I recently altered my Creative Commons copyright as it pertains to Social Media Explorer. I switched from an open, share and share alike copyright to a non-commercial, share and share alike copyright. While this might seem like a minor alteration that has little implication on anything, I wanted to share with you the agonizing (literally) decision because it has implications on how you might consider applying copyright to your own publishing.

The free and open world of social media advocated by the purists is kind of a, “just share, it’ll be okay,” mentality. Open source, open copyright, don’t be stingy, etc., mantras have created this vast universe of free flowing content and gladness that is the blogosphere. I’ve benefited from the share and share alike movement greatly.

6th Creative Commons Japan Seminar, 27 Septemb...
Image via Wikipedia

But the more you learn about the implications of that approach to your content, the more you see the disadvantages. When you openly allow people to use or reposition your content, you expose yourself to two major business risks: damaging your branding and damaging your search value.

Damaging Your Branding

It’s bad enough that my friend Michael Stelzner named his site Social Media Examiner (awfully close to my blog name) and that I guest posted there a few times to help him get some early content. I’ve now been cited as the author of “Social Media Examiner” on a number of occasions (Doesn’t offend me. I love Mike and Examiner.) and even had one person ask me why I changed the design of my blog away from the eye-catching jungle theme (which I never had … that’s Mike’s site). But when sites like Social Media Today (a great resource, by the way) literally pull the entirety of your content and publish it as if you were authoring it for them, the attribution waters become very murky.

Social Media Today aggregates great blog posts on the world of social media from around the web. If I’m not mistaken, they do so with each author’s permission and with respect to their respective copyrights. They have always had my permission to do so and have respected my copyright. And I do like the site because it pulls together good posts I may not have found on my own. I do believe there is some original content there, but scrolling down their posts recently, I found that most of their recent posts were repositioned from elsewhere.

However, as Social Media Today’s audience has grown, so has the mistaken attribution that I write for Social Media Today. While I did reach out to them several years ago to ask how to be featured on their site and sought their active use of my blog posts, none of my content there has ever been exclusive or even written for their audience. I write for Social Media Explorer — my blog. If SMT wants to use that content, until now, they’ve been welcome to it.

While I certainly don’t feel as if being associated with Social Media Today is a bad thing, I am concerned that the lack of clarity in who authors what for them takes away from each author’s independent and respective blog, website, business and brand. Sure, it’s a trade-off. Up and coming authors get increased name recognition and exposure, some inbound links and enhanced credibility. But there comes a point where the brand confusion can be problematic. I’ve reached that point … good or bad.

Damaging  Your Search Value

Perhaps the bigger problem here is that sites like Social Media Today reposition the same content. While I don’t consider myself to be an SEO expert and duplicate content penalties from the search engines can be circumvented in various ways, simple logic tells you the same content on two different sites consistently can cause problems.

I first noticed the problem with Tweets and inbound links. My post of the day would be tweeted with a link. Awesome! Someone was sharing my content. But the link would point to the post on Social Media Today. Not awesome! I deserve that web traffic on my site.

Then I noticed references to my material linked from other blogs and websites. Awesome! Someone took a further step and said, “Jason’s content is good enough, I’m going to link to it from my content.” But the links pointed to the post on Social Media Today. Not Awesome! I earned that inbound link. It should come to me.

The big kicker was when I began doing some searches for keywords I’d targeted and found that the Social Media Today content was competing with my own for actual Search Results, not just components of good SEO value. This is when I realized having my content there was hurting me. Social Media Today has a big enough audience and is a credible enough website that the same content on it can feasibly beat out Social Media Explorer for the same search term, though the content, author, etc., is all identical. Not good.

Selfish vs. Selfless

I realize there’s a thick layer of self-serving attitude underlying all this. The social media purists will be critical of me for being selfish and wanting to horde my content. But the business value of what I sacrifice when doing so is large enough for me to want and need to do so.

This decision is 100-percent pro-Social Media Explorer and has nothing to do with being anti-Social Media Today. I love what SMT does, fully endorse and support their efforts. But also feel that the reasoning above is good grounds to now ask them not to use my content. They are a commercial venture, so my copyright would now prohibit them from reusing Social Media Explorer posts.

How This Effects You

If you haven’t already, you certainly should walk through the Creative Commons licensing exercise to determine what type of copyright to apply to your own material. But know that it’s not a determination you should take lightly or in haste. Think about the possibility that a perfectly fine and upstanding effort, like Social Media Today, may want to use your content. Does SEO value mean that much to you? Will you want to protect your brand from confusion with others?

