Emily the Rip-Off

Emily the Strange [en.wikipedia.org] is fictional character whose introverted and disdainful personality has made her something of a countercultural icon (and a great way to sell marketable products to the trendy). Her franchise has churned out a lot of merchandise (clothes, toys, books, etc.)

But the character itself is almost an exact copy of another (less desperately nonconformist) character, Rosamond, from the children’s book series “Nate the Great”. Emily the Strange, according to the wikipedia page, was “created” in 1991 to promote the Cosmic Debris clothing line. The Nate the Great series was first published in 1978 and continue on into the 80′s.

Emily the Strange is a young, slim girl with long, straight, black hair and wears a short black dress. She has four cats (named Mystery, Miles, Sabbath, and Nee-Chee).

Rosamond (who predates Emily by a decade) is a young, slim girl with long, straight, black hair and wears a short dress. She has four cats (named Super Hex, Big Hex, Plain Hex, and Little Hex).

Emily’s cats now have distinguishing features, but originally they differed only in their sizes (exactly like Rosamond’s cats).

There is a better analysis of this on youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com, including this image from Nate the Great Goes Undercover and an early Emily sticker from 1991:

Or it could be a (rather large) coincidence. Nate the Great didn’t invent the idea of the weirdo girl with cats and long, dark hair. But it’s the number of coincidences that make it suspect. This is why Emily seems so clearly derived from Nate the Great, rather than from (for example) the Sadako/Samara character in The Ring or Wednesday Adams from the Adams Family.

I claim that Emily the Strange is most likely a rip-off of the Rosamond character from the Nate the Great books. And while the Emily the Strange persona has undergone its own creative changes since inception, the appearance, the cats, and the aura of “strangeness” are more than just imitation or influence. It is the worst sort of brain-dead copy & paste job. (And a rather profitable one, at that.)

(Updated 12/3/08 in response to comments and attention this post has received: I don’t mean to say that the Nate the Great creators have a viable legal argument against Emily the Strange. I do wish to say that Emily the Strange is not an original character, nor a creation merely based on a genre or archetype. I claim it is simple plagiarism.)

(Also, Laughing Squid has picked up this story.)

Pictures of Emily:

Pictures of Rosamond:

Pictures of general Emily the Strange merchandise:

44 Responses to “Emily the Rip-Off”

  1. Josh Says:

    I think the renewal of previously “commercially successful” merchandise and the like is extremely prevalent in today’s world. Just look at Fox’s T.V Show Family Guy. Remind you of something? The Simpsons perhaps? Just think about it. A fat, slob of a husband with an unstable job supporting a wife he doesnt deserve, an outcast daughter, a good for nothing son, and a suprisingly sophisticated infant child.
    It doesnt really matter. It’s just a though.

  2. Tisha Parti Says:

    Thanks for posting this. Being an artist, there was always something a little wonky in my mind about the easy of take-off on the emily character. I never liked it, it felt secondary. It wasn’t till I was reading a Nate the great book to my 4 year old son that I went BAM there’s the reason I didn’t like Emily, she’s a total rip-off. The book I have has such a typical emily pose picture in it with Rosamond, complete with the same type of background and pose of cats, not to mention that at the end of the page with the pic it even calls Rosemond “strange”. It’s all to obvious. If someone doesn’t sue, they sure should since they’ve made a hell of a lot of money ripping someone else off.

  3. you thought we wouldn’t notice » Blog Archive » Rosamond the Strange Says:

    [...] searching for any information on this rip has yielded a tiny handful of bemused observers (this one offering the most analysis), but as far as I can tell no real action has been taken. I doubt that [...]

  4. Noname Says:

    Maybe if Emily got another cat, they could avoid litigation…

  5. Kyle Says:

    I really hope the original creators of that character get a slice of the pie. The fact that someone can get THIS far without being noticed with a plagiarized character is ridiculous.

