What would you do?

[Ari]

I took some portraits of the "Occupy" protesters last year.
One of the subjects emailed me this morning, asking me to remove his photo from my website (or he and his posse would make trouble for me) because he is concerned about his privacy.
The photo is here: http://www.aritapiero.com/occupy-ottawa.html
Top row, fourth photo from the left, of two gentlemen, one is holding a book; the other one is the person in question.

I always ask for permission first, then everybody signs a standard release form, then we shoot a frame or two.

I told the guy that unless he had a legal reason for me to remove the photo, I wouldn't remove it.
I reminded him that he had signed a release.

Kind of harsh, but I am loathe to be forced to "edit" myself based on the whims of others.
At least that's how I see it.

What say you?

TIA

[Scott Walker]

If it was me I would plaster his picture everywhere I could find an audience just because he threatened me.
Had he asked politely I likely would remove it for him.

[Roger Cole]

They were in a public place, no? My understanding is that you don't even need a release, not for most non-commercial use. If you used it in an ad, yes. Just up on a web page, part of a news story etc, no. In any case he signed a release anyway. I'd write back and tell him he can't un-sign it.

Ooops - just noticed you're in Ontario. Canadian law might be different. But I still bet he can't just after the fact revoke his agreement.

[E. von Hoegh]

If it was me I would plaster his picture everywhere I could find an audience just because he threatened me.
Had he asked politely I likely would remove it for him.

^^ Just about exactly my reaction. I'd tell him and his "posse" to pound salt, too.

[Eric Rose]

Just ignore him from this point on. The silence will kill him.

[photobymike]

Hey Ari ... do they have freedom of speech in Canada? You do not need to ask permission if on public property in public view ....For what you described it sounds like you need to show your email to the police. Free speech does not give anyone the right to threaten a person. Go to the police ... But then again we had the same lowlifes here in tampa. There is no way i would risk my personal safety being around people who do not understand societies need for the rule of law.. they are anarchist by the definition of there protest. I looked at your photos when you made them available on your page. I personally thought you were brave or one of them. Here in tampa and elsewhere there were several arrests for drugs, assault, rape ect...

I'd tell him and his "posse" to pound salt ..... sounds good to me..... make a federal case out of it and go to the police.

[BrianShaw]

None of those guys look very tough to me. Give him the silent treatment!

[cowanw]

You are Canadian. Be nice. Take it down. No sweat off your brow.

[Greg Miller]

Let's see. He goes to a public demonstration that is getting all sorts of press and air time. He signs a release, and agrees to have his photo taken. Now he's concerned about his privacy. Go figure.

I'd probably give the local police a copy of the email. Then I'd email him back and say if he had asked nicely you would have honored his request, but since he was a jerk about it the photo will stay where it is. And tell him the police have a copy of his email so they'll know who to talk to first if anything happens.

[Roger Cole]

We may be reading too much into Ari's comment about, "or he and his posse would make trouble for me." That could mean threatening harm, or it could be as simple as "or you'll be hearing from my lawyer friend." Though admittedly it's hard to imagine a lawyer not laughing in his face if aware he signed a release in addition to obviously posing at a gathering on public property.

[Jody_S]

If he is threatening harm, and you have his name (signed release) and presumably his email, I would contact the police. If I was in a kind mood when it happened, I might tell him that threats will result in a police complaint before actually doing it. Under no circumstances would I remove a photo, especially if I had a signed release (I never do, and still don't self-censor).

[r.e.]

Hi Ari,

Until recently, I lived in Ottawa.

I think that the issue is what he said in the email about coming after you with a posse. If he actually said something like that, it is as we both know not typical Ottawa language, and it's odd that he's pursuing this so long after the photograph was taken.

I think that the question is whether this guy is just blowing hot air or whether he is potentially unbalanced and a threat. If you are actually concerned, it can't hurt to call the Ottawa police and see what they think. Although realise, if you do that, that it could trigger an investigation into whether he is uttering threats, and potentially a charge. If I called the police about this, I'd want to keep it pretty informal unless I had reason to believe, either based on my own info or on what the police tell me, that he is a threat.

It doesn't sound to me that he's given you any reason to delete the photograph - indeed, pretty much the opposite. If I wasn't worried about him, I'd be half inclined to see if it's possible to take more photos around his interest in disappearing.