Know and understand that you can say, “Anyone can have it and alter it!” but you can also say, “Anyone can have it but you can’t alter it.” You can also say they can have it if they’re non-commercial but not if they’re a commercial entity. Or you can say, “It’s mine … all mine! Bwahahahaha!”

In all seriousness, though, copyright is an important issue to consider for your content. It’s also important to know the benefits of being open, the benefits of being closed and the challenges of each as well. Hopefully my recent change can help you at least think your copyright through.

What Say You?

Am I right or wrong here? Is being also published at Social Media Today of greater benefit to me? Have I made a sound decision? What would you do in similar circumstances? What copyright do you apply to your content and why?

The comments, as always, are yours.

(NOTE: After writing this, I discovered Social Media Today now allows authors with registered SMT accounts to control the feeds sent to SMT for publication. This was not always the case and doesn’t change my decision. I have removed my feed from my profile page there.)

Enhanced by Zemanta
Did you enjoy this blog post? If so, then why not:Leave Comment Below | Subscribe To This Blog | Sign Up For Our Newsletter |

About Jason Falls

Jason Falls

Jason Falls is a leading thinker, speaker and strategist in the world of digital marketing and is co-author of two books, No Bullshit Social Media: The All-Business, No-Hype Guide To Social Media Marketing and The Rebel's Guide To Email Marketing. By day, he leads digital strategy for Elasticity, one of the world's most innovative digital marketing and public relations firms. Follow him on Twitter (@JasonFalls).

Other posts by

Comments & Reactions

Comments Policy

Comments on Social Media Explorer are open to anyone. However, I will remove any comment that is disrespectful and not in the spirit of intelligent discourse. You are welcome to leave links to content relevant to the conversation, but I reserve the right to remove it if I don't see the relevancy. Be nice, have fun. Fair?

  • http://www.indiebusinessblog.com Donna Maria Coles Johnson

    This is why I have a strict copyright policy and always have. I would rather grow slowly and own my intellectual property than grow quickly by diluting it. If you want to quote, with attribution an link back, up to 200 words from one of my posts, I allow that. Otherwise full permission is required and I rarely grant it. I have been called selfish and unsharing, but that's OK with me. I invest thousand of hours a year publishing relevant blog content. We are all publishers today, and the content we produce will either secure or destroy our business futures. If content is royalty, why would anyone treat theirs like anything less than gold?

  • http://davefleet.com davefleet

    I've certainly had similar thoughts about Social Media Today over the last couple of years. The site does make it fairly challenging to see where the content originates.

    However, I landed on the other side of the fence to you. While I'm not thrilled to see lots of people linking to my content on SMT instead of my own, the site reaches a different audience to my blog. As such, by allowing them to syndicate, I reach a far greater number of people than I would otherwise if I only posted on my own site.

    I've made the decision that for me personally, the benefit of that greater reach and potential awareness outweighs the loss of SEO potential for my site.

    • http://twitter.com/maddiegrant Maddie Grant

      This is why I'm still on it too. I've been part of SMT since the very beginning and despite being really frustrated with it, I can't bring myself to cut it off because of the wider audience it has. Particularly since I tend to share a LOT of great stuff by other people (slideshows, etc) who have benefited from a huge bump in views to their slideshare page (or whatever) via SMT via my blog post (if that's not too confusing a description). Torn.

  • Ed

    The best way SMT can get around this is using a summary or extract just the first sentences or first paragraph instead of the full article. I love SMT too, I get to read lots of stuffs there which opened up my perspectives. As a reader, I click on the [X] after finishing the article more often than venture further to check out the writer.

    The model should change from:

    Reader -> SMT <- Blogger

    to:

    Reader -> SMT -> Blogger

  • beckymccray

    Interesting discussion. I share my feed with Social Media Today for their MyVenturePad site, and I've watched with interest their changes over the last year. They are providing some new original content, and being more selective on which posts they pull. Of course, I experience the same issues of links and tweets going to the MVP site, rather than my own. However, in my case, they allow me to reach outside of my small town business niche, to reach a broader audience. So I think it's still working for me.

    Thanks for bringing up the topic and generating this discussion.