  6. Michelle Says:

    Sadly there really isn’t an original idea under the sun.

    The example with the wording being exactly the same seems to close to be coincidental, but I don’t think one should be able to trademark long, black haired girls with cats. It’s too generalized an image (e.g. the entire genre of Japanese movies similar to The Ring).

    Also, should every little girl’s tea party have to pay royalties to Lewis Carroll?

  7. Rob Reger Says:

    Dear Emily the Strange Friends and Foes,

    I’ve been made aware of this blog and some similar ones with inquiries regarding the origination and creation of the Emily the Strange character. As you may be aware by what has been noted in many interviews and on Wikipedia, Nathan Carrico first conceived of and used Emily as a character for a skateboard design back in 1991. After seeing a sticker of the design, I thought the quirky “looks strange” design was in line with other tees Cosmic Debris was doing, and that it might resonate well with the crew I was selling to. I asked and received permission to use the design from Nathan. We then began creating Emily’s gothic, nonconformist, dark world by using a variety of original expressions (”I want you to leave me alone”, “Teacher’s Pest”, “Emily doesn’t search to belong…” etc.) and unique Emily designs on our t-shirts and other products. Several years thereafter, the character of Rosamond from the children’s book series Nate the Great was brought to my attention for the first time.

    Although the designs and worlds of Rosamond and Emily are different and readily distinguishable, and although we never received any complaints from the author, the artist, or the publisher, we phased out the original skateboard design upon learning of the Rosamond character, and worked with the creative team to further distinguish Emily and her universe. Regarding copyright law, there is legally nothing wrong with sharing or implementing a unique variation on a concept. I have never drawn inspiration from the Nate the Great series or Rosamond. In fact, we at Cosmic Debris have always moved to individualize the idea of Emily the Strange and her universe, which are original to Cosmic Debris.

    Today Cosmic Debris prides itself on what it has become over the years: the creative design house that is responsible for providing consumers with strong messages about feminism, empowerment and individualism. Through years of development, Emily the Strange ha

  8. JiffyPop Says:

    Hey. Nice letter from Rob Reger. He’s stepping up to the plate.

  9. Jessie Says:

    How can you say that one man should be sued over a drawing that bears slight resemblance to something else?

    If you can walk into a mall and tell me that
    ever shirt design, every book, every toy is completely original without any
    influence from either another companies style, another authors words,another artists design…Well, be my guest, because EVERYTHING that is
    created has inspiration from SOMETHING. The music you listen to? Influences. That book you love? Ask the author who their favorite writer is and you’ll see that nothing is without outside influence.

    I am not a huge fan of Emily the Strange but from what I see on their websites and the bodies of their fans, I am extremely impressed. Its notjust a great design, its a bridge between a message and art. If you think
    Rob Reger should be blamed or sued or deserving of the comments above, then please roll out the carpet for every graphic artist, every author,every sitcom writer…EVERYONE.

  10. MarsAttack Says:

    This is not something that simply looks like something else- it is a direct copy-and-paste. Family guy was a spoof on the Simpsons that went in its own unique direction. From what these images and passages imply Emily is exactly the same as Rosamond, right down the the writing that goes with her.

    Stop trying to defend this. It’s pathetic and only makes YOU look as bad as them.

  11. MarsAttack Says:

    Also, Ms.Jessie, Rob Reger SHOULD be sued. Not because he’s a bad guy, but because he’s an idiot who did not properly research a character before latching onto it.

    There is a protocol, and copyright infringement, or plagiarism, is a very, VERY serious offense. In the commercial art world it is EXTREMELY important to check and RECHECK to make sure you are not using material directly ripped from a different source.’

    There is a clear different between finding inspiration from a particular work or style or character or story. It is another thing entirely to do a hack-work copy-and-paste job. There is a fine line between homage and plagiarism, but this isn’t even close to that line. It’s well over into the land of copycat.

