t just relegated to the hours I’m shooting.
That's a great practice. Indeed, there's so much more time that goes into it.
@@TheBiteShot Thanks, yes, there is so much more time, that's true. (I should correct that I don't do commercial to I rarely do commercial.)
thank you so much for this video Joanie, this is so important and even after doing food photography for so many years I still struggle with this!
Glad it was helpful!
Thanks I always worried about how to approach this with my client.
Super video with clear explanations and examples. Thanks Joanie.
Glad it was helpful!
Thank you for this video, your the best Joanie
Hey thanku joanie i personally watch all videos hats off your content
Awesome! Thank you!
"We got the MP3's!" 😂
I loooove your videos! So helpful, especially for us looking to enter this space. Thank you for being open to share these behind the scenes lessons.
This is great Joanie. I have tried using similar techniques in the past, however one big issue I face here almost 99% of the time is that the potential client prefers to work with photographers who do not have a contract/ licensing terms, (sometimes even if it means paying a few extra dollars). Inspite of educating them, they prefer to stick to ways that "do not complicate" things for them. All they want is the photographer to come in - click the pics - give it to them and go, period. They find the paperwork n stuff a great hassle. Infact I lost 23 clients last month out here only on this - they all declined my services only because of the copyright and licensing, inspite of offering a perpetual digital license - which was actually what they needed. In your experience, have you gone through something like this, that you can help address.
Hi Greta, so sorry but this has not been my experience. I've never had a client resist signing a contract. It's common practice in business to business transactions here in the US for service providers to provide a contract and require it be signed. Perhaps there are some nuances to where your clients or based or the kinds of clients you're serving. But, anyone who would not be willing to sign a contract guaranteeing at least some of the important details like cancellation policy, payment terms, and deliverables, is not a client I would feel confident working with. Small restaurants all the way up to international brands, I always have a contract in place.
This was so helpful Joanie! I just had a client trying to amend their contract to add "Work Fork Hire" but in the clause they have "Client grants Photographer a perpetual, worldwide right and license to use, reproduce, and display the Final Works, Preliminary Works, Working Files, and Inventions in a manner that does not disparage Client." They are saying, "Since we are a private equity firm that is majority owned by us but not all, it is important for "brand name" to own the rights to the content - This i'm not comfortable with and doesn't make sense to me.
Yep, agreed. I'd request revision on that. And if ever you're in a spot where you need help with the negotiation, there are lots of temp reps out there who can help navigate these sticky situations. WonderfulMachine.com has great folks who help with that wonderfulmachine.com/consulting/pricing-and-negotiating/
@@TheBiteShot Thank you!
FYI "work for hire" can mean different things where you live. Consult an attorney for quick advice. You will probably want to amend their contract so the ball is in your court. If they have gone this far with you, they should be able to be amiable to your terms. Good luck and let us know how it goes!
What about taking photos for private individuals?
Thank you for sharing, I have a question if we have a food blog website, do you think it’s a good idea to sell the food photos on other sites like shutter stock? I’m curious!
I really like all aspect of any one of your videos. You are the reason I started being a food photographer, and for that i'll be always grateful !
Can I ask you about what device are you using for making the switch between the different camera angles in this video !?
Sure thing! We filmed on two different cameras and our video editor (yousefah.com) edited it together.
@@TheBiteShot ah ok ! I tought you started using something like "ATEM MINI" or that kind of stuff. Anyway thank you so much for everything!
thanks for the information.
Hi there Joanie, I just bought your book and beginning a new chapter in my life in commercial food and product photography after leaving my full time job in communications. Feel like I'm drinking out of the fire hose as I begin learning about this new world. This video is so timely. if you are recreating recipes and taking photos for a food blogger, do we still own the copyrights even though it is their recipe? If yes, how does one go about determining a suitable license rate if you don't know the size of their blogging business. Thank you!
The subject is very timely for me, my latest nightmare is finding a client taking images off the proof sheets and creating a video on TikTok. They haven't paid the balance of the invoice and I'm planning on contacting my IP Attorney to resolve the issue. Luckily, I registered the images with the LOC before delivering the edited images and they went beyond the number of images licensed.
Oh wow! Sorry to hear that. That's gotta be so frustrating!
@@TheBiteShot Yes but I just spoke to an IP Attorney and have sent him the details. The client has tried to bully me on every detail regardless of her signing my estimate. I the LOC registration number and will pursue this as far as I can.
There's a situation that I was confronted with a add agency in the back of their purchase order was the term work for higher, I used to be a freelance art Director, does that terminology apply to photographers also?
What happens if the images used are also for printed menus? Are they still only allowed to have those images in the menu for the period of license agreed upon?
How would you know if the client decides to continue to use these menus afterwards?
In a world where good photographers are abundant, this advice is a sure fire way to lose business. Most corporate clients who pay for the photographer’s time for the shoot will need to own the assets outright as a work made for hire. They won’t want you licensing their images to someone else. There are tons of great photogs bidding on jobs that won’t have any problem with this and you’ll lose. In fairness, try to negotiate a right to use the images in your portfolio with attribution to the client. Small clients may not understand all of this, but larger ones will want all of the shoots to be work made for hire. If you think about it, unless you’re a star photog, those images are unlikely going to earn you any extra money anyway…not worth losing the business.