    Edited to add: I see that as of the 25th, Robin Carey is announcing some big changes at SMT. Worth reading to see what they are thinking for the future: http://socialmediatoday.com/robincarey/116816/n

  • beckymccray

    Interesting discussion. I share my feed with Social Media Today for their MyVenturePad site, and I've watched with interest their changes over the last year. They are providing some new original content, and being more selective on which posts they pull. Of course, I experience the same issues of links and tweets going to the MVP site, rather than my own. However, in my case, they allow me to reach outside of my small town business niche, to reach a broader audience. So I think it's still working for me.

    Thanks for bringing up the topic and generating this discussion.

    Edited to add: I see that as of the 25th, Robin Carey is announcing some big changes at SMT. Worth reading to see what they are thinking for the future: http://socialmediatoday.com/robincarey/116816/n

  • James Burke

    Hi, You may want to check the CC icon in the footer of your page as it looks as though it still links to the cc-by license.

  • http://www.toprankmarketing.com leeodden

    Dupe content is confusing to people and to search engines. If it's great content, like yours is, attribution signals getting crossed impacts the value an original author has earned to the benefit of those that borrow or syndicate.

    I used to let WebProNews (run by really awesome people Rich Ord & Michael McDonald) copy our blog and even had them change headlines. But in the end, the great exposure was detrimental to our search traffic.

    Same for Social Media Today, but it wasn't our search traffic that was impacted since toprankblog.com (OMB) has enough link authority. It was retweet and link attribution to the syndicated articles on SMT vs the original on OMB that caused me to stop allowing them to copy our stuff. Like you Jason, I think SMT provides a great service and I'm a fan of syndication and news aggregation. There are many opportunities in the content curation field.

    When it comes to syndicating content, my perspective is that the value of exposure and link traffic must substantially compensate for the consequences of duplicate content or diluted attribution. If it's uncertain then a test makes sense. Testing includes headlines, anchor text, timing of publishing, excerpts and even modifications to a certain percentage of the open/close of the post on the syndicated version.

    Otherwise, make your own site the destination and write variations of the same post with customized variations to be used for syndication. We call that “modular content”, ie content that is written for the purpose of syndication while retaining social attribution and SEO benefit.

    I think you've made a good decision as it supports a focal point of content for your ideas and you should receive full value for that vs dilution through open syndication.

  • http://www.TheFranchiseKingBlog.com The Franchise King

    Thanks a lot, Jason,

    I, too, have learned to share it all, and at first I was paranoid.

    I do get very offended when folks put me entire posts on their sites/blogs, though. I never do that. I'll point to a post of someones, add a paragraph or two, and then link to it.

    It's the right thing to do.

    I think I'll re-look at the cc stuff. Thanks for the reminder.

    JL

  • http://socialbutterflyguy.com/ DJ Waldow

    Jason -

    100% agree with what you've said above. However, the majority of folks – regardless of CC and general copyright stuff – either a) don't care about attribution or b) don't know any better. I think most people are in the (b) camp. You can spend your entire day fighting for “stolen” or non-attributed work, but is it worth it? I understand that in some instances you can choose not to syndicate your content, but what about the sites that don't ask? There are so many blogs and twitter feeds that repurpose content all the time without a care in the world for copyright issues.

    I just don't think the average person knows that you can't do this kinda stuff legally. Until people either start getting sued or an organization steps in to really enforce … well … what do we do?

    I don't know. I need to think this one over a bit more.

    DJ Waldow
    Director of Community, Blue Sky Factory
    @djwaldow

    • http://www.socialmediaexaminer.com Michael A. Stelzner

      DJ, that is why you need to let them know they are in the wrong when they steal content…

      • http://socialbutterflyguy.com/ DJ Waldow

        Michael: Agree, but what happens if the stealing is so rampant that you suck up so much time trying to prevent it?

        DJ Waldow
        Director of Community, Blue Sky Factory
        @djwaldow

  • Mack Collier

    First, truncated posts? Dude.

    As for SMT, I go back and forth on this. More often than not, I tend to fall down on the side of 'any exposure is good exposure'. The thing *I* don't like about SMT posts is when there are 20 comments there. I never reply to the site, and if I see someone mentioning it on Twitter, I might point out that the original post came from my site, and link there.

    But ultimately, you are right, these sites are making money off our content, and we aren't getting any of that money. So I can completely understand why you would want to pull your content from the site under those circumstances. Hell I have thought about it myself.