[photobymike]

dont need a signed release here in the states.... public place in public view with no expectation of privacy... you can photograph....Just what exactly are you worry about Ari.... assault with smells ...looks like he needs a shower bad

[Ari]

No, no I wasn't threatened; not really, anyway. Sorry for that misconception.

Thanks for all the responses.

For the record, and to be clear, his exact wording was, if I don't remove the photo "I will take the steps with my family and friends to get it removed."
Hardly threatening, but I'd hate to go have to go through any kind of legal process because someone decided that last year's haircut doesn't work anymore, or applied to law school or something.

At the time I felt that half of these kids were trust-funders, slumming it for a few days; I still feel that way, so the only action that might be taken is legal.

I ask for releases to be signed because I am making portraits, not shooting semi-anonymous street-photography-style; it may or may not be required in Canada, but I like having my a$$ covered.

My wife thinks I should delete the photo, but I'm the one who worked for these photos, and I should be the one to decide what happens to them.

Thanks again.

[IanG]

I'd tell him you've passed his threat to the Police annd asked them to put on their records, then ignore him. I did that once here in the UK, the threat was rather more serious though.

Chances are many more people phootographed him at the event but in a crowd, and you can bet the police have images anywyay. What's the big deal I assume he was beraking no laws and he's out in public, so what privacy.

Ian

[Darin Boville]

You need more information. Maybe the pict is harming him in some serious way--maybe that would make a difference to you? Just write him a reply saying that you don't understand what is is asking for and ask him why he is asking it.

As mentioned above, you also have to consider the possibility that he is mentally unbalanced. If that is a concern just take it down for a few months.

A third possibility, offer him a print!

--Darin

[Ari]

You need more information. Maybe the pict is harming him in some serious way--maybe that would make a difference to you? Just write him a reply saying that you don't understand what is is asking for and ask him why he is asking it.

As mentioned above, you also have to consider the possibility that he is mentally unbalanced. If that is a concern just take it down for a few months.

A third possibility, offer him a print!

--Darin

I considered all of the above, but it's hard to start a meaningful dialogue when someone threatens right off the bat.
I'd take it down if there was an important reason, and I was approached more politely.

[Brian Ellis]

I'd send it to the police along with his name and address if you have them. But that's just me.

[Ari]

It doesn't sound to me that he's given you any reason to delete the photograph - indeed, pretty much the opposite. If I wasn't worried about him, I'd be half inclined to see if it's possible to take more photos around his interest in disappearing.

Agreed; and I'd like to know why, too, even tie it in to work somehow, but I'm afraid our friendship is already over before it's begun. :)

[Greg Miller]

I considered all of the above, but it's hard to start a meaningful dialogue when someone threatens right off the bat.
I'd take it down if there was an important reason, and I was approached more politely.

I'm totally with you here. If he had been polite, said he regretted allowing the photo and why, and asked you to consider removing the photo, then you would have reason to consider doing so.

He's asking you for a favor. Most people asking for a favor do so in a respectful way. But instead he chose to be aggressive out of the gate and threaten you (and even with your actual quote of what he wrote there is still reason to believe he meant things other than a legal course). I'm all for being charitable, but that approach does not warrant being nice back. If someone wants a favor, they should start out with a respectful tone.

[jeroldharter]

You might tell him to get a job... That will really get him going.

Just curious - how did he find the picture of himself on your website? Does Mother Jones have a link?

[r.e.]

I'd meet him for coffee and find out what this is about. I think that there might be a story here. If I had a friend who works for the Citizen, I might bring him/her along too, or at least have that possibility in mind as a follow-up.

[vintagesnaps]

Obviously he knew at the time you were taking his picture, he's looking right at the camera! So he posed for the photo, was in a public place, and signed a release - seems like you have his permission to use the photo of him.

However, I find his comment to be quite odd which would for me be a red flag. Is the photo significant or important enough to be worth going thru a potentially problematic situation? Doesn't seem like it would be worth it. Even if you're most likely in the right, it might be better to remove it (after reminding him about the signed release etc.) and move on. It may be something to consider too whether or not it would be necessary to report this to the local authorities.

[welly]

I agree with Mr. Vintage Snaps. If you want to keep the image online - if you like it and feel it represents your photography, as opposed to keeping it online 'just because' - then I would politely respond to this chap that you understand his concerns but you won't be removing the image, and then deal with the repercussions. Otherwise, it might be worth taking down to save any hassles. Life is too short to be stubborn (not saying you are being).