I appreciate your perspective on this. From my own experience, and I'm definitely not a star photog, but I've been able to keep my copyright for the bulk of the work I've done over the years. I accidentally signed a work for hire with an international hospitality group about five years ago not realizing what it was. But, otherwise, the times it has been requested, I've been able to negotiate it and maintain my ownership while licensing the work to the client.
@@TheBiteShot How is this different than hiring a builder to build you a house where you pay for the materials, the labor, and the land…then the builder, because they built the house with their skill, owns the house and leases it to you? This is a remnant concept from the old days where schools and personal photography jobs didn’t want to pay any money, so the photographer was paid by selling photos to parents and to family and friends. School photos still work this way. This is entirely different than a corporate shoot where the client pays for the shoot, the models, the location, the photographer, etc. I don’t know who your clients are or if your shoots are so small that it isn’t worth any legal effort for single use photos, but if there is any value in the shoot, the larger corps are not licensing from photogs for some time now. I suppose it would be good if your followers heed your advice, it will eliminate competition.
Sure, if you want to spend all day dealing with contracts.
Me watching this video then reading 13 page contract prepared by company legal team... yyyeah. If apply methid that I don't like some paragraphs, I would remove page or two. -.-
If a photographer has taken a photo by herself that I want I will gladly license it. But if I'm paying for the whole shoot, the location and the materials etc, then I'm not going to sign a license agreement. I'm paying for a service n the output are the photos, thus I should fully own it. Rather if the photographer wants to use it for her portfolio she should have an agreement with us.
Imagine if you commission an artist for an art piece but the artist tells you if you r going to display this in a gallery then you need to sign a license. Like I paid you for the work!!! I'm buying the service and the output.
That is absolutely not how any of this works. Painters own the copyright to their paintings, not the person who bought the original work. The painter or their estate are the only ones who have the right to license the work. The person who bought the painting cannot sell prints of that painting. It’s the same for photographers. We are artists and we own our work unless we choose to sell the copyright. We aren’t your lackeys.
@@gettingoverbeingtypical You missed the point on this. This comment isn’t talking about an artist that creates a work on their own and then sells it. It’s referring to commissioning the work, paying for the commission, and then owning it as a work made for hire. That’s exactly how this works when you hire someone to create a specific output. It’s funny that this video talked about musicians as having ownership rights in the music they create. That’s the exception, not the rule. When you sign with a music label, 9.9 times out of 10, the label will have a work for hire and assignment of all rights as they will be creating the structures to exploit it commercially. Remember when Prince protested against his label and wrote Slave on his forehead because they wouldn’t give him ownership of his works? That was the case there, and he was a legendary superstar. The advice in this video is for the 1% who may have the pull to negotiate ownership…the other 99% will just lose business because businesses will want and sometimes need to own all of their paid for assets. And if you price higher for that, so be it, just keep in mind that others are bidding as well.
@@danliutikas I didn't miss the point at all. I don't understand why you are bringing up the musician analogy and completely ignoring what I said in my comment? People always try to argue with photographers about their copyrights as if we don't know what we're talking about, and I assure you that those of us that have been working in this field a long time actually do. Being commissioned does not in and of itself determine copyright ownership. Also, I consider a commission something that is done more for fine art work than commercial work. But even using your definition, it's still a negotiation. Just paying for my half day or full day rates doesn't entitle a person to my copyrights. Learning how to negotiate is part of being a business owner. People like you are constantly perpetuating this idea that photographers are the only artists that should just hand over their copyrights, and it's one of the reasons why so many people are struggling in this industry. That's why Joni created this video, to educate people about their worth so they can in turn educate their clients.
@@gettingoverbeingtypical People are “always arguing with photographers” not because they don’t understand what they are asking for but rather because it offends their sensibilities of a fair transaction. If you are a school and don’t want to pay for the photographer to take student photos, you might think it’s a good deal to have the photographer make their money by selling the photos/prints to the parents. Licensing works great in this context. If you’re a company and you’re paying for everything related to the shoot such as the location, models, prop rentals, photographer, etc, and need to freely and exclusively use the output that you paid for, it offends basic business sensibilities that a photog gets to “own” those works. The photographer has been bought and paid for. Just like graphic designers, videographers, copywriters, etc. So clients will “always argue” with this arrangement. This video was clearly a product of the PPA trying to get all photogs to read from the same playbook. It would be nice if this channel stayed focused on the creative. Just my .02. Best of luck, I’ll say hi for you to your clients when they knock on my door. P.S. This isn’t a legal issue. The work for hire doctrine was specifically added to the copyright act to deal with the copyright ownership issue. Even when not expressly a work for hire, copyrights are routinely assigned upon payment of the final fees without retaining rights. This is a business issue, not a legal one.
I need to now they stole my photo hacevbusines twin flame my photo stole from fb??.
I dud givevnow aythoriyhy yo usevany ok I want see if it is fake it was not copy they stole it from fb???
First like, first comment 😃
Had so many great cds burned with *NSYNC! The days!!!
It’s also interesting that this video is sponsored by a nonprofit trade association in photography and is attempting to suggest that photographers should structure photography engagements as licenses and price accordingly if not. That seems to be treading antitrust waters in trying to align the industry to some standard pricing model. Has the PPA reviewed and approved this content?
That was sexy photo nowbody dud have that right ok ??
Ah this will be useful. Gonna watch this now 😌
Hi Joanie!💜🥲
Hi Roberta!!!