    Of course, there will always be sites that just pull it anyway. Have you seen Social Business Book, or something like that? They not only pull my and other bloggers content, but attribute me as the author of posts I didn't write! They've attributed me as the author of dozens of Mashable posts. Thankfully, they have no traffic to speak of, but still.

    Interesting discussion, for sure.

  • http://inklingmedia.net Ken Mueller

    Very enlightening, Jason. I wasn't fully aware that that was what they did.

    In an environment of “sharing” it kinda makes you think twice about the partnerships in which you engage. I need to seriously look over the whole CC thing and see what works best for me.

    Thanks for this information, and I feel your pain.

  • Ekaterina Walter

    Jason,
    thanks for the post; it does make you think. Even though some of these decisions are personal for everyone based on their objectives/priorities/etc, I have to agree with Mack Collier – a huge downside of this model is also the fact that it draws discussions away from your site and which you may not necessarily be aware of.
    Great discussion!

  • ekaterinawalter

    Jason,
    thanks for the post; it does make you think. Even though some of these decisions are personal for everyone based on their objectives/priorities/etc, I have to agree with Mack Collier – a huge downside of this model is also the fact that it draws discussions away from your site and which you may not necessarily be aware of.
    Great discussion!

  • http://mediaemerging.com Scott Hepburn

    Great topic for a post, Jason. So relevant to bloggers, and nice to see a departure from the cavalier, devil-may-care posture many of us fall back on.

    This is part of a bigger discussion, I think: The value of original content. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like the content strategy of simply “ReTweet other peoples' content incessantly” has reached an obnoxious din. Why invest in creating valuable, relevant, original content when I can just set up a Twitterfeed with Jason Falls' stuff (or someone else's)?

    I give you credit for reclaiming a bit of your turf. It's a good move to make sure high quality content maintains the value it deserves.

    • http://www.indiebusinessblog.com Donna Maria Coles Johnson

      I love your comment. Only the author of a work can make sure it retains the value it deserves. Once the author devalues it, well, the cat is out of the bag. If our content is the gold we say it is, we should treat it that way first. Others will follow our lead.

  • iancleary

    Hi Jason,
    If your content on social media to-day is an RSS feed then it's not considered duplicate content.

    Regarding the SEO side of things, you're right that a lot of links end up going back to your feed on social media to-day and they get benefit not you. However, you also benefit from a wider range of readers looking at your content and realising it's great content (it always is) and then going back to subscribe to your blog and then subsequently sharing out content. So although you loose some benefit you also gain some.

  • http://samirbalwani.com/ Samir Balwani

    Jason,

    I had the same exact issue happen. David Harry actually wrote a great case study on what happened to my articles on Social Media Today and the search implications.

    http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Search-Eng

    Thanks,
    Samir Balwani

  • http://www.drewhawkins.org Drew Hawkins

    I actually don't think you are being selfish at all. Your site's traffic should benefit from your ideas. I've actually had the exact same thing happen to me. I'll have hundreds of tweets to my content but an extremely small percentage of that actually going to my site bc they all link somewhere else like Social Media Today. (Not knocking the site though, it's a great collaborative tool in some ways). However, I have also found that people have copied and pasted my work from Social Media Today into their own blogs as their own because it was so open source.

    Publishing with Social Media Today did help me initially gain some exposure and get my name out there a bit more. However, I do like having the benefits of traffic to my own site.

  • Eileen Ludwig

    When your content shows up at SMT with your name as author, are you paid anything? I just today went and looked at an article there and search on the author to get to the original post. Thanks for your thoughts on this. When there isn't a link back to the source that is like leaving the Bibliography off of writing a book.

  • Pingback: Is Sharing Contributing To Dilution Of Your Brand And SEO?

  • http://www.plagiarismtoday.com Jonathan Bailey

    As a copyright and plagiarism consultant, these are the kinds of questions I get asked a lot and they keep me awake at night.

    First and foremost, regarding your content and your license, do whatever you feel is right. I don't think you selfish or stupid for changing your license. That's your decision and you have good reasons for doing so. Everyone has to take a look at the benefits/drawbacks of each license and, sometimes, you can't see the full extent of either until you've used one for a while.

    Regarding duplicate content, I don't see much of an issue with Google and dupe content so long as the duplicate both attributes and links to the source. If it does that, Google seems to pick up on the source, even in cases where the dupe site might be better-known and established. If links are not present or nofollowed, that's a different matter.