[lenser]

Maybe he can afford a protracted legal wrangle (right or wrong) to try to get you to remove it. Can you and do you want to waste your money on that for a "point of honor"? Doesn't seem like it's worth it to me. Why don't you simply reply and ask him why he wants it off your site, tell him how proud you are of the image and how good both he and his friend look in it, and why you would like to keep it on line then see what his response is? Seems like it might be more fun to play with his head by trying to turn this into a positive and maybe even a friendship than taking as defensive a posture as he has.

[Darin Boville]

I considered all of the above, but it's hard to start a meaningful dialogue when someone threatens right off the bat.
I'd take it down if there was an important reason, and I was approached more politely.

Yes, but he's a social misfit. You are not. An e-mail doesn't cost you anything and it will clear the way to a decision for you.

--Darin

[Ari]

You might tell him to get a job... That will really get him going.

Just curious - how did he find the picture of himself on your website? Does Mother Jones have a link?

I gave my website address to the Occupy "organizer" when I was shooting there, and he passed it online.


I'd meet him for coffee and find out what this is about. I think that there might be a story here. If I had a friend who works for the Citizen, I might bring him/her along too, or at least have that possibility in mind as a follow-up.

So far, he hasn't replied to my email, but the situation is perhaps worth a second look.


Yes, but he's a social misfit. You are not.

--Darin

Thank you, Darin; some may disagree with that statement, though. :)

[Ari]

Obviously he knew at the time you were taking his picture, he's looking right at the camera! So he posed for the photo, was in a public place, and signed a release - seems like you have his permission to use the photo of him.

However, I find his comment to be quite odd which would for me be a red flag. Is the photo significant or important enough to be worth going thru a potentially problematic situation? Doesn't seem like it would be worth it. Even if you're most likely in the right, it might be better to remove it (after reminding him about the signed release etc.) and move on. It may be something to consider too whether or not it would be necessary to report this to the local authorities.


I agree with Mr. Vintage Snaps. If you want to keep the image online - if you like it and feel it represents your photography, as opposed to keeping it online 'just because' - then I would politely respond to this chap that you understand his concerns but you won't be removing the image, and then deal with the repercussions. Otherwise, it might be worth taking down to save any hassles. Life is too short to be stubborn (not saying you are being).


Maybe he can afford a protracted legal wrangle (right or wrong) to try to get you to remove it. Can you and do you want to waste your money on that for a "point of honor"? Doesn't seem like it's worth it to me. Why don't you simply reply and ask him why he wants it off your site, tell him how proud you are of the image and how good both he and his friend look in it, and why you would like to keep it on line then see what his response is? Seems like it might be more fun to play with his head by trying to turn this into a positive and maybe even a friendship than taking as defensive a posture as he has.

Is it worth it? Not in and of itself.
But in my head, it's a form of censorship; I don't want to cave to anyone who doesn't like their photo after they gave me permission to shoot it and use it.
If there is an important reason to remove it, I will do so, and with pleasure, but it won't be because someone's ego has been wounded.
No, the photo does not necessarily represent my work, but it's a good piece of a larger idea, i.e. "it really ties the room together"


I can't please everybody, and I have to draw a line somewhere.

[Greg Miller]

If you end up pulling the photo, make him reimburse you for film, processing, and your time. After all, you would not have taken the photo if he had not agreed to be photographed.

[Darin Boville]

Thank you, Darin; some may disagree with that statement, though. :)

I'm not just talking about his appearance. His e-mail to you seems to confirms one's suspicions.

I've had several people ask to have their images and videos taken down--I also do a little amateur journalism. For example, local candidates for office who decide a year or two on that they want the old video, and whatever they said on that video, gone. I've always succeeded in calming them down by explaining to them the simple impossibility of the idea.

--Darin

[welly]

Is it worth it? Not in and of itself.
But in my head, it's a form of censorship; I don't want to cave to anyone who doesn't like their photo after they gave me permission to shoot it and use it.
If there is an important reason to remove it, I will do so, and with pleasure, but it won't be because someone's ego has been wounded.
No, the photo does not necessarily represent my work, but it's a good piece of a larger idea, i.e. "it really ties the room together"


I can't please everybody, and I have to draw a line somewhere.