  12. Jessie Says:

    Well I am certainly not going to sink to your level of questioning someones intelligence however I will say, is that you obviously are looking at this one image and basing the company’s integrity and creativeness on it.

    But, since you seem to be the all-knowing person of “commercial art”, I wont jump to call you unnecessary names that do nothing than belittle myself and make null all comments from me… Like others have done :)

    Take care,
    JB

  13. Daniel M. Says:

    Rob,

    Since you went to such great lengths and pains to differentiate Emily from Rosamond once you found out the “similarities”, then why didn’t you at least change the most damning evidence, her appearance?

  14. Strange Says:

    He didn’t change her appearance because although similar, changing her appearance would be changing Emily completely. Huge fans of Emily would be appalled if her image would change, and the entire market for Emily would have to be changed. Emily was created now 17 years ago and an appearance change is not possible. Think Daniel, think.

    Yes, it may be wrong, but I’m pretty sure the people who created Rosmonda have seen Emily at some point in the past 17 years so if they thought it was a problem they would have done something about it when they first saw her. And who knows, maybe they are getting a cut and we just don’t know.

  15. Was Emily the Strange Based On Rosamond From Nate The Great? | Laughing Squid Says:

    [...] but was her character originally based on a more obscure heroine from a 1970’s children book? CoffeeGhost.net was one of the first sites to point out the similarities to the black haired idol and a character [...]

  16. ennui Says:

    Emily isn’t original and never was. That is the point.

  17. Skully Says:

    I’m not big on Hot Topic in general, nor am I an Emily fan (not being a 13-year-old-girl), but I do think that too much is being made of this. We’re talking about one image, an image that wasn’t even done by Rob. Yeah, the artist took the cats from Rosamond and flipped ‘em, and ganked the caption, too. That sucks, but I don’t think Reger’s responsible. It’s consistent with the kind of stuff you do if you’re a DIY-er making stickers to put on your skateboard.

    I also don’t think you can claim that the whole Emily empire is based on appropriation (like Todd Goldman’s is). Reger was inspired by that picture, which was already substantially different in tone and feel from the Rosamond picture, and he took the character in a different direction from there. Yeah, Rosamond and Emily both have cats, and both have long black hair. Superman and Captain Marvel both have capes and a spit-curl, but they’re different characters. What matters is what you bring to the character to make it your own.

    Emily may have been inspired by a drawing that appropriated elements of a previous work, but I think it’s ridiculous to call the entire Emily empire derivative, somehow, of that one work.

  18. Bill Mullins Says:

    “Superman and Captain Marvel both have capes and a spit-curl, but they’re different characters. ”

    Bad example. National Comics (owner of Superman) sued Fawcett (owner of Captain Marvel) for copyright infringement, and won.

  19. Seriously? Says:

    http://www.youngeomall.com/bemarket/shop/index.php?pageurl=page_goodsdetail&uid=2725

    http://www.youngeomall.com/bemarket/imgs/save/upload/bookpage/kizC01_tardy_1.jpg

    How can you say THIS looks like Emily the Strange? You cannot copyright a girl with bangs and cats.

    Because that seems to be the only similarity. Why not look at every other girl with bangs or cats and say they should be sued for a character with Rosamond traits?

    She bares no resemblance. OBVIOUSLY she has changed since that drawing.

  20. why not Says:

    Why isnt anyone blaming Nate Carrico? It’s not the creators drawing so why rub his face in mud when he is not deserving of it?

  21. Yasser Rizky Says:

    It is acceptable to follow an idea conceptually. To continue that idea physically is another different condition. In this case, the maker of Emily did both, in a manner that does not involve anything less than plagiarism.
    They are nothing but capitalists selling ideas that are on the contrary of what they are truly carrying.
    The Emily empire is purely a material for consumerism with absolutely no DIY spirit whatsoever. DIY products should be able to entice creativity through personal explorations of the products, where the products itself will not be a complete artwork without the person’s involvement. None of the Emily products are able to achieve that.