    This isn't to say that it can't happen or never happens, but that it's rare and not common for a site legitimately using content to replace the original in the search. Social media, as you pointed out, is a different matter. I see that all the time.

    You need to take a look at how people find your content and determine what works best for you, it sounds as if you've done just that and I wouldn't advise you any different.

    Personally, I still use the BY-SA license on my site, it has served me well and the uses that made me uneasy were minimal. That being said, I can imagine a situation where I would change my mind.

    The bottom line is do what's right for you…

  • http://www.education-leads.org ConnorBringas

    This is ridiculous that another site creator would do that to you! This post definitely makes you think…it could happen to you

  • http://anEclecticMind.com Maria

    The failure of people to LINK TO THE SOURCE is a pet peeve of mine. When your material appears in multiple places, what percentage of the links to your hard work actually link to the original? That's why my work is copyrighted the old fashioned way; other than fair use and short excerpts, the only way to legally read what I write is to visit my blog or subscribe to my feed. That way, I'm assured that when people link to what I've written, they link to my blog.

    I think you made the right decision.

  • http://impulsemagazine.net Impulse Magazine

    If they enforce this rule with images, then they should enforce it with videos as well

  • http://www.socialmediaexaminer.com Michael A. Stelzner

    Hey Jason,

    Thanks for your great post! And yes I love the work you do too!

    I agree with you that the problem of social aggregation sites does take away from your search juice.

    Over at Social Media Examiner, we NEVER aggregate content. We only accept original work.

    However, we do deal with a serious and related problem. We daily get folks who think they can just copy and repost entire articles WITHOUT our permission.

    I cannot tell you how many times I've received emails like this, “What gives?? I referenced your original article at the bottom of the post in type 2 font…”

    My response if often something along these lines. “Would you photocopy a Time Magazine and publish it on your site as your own work with a little disclaimer at the bottom? Would you replay bootleg recordings of a movie on your site? Why do you think it's okay to steal other people's content and gain all the advantage of great content for your audience and ad sales…”

    It torks me, can you tell? I've even seen sites that scrape our comments as well.

    Okay, rant over…

  • http://socialbutterflyguy.com/ DJ Waldow

    Jason: I heard this story on NPR yesterday that made me think back to this post:

    Posting Of McChrystal Article Raises Ethics Questions – http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?st

    Love to hear your take and your readers take on this…

    DJ Waldow
    Director of Community, Blue Sky Factory
    @djwaldow

  • http://twitter.com/JanetAronica Janet Aronica

    I'm trying to decide what is best for my company's blog. I feel that as the new community manager of the Twitter app marketplace, Twitter and blogs *are* the community voice so I originally was all about guest blogging and re-blogging, but now I'm re-thinking. I'm hoping as long as I check and double check and make sure that we are all crystal clear as far as each other's guest blogging and re-blogging and copyright policies BEFORE anything gets published, re-purposing content is still ok. I hope.

    Sometimes the “it's better to apologize than to ask permission” attitude just doesn't work out…

    Janet Aronica
    community manager, http://www.oneforty.com

  • http://twitter.com/maddiegrant Maddie Grant

    (posted this comment in Reader but here it is again)

    I had this same concern too and got VERY frustrated a while back (a year ago, at least) that there seemed to be no way to delete my SMT account and no-one would come back to me. I'm still in there now and feel a little better about it (because I don't have the energy to do anything about it) but this post may give me the impetus to go try and edit my settings again.

  • http://www.gdminteractive.com/email-marketing/111-better-email-promotions.html Email Marketing

    I would love to see stricter copyright enforcement. The current environment is making it harder and harder to justify investing in development of quality content with any hope of a return.

  • Pingback: Social Media Schmiede » Schadet Share Alike Copyright der Marke? » Copyright, Creative Commons, License, Lizenz, Urheberrecht

  • http://twitter.com/onreact_com Tad Chef

    Precious. So now that you “benefited from the share and share alike movement greatly” you are turning your back on the movement. You sucked it dry and now that you are big enough you don't need it anymore.
    Social Media Today is a great resource and has been one of the first social media publications I've been reading several years ago. Also it has a “Link to original post” if you're after the SEO value only. Whenever I happen to read your blog accidentally you always complain about other people. I'm sorry I revisited this blog.