Actually, you're probably right. If you take that image down, it sets a precedence. Eff him and keep it online!

[ImSoNegative]

something similer happend to me but it had nothing to do with photography, a fellow sent me a threatening email, wasnt sure if it was legal action or ass whipping, but i was wanting to find out, so i went to his place of business and asked. it was legal action but i really wanted to be an ass whipping to be honest lol. I hate to be threatend especially with words like (make trouble for you, or come after you etc) to me that is being a coward, hell dont talk about it, just do it...talking about it just gives me time to get pissed off.

[Doremus Scudder]

Ari,

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the obvious (to me, anyway) response.

Send the e-mailer a copy of the release he signed and a synopsis of the laws regarding photographing in public places and using models. Point out to him that he has no legal case against you. Point out to him as well that you have a policy of non-censorship and, as a matter of principle, you do not remove photographs from your website just because someone decides at a later dated that they do not want their portrait on it.

You might also point out that there are likely hundreds of photographs taken by police and journalists with his image in on some hard drive or other around town.

The "my family and I will take all necessary steps..." just sounds like bluster and bluff to get you to do something. Showing that you are better-informed than he about the situation will take the wind out of his sails.

If you are kindly disposed, you could also inquire as to his reason for wanting his picture removed. Maybe he will respond with a more moving or convincing reason. Otherwise, leave the photo up.

Best,

Doremus

[Ari]

Doremus, I will undoubtedly take that course should this go any further.
Thanks again, everyone.

[Michael W]

Tell him that you and your posse are going to occupy his front yard to protest against his attempt to oppress your creativity.

[Ari]

Follow-up:
In my email, I reminded him that he had signed a release, and I was not going to remove the photo, except under serious circumstances.
Then, I thought I was being kind of a hardass, so I emailed again saying, if he's worried about his privacy, I could change the name in the caption and muddy his features a little.

The response came today:
Actually never mind lol. I thought it through last night and it doesn't seem to pose any serious stuff against me so yeah. Sorry..

This is what happens when you learn to communicate by text message, lol
Kids, stay in school! :)

[BrianShaw]

If I wre you I'd remove his name anyway. It probably has little to do with the image's impact anyway.

But what an interesting situation -- totally a knee-jerk reaction against being seen.

[John Olsen]

Maybe he's applying for a job at a financial institution and wants to clean up his history a little. Since he put in some time doing something I was too lazy to do, I'd be inclined to remove the photo and, at the same time, admonish him to be more civil in his emails.

[r.e.]

Follow-up:
In my email, I reminded him that he had signed a release, and I was not going to remove the photo, except under serious circumstances.
Then, I thought I was being kind of a hardass, so I emailed again saying, if he's worried about his privacy, I could change the name in the caption and muddy his features a little.

The response came today:
Actually never mind lol. I thought it through last night and it doesn't seem to pose any serious stuff against me so yeah. Sorry..

This is what happens when you learn to communicate by text message, lol
Kids, stay in school! :)

Hi Ari,

Betcha he goes to Ottawa U. and got a little freaked out. Which is why I suggested there might be a story to tell.

An observation for those who think that all those Occupy people were misfits...

Last week, at a major conference, a senior official of the Bank of England said that the Occupy movement made important, valid points that the financial system needs to take on board. There was a good article about what he had to say in the London Financial Times.

Myself, I'm waiting to see what the brand new Archbishop of Canterbury, a former oil company executive, has to say on the issues that Occupy raised. I think that we are in for a surprise.

I was in New York when this started and I spent some time at Zuccotti Park and observed a couple of the marches. The truth is, there were many mainstream people participating. Bloomberg's attempts to demonize them were ill-conceived, as well as ignorant, and the behaviour of the NYPD left much to be desired.

[RichardSperry]

Occupiers want their pictures and videos taken.

That's half of their protest mechanism. So his request seems anti-Occupier to me.

I would find the Ottowa Occupy Facebook page and post it to their wall with the title Occupy Ottowa Hero or other such nonsense. See where it goes from there.

[Ari]

Hi r.e.,
I wouldn't be surprised; when I was there last year, I thought many of the kids were from the 1% they went to such pains to deride and blame.
Likely, they had a few weeks of rebellion, then realized they were cold and hungry and went back home.
There were some good points made by the movement, but it was all such an unruly mess that nothing clear emerged.

[r.e.]