  22. clawdia Says:

    Rob, in copy-pasting your reply, you cut off the end of it. I itch to make a snide comment re: even THAT copy-paste, your flaccid rebuttal, was done wrong, but that wouldn’t be ladylike.

  23. Why? Says:

    You do realize this design was created by a guy named Nate as a sticker for his skateboard, right? (A sticker without any copyright or ownership)
    His friend (the creator) saw the design and liked it. He created a world for Emily and turned her into an empowering girls brand. Nate should be the one being blogged about.
    What are you trying to do by labeling a whole company as “ripped off” when it was one design from someone not ever affiliated with the brand years before its creation. Maybe as Nate (gee, same names) what happened…

    As a blogger, writer or rumor spreader, you should really get your facts in line before continuing such slander.

    Who cares if you liked a book when you were a kid? Look at how many other things you loved growing up that have now been parodied or rebirthed into something else today?

    Because of bloggers like you with too much time on your hands, companies that actually are trying to do good for this generation of girls, could fail. Everything that is created for any product, any show, any book etc, has some sort of tie back to something else.

  24. suckers Says:

    it was a direct bite. direct designs taken from the book itself. how can he actually say, “i wasn’t aware of it…” when some of the earliest designs are exactly the same concept, cats, et al. furthermore, feminism? is it a good company that exploits a little girl that he ripped off from a good old fashioned story book to make money and claims it’s his universe. it’s not a girl with cats. it’s not a girl with long black hair and bangs and skinny tighted legs. no. not at all. she’s not strange. no direct hits at all.

    whatever. it’s so wonderful that we can see what it is now. poor emily.

  25. suckers Says:

    p.s.

    to mr reger….

    EXPOSURE IS A BITCH……(so is karma).

  26. Corpsy Says:

    This is rather simple. Create a new character that resembles Emily The Strange, make a bunch of t-shirt and and watch them sue you. But since they don’t respect the source material they ripped off — than if you rip off Emily The Strange you have nothing to worry about — because they can’t sue you or they would be sued as well. LOL. So, I say put Emily The Strange on t-shirts and merchandise and sell like crazy and make a ton of money off their greed!

    Here’s our tribute to Emily:
    http://girlsandcorpses.com/issue9_emily.html

    So, sue me.

  27. Nicole. Says:

    how can you say that one person should be blamed for all this?
    If you walk into a shopping center there are shirts that are plagiarized for example: ‘Billabong’ the brand, some people have made jumpers and such and labeled them ‘Billahong’.
    even on T.V there are so many shows that copy each other. Family guy and the Simpsons, Jackass and The Dudesons, Batfink and Batman.

    some only have simple simularities, But then there are some in wich have MANY.
    There are no new stories to tell.
    Also, they cant exactly put a trade mark on girls with black hair, dresses and cats. If they did..I’m pretty sure half of the world would be sued just for looking like that, or drawing a picture like that.

  28. Ybloc Says:

    What really bugs me isn’t the pictures (which are practically identical)it’s the text “Rosamond did not look hungry or sleepy, she looks like she always looks… Strange”. Emily the strange changed a few words and pasted it on. Some people here say that the one who drew her for his skateboard should be to blame but the person who conducted this ripoff is Rob Reger. How could the skateboard guy be responsible since he only drew Emily, Rob was the one who copied the text so he must of known all along about Rosamond since the text that sticker was on was one of their first merchandise.

  29. Tenchuu Says:

    Nicole, those shirts are ALSO copyright violations, unless they’re protected by parody/satire exceptions. Copyright is violated constantly, it’s a very strict standard, and extremely hard to enforce. You have to be aware of the injury and have the resources to stop the infringement. Most artists don’t have that. That’s why there’s peeing Calvins everywhere. Do the guys making those stickers deserve that money for their original input into the character, even though the entire reason people buy them is for the recognition of said character?