    • http://socialmediaexplorer.com JasonFalls

      Would love it if you could cite some examples. I don't make it a habit
      of complaining about people. I may criticize an idea now and then, but
      only in the spirit of discourse.

      I'm sorry you find my want to protect my content so offensive. But I
      am not sorry you've paid me a visit. Thanks for your input.

    • http://socialbutterflyguy.com/ DJ Waldow

      Tad:

      I've now read you comment 3x. I really was hoping that I missed something the first 2 times. I actually thought you were joking. I was waiting for the punchline.

      You clearly do not know Jason Falls. Not at all. Jason is one of the most honest, caring, giving individuals I know. I've had the honor of speaking with Jason on multiple occasions, hearing him present at conferences and even sharing some pints of beer with him.

      Just to be clear, you “accidentally” read this blog (not sure what that means) and say that Jason is always complaining about people. Jason always complains about people? Really? I'd love for you to share the posts that you “accidentally” read that show Jason complaining about other people. Jason spends most of his days not only helping others but sharing content. If you do happen to “accidentally” read this post again, try actually reading it. Jason is not complaining as much as he's making folks aware of the issues of attribution.

      Looking forward to your reply showing all of the posts where Jason complains…

      DJ Waldow
      Director of Community, Blue Sky Factory
      @djwaldow

      • http://socialmediaexplorer.com JasonFalls

        Thanks, brotha.

  • rickg

    There's something else not discussed here – Brand. By choosing to brand your site as “Social Media …” you chose to use a very generic term and that's going to introduce the potential confusion with other sites that are use the term in their brand. Social Media Explorer, Social Media Examiner, Social Media Today… to the casual observer there's little differentiation. There are obvious advantages too, but using a generic term like Social Media as part of your brand is always a risk. The syndication simply worsens the situation and even if someone links to socialmediaexplorer.com from socialmediatoday.com that's not a difference that stands out to a reader.

    shortversion – pay attention to branding and avoid generic terms unless they offer an overwhelming advantage.

    • http://socialmediaexplorer.com JasonFalls

      Thanks for the thoughts. The overwhelming advantage lies in SEO. With
      the generic term apart of your URL you often get boosts over
      dissimilar sites when people search for those terms. That alone is
      worth the negatives in my mind. Appreciate the perspective though.

      • rickg

        I understand that… and I get the advantage. But if you want that SEO boost, you need to live with the confusion in readers' minds when they think you write for Social Media Today etc. I'm not saying it isn't *worth* it, but that one goes with the other.

        • http://socialmediaexplorer.com JasonFalls

          Fair enough. I'm less worried about the branding confusion and more worried
          about my content driving traffic and inbound links to someone else's site.
          Incidentally, I had a call with Social Media Today this week and we may work
          out something for me to offer them some exclusive content that alleviates a
          lot of the issue in my mind.

  • http://socialmediaexplorer.com JasonFalls

    Would love it if you could cite some examples. I don't make it a habit
    of complaining about people. I may criticize an idea now and then, but
    only in the spirit of discourse.

    I'm sorry you find my want to protect my content so offensive. But I
    am not sorry you've paid me a visit. Thanks for your input.

  • http://socialmediaexplorer.com JasonFalls

    Thanks for the thoughts. The overwhelming advantage lies in SEO. With
    the generic term apart of your URL you often get boosts over
    dissimilar sites when people search for those terms. That alone is
    worth the negatives in my mind. Appreciate the perspective though.

  • Guo198706
  • Guo198706

    thank you for sharing the post,it is really good @
    DVD ripper is such a professional ripping software designed to rip DVD disc to other popular multimedia devices for playback such as iPod, iPhone, Apple TV, PSP/PS3, Xbox
    youtube downloader,you can have a try

  • http://www.bootoutletstore.co.uk uggs outlet

    It looks good,I have learn a recruit!Recently,I found an excellent online store, the XX are completely various, good quality and cheap price,air max running it’s worth buying!

  • http://www.air-force-one.com Nike air force

    “Here elaborates the matter new balance shoes not only extensively but also detailly .I support the
    write's unique point.It is useful and benefit to your daily life.You can go those
    sits to know more relate things.They are strongly recommended by friends.Personally

  • Pingback: What is Creative Commons?

  • http://seo1sem2services3.blogspot.com/ seo sem services

    Thanks for share this post.

  • Pingback: Social Media to promote Korean Lit: Pt. 4 Outside Perspective

  • Pingback: Information about England and Scotland on Wiki