There were some good points made by the movement, but it was all such an unruly mess that nothing clear emerged.

Interesting. I think that Occupy did an enormous amount to get people thinking critically about the 2008 financial crisis. It is really remarkable that the mainstream is gradually accepting that the Occupy movement was legitimate, and that the Bank of England would actually let one of its senior officials say so in public. We are a long way from Bloomberg's dismissive, heavy-handed response.

I think that it is a commonplace now that the Occupy movement put economic justice on the political agenda, and I believe that its ideas had an impact on the U.S. election. When this was coming down in New York, I heard people complain about the Occupy movement squatting in Zuccotti Park, but I did not hear very many people disagreeing with what they were saying.

[Ari]

Interesting. I think that Occupy did an enormous amount to get people thinking critically about the 2008 financial crisis.

Agreed; however, when I say 'unruly mess', I'm referring to their platform, which seemed to add a few things every day. Eventually, they were against (or for) everything, had no visible leadership or recognizable policies.
I think people became more aware of financial issues thanks to the awareness raised by the Occupy movement, but this happened despite the Ocuppy-ists, not because of them.

[Fred L]

Mark Carney, the Bank of Canada governor had this to say in last year's Globe and Mail.


“There’s a frustration with policy and a frustration that, `are things going back to business as usual,’’’ Mr. Carney said in the interview.`If I may say, that is not going to happen, but I can understand the frustrations.’’’

Demonstrations like the Occupy Wall Street protests, which will hit Canadian cities this weekend, are a “democratic expression of views’’ and “entirely constructive,’’ Mr. Carney said.

“It makes it more tangible, the challenges that that economy is facing, and it makes it more important to demonstrate success on issues such as financial reform,’’ he said."

[Robert Budding]

Offer to sell him the neg and rights to all reproductions :rolleyes:

[Greg Miller]

Now that he thinks it is OK to show the image, charge him to keep it on your site ;)

[Ari]

Offer to sell him the neg and rights to all reproductions :rolleyes:


Now that he thinks it is OK to show the image, charge him to keep it on your site ;)

I like where you're both going with this...:)

[Joseph O'Neil]

Dropped into this thread a bit late, I am *almost* in the same position, or was. i took pictures last year of the the night they shut down the "Occupy London" here in London, Ontario, so speaking form Canada here too. There were tons of media people there that night - newspaper, radio, television, web based news, etc.

I noticed the media were taking photos and videos right, left and centre, so the thought struck me, every time I took photos of protesters, I also took photographs of the media people, themselves taking photographs of the protesters. I figured if anyone complained in any way, I could post photos side by side. Here is the protestor, and here is the reporter photographing the protestor. After a while, I found photographing the media almost if not more interesting than the protestors themselves.

As it was, I got "called out" in the comments section, by name, of the local newspaper, some asking why I was walking around with a "big telephoto" (it was an 85mm, F1.4 - good for low light :) ), and if I had permission to photograph everybody the way i did. I was ready to pull out my media photos, but it never got any farther than that. I thought it would, and I thought it was strange, as I had not posted the photographs anywhere yet, but to be reconized and called out by name, a bit unnerving.

Now the "rest of the story" as the late Paul Harvey would put it. Also, before I go on, I had posted this story in the "Lounge" already some time ago if you want to see the photo in question. Long story short, the local TV station had a contest to send in photographs of their news people in action. I had some good ones, but I had a real killer - I think one of the best photos I have ever taken in my life of anything. You know one of those rare moments when - photographically speaking - for a split second, everything comes together? That was it. bottom line - won the grand prize, a thousand dollar gift card to Henry's cameras. Went out right away, added some money of my own, and bought a second D7000 body and never looked back.

So in my case, my "threat" if you call it that, turned out in the long run to fizzle out, but the whole experience did me good, and I still have some excellent shots from that night. I hope your situation comes out good for you too. good luck, and don't give up!

:)

joe

[Fred L]

hey Joseph,

How far back was the post and which thread ?


thx

Freddy

[Ari]

Dropped into this thread a bit late, I am *almost* in the same position, or was. i took pictures last year of the the night they shut down the "Occupy London" here in London, Ontario, so speaking form Canada here too. There were tons of media people there that night - newspaper, radio, television, web based news, etc.

I noticed the media were taking photos and videos right, left and centre, so the thought struck me, every time I took photos of protesters, I also took photographs of the media people, themselves taking photographs of the protesters. I figured if anyone complained in any way, I could post photos side by side. Here is the protestor, and here is the reporter photographing the protestor. After a while, I found photographing the media almost if not more interesting than the protestors themselves.

As it was, I got "called out" in the comments section, by name, of the local newspaper, some asking why I was walking around with a "big telephoto" (it was an 85mm, F1.4 - good for low light :) ), and if I had permission to photograph everybody the way i did. I was ready to pull out my media photos, but it never got any farther than that. I thought it would, and I thought it was strange, as I had not posted the photographs anywhere yet, but to be reconized and called out by name, a bit unnerving.

Now the "rest of the story" as the late Paul Harvey would put it. Also, before I go on, I had posted this story in the "Lounge" already some time ago if you want to see the photo in question. Long story short, the local TV station had a contest to send in photographs of their news people in action. I had some good ones, but I had a real killer - I think one of the best photos I have ever taken in my life of anything. You know one of those rare moments when - photographically speaking - for a split second, everything comes together? That was it. bottom line - won the grand prize, a thousand dollar gift card to Henry's cameras. Went out right away, added some money of my own, and bought a second D7000 body and never looked back.

So in my case, my "threat" if you call it that, turned out in the long run to fizzle out, but the whole experience did me good, and I still have some excellent shots from that night. I hope your situation comes out good for you too. good luck, and don't give up!

:)

joe

Thanks, Joseph; you don't sound very grumpy and miserable. :)
And please link to the thread, I'd be interested in reading it as well.

[Joseph O'Neil]

hey Joseph,
How far back was the post and which thread ?
thx
Freddy

I cannot find it. I think I posted it under "safe haven" thread in the lounge section. Anyhow, I still have it on file on this site, here is the photo winner. CTV London news, he was interviewing one of the occupy people at the time. 85mm Zeiss ZF2, fully open at F1.4 Manual focus. I love Zeiss lenses. I was going to say I love German glass because of the Rodenstock and Schneider lenses I use, but Zeiss SLR lenses are all Japanese made. :)

enjoy
joe

83734

[Richard M. Coda]

I'd teach the little turd a bit about Capitalism... if he (his family) wants the photo down, tell him that for $(fill in your amount here) you will take the photo down, give him the chrome and any prints, and sign the rights over to him and his family. And don't be stingy with the number ;)

[r.e.]

I'd teach the little turd a bit about Capitalism... if he (his family) wants the photo down, tell him that for $(fill in your amount here) you will take the photo down, give him the chrome and any prints, and sign the rights over to him and his family. And don't be stingy with the number ;)

Unfortunately, your wisdom will go unheeded. This thread was started by, and contains several contributions from, people from that Communist country to the north of you. You know, that country that is in pretty good fiscal shape, and that has a really low murder rate, despite having had universal Medicare, and no capital punishment, for half a century.

We're generally not real big on calling fellow citizens who disagree with us "little turds". But sentiments like that just might go some ways toward explaining the challenge that your country currently faces. I just hope that you can all get beyond the anger.

[chuck94022]

Unfortunately, your wisdom will go unheeded. This thread was started by, and contains several contributions from, people from that Communist country to the north of you. You know, that country that is in pretty good fiscal shape, and that has a really low murder rate, despite having had universal Medicare, and no capital punishment, for half a century.


It's got a low murder rate because it's just too dang cold to be out killin' people!

Anyway, if you're gonna shoot people, shoot 'em with film.

Back on the original post, I took his threat to mean he and his friends would be camping on your front yard next. But glad it all got resolved.

Occupy Photography! Maybe we can get some film back in production!

[Brian C. Miller]

You know, that country that is in pretty good fiscal shape, and that has a really low murder rate, despite having had universal Medicare, and no capital punishment, for half a century.

Canada abolished the death penalty on July 14, 1976. The last hanging was on December 11, 1962.

[E. von Hoegh]

Isn't July 14 Bastille day?

[r.e.]

Isn't July 14 Bastille day?

Yes, and on July 14, 1967, The Who opened for Herman's Hermits on the latter's U.S. tour.

The connection?

[chuck94022]

When I was at that concert, I had an odd premonition that we had already seen the last hanging that would ever take place in Canada. Now, reading this thread, I see just how prescient I was...

The things that make you say "huh..."