    As for everyone making the Family guy comparison, there are substantial differences between those two works. The judge just doesn’t say “Gee, they’re both fat and stupid, must be a violation”. How old is that character type? Shakespeare used it, at least. Courts aren’t actually full of idiots, there’s a long process to the whole thing. There are a large number of differences between those two characters. They’re drawn entirely differently, Peter wears glasses, he has brown hair, a chin cleft, he’s significantly larger than Homer, he’s not yellow and those are just visual features in an audio-visual work with drastically different humor elements. No one could reasonably look at a picture of The Simpsons and a picture of The Family Guy and say one was artistically derivative just because they’re both animated. Nobody automatically loves The Family Guy because it reminds them of The Simpsons.
    This situation is very different; the initial works are extremely similar, the layout of the cats, the unique style to them, Emily’s bangs, their shoes, and the nearly identical wording in some images. That’s not derivative, that’s a copy. And when those copies are successful and as a result you carry that idea on to new areas, you’re still basing your success on the original work of someone else. I don’t feel like retyping the legal analysis I did on another blog, but do a search for the same story to find it.

  30. mia Says:

    can i just point out that shakespear and van gogh both did this whole plagiarism thing?
    romeo and juliet was stolen from greek mythology. hamlet was stolen from the egyptian legend isis and osiris.
    that picture of the tree with the blossoms by van gogh is almost an exact copy of a picture by hiroshige, which has also been copied by a japanese pop-artist called chiho aoshima.
    plagiarism is everywhere. and i happen to like emily the strange. no one’s suing shakespear because he did a good job of stealing someone elses idea. the creators of emily the strange did too.

  31. JD Says:

    “romeo and juliet was stolen from greek mythology. hamlet was stolen from the egyptian legend isis and osiris.”

    Not the same thing. Romeo and Juliet do not appear in Greek mythology. Hamlet is neither Isis nor Osiris. If Shakespeare took the inspiration for his plots from those sources, that’s as may be, but the works are quite distinct.

    Besides, you can take as much as you want from Greek mythology. Google “public domain” sometimes. Just don’t take anyone’s translations, word-for-word, and try to publish it as your own. *That’s* plagiarism. And copyright infringement.

    Much like the original picture/caption of Emily is almost exactly the same as the page of Rosamond.

    Rosamond is not ancient history, part of the culture, in the public domain. If Emily was only a strange little girl with bangs and cats, that would be fine (if a little worrisome); but the original picture/caption from which the rest are derived is a clear-cut case of copyright infringement.

  32. Anonymous Says:

    If I may, briefly, mention my own take on this? That old bumper sticker is pretty clearly plagiarism, pure and simple — it should be recognized as such. It’s, however, a bit of a stretch to go from there to claiming the entire character has been plagiarized, given that there’s a lot more to the character than one sticker she appeared on back in 1991. Despite this, in the end, to whatever degree, Rosamond obviously was an influence on Emily, and the original creators deserve at least a mention.

  33. Anonymous Says:

    @ Anonymous,
    “Despite this, in the end, to whatever degree, Rosamond obviously was an influence on Emily, and the original creators deserve at least a mention.”

    Too late for Cosmic on that one. They claimed that they had never heard of Rosamond (or the book, “Nate the Great” that she resides in) and originally took down the Emily character because of the ‘coincidence’. Now, they’re trying to sue the very group that gave Emily her character?

    They dug their own grave.

  34. Sakura Says:

    Here’s some possibility’s for you:
    1. Rob Reger saw the Rosamund character, liked it, and decided to change it a little bit. But it’s not like he did that to make money or anything. He wanted to say “It’s okay to be different, and if your different embrace it”
    2. Rob Reger made up the Emily the Strange character. Then he saw a picture of Rosamund and thought it was kind of ironic. Then he drew Emily just like Rosamund in that picture as kind of joke.
    3. Rob Reger decided to rip off a kids book character just to make money(yea, right)
    4. It’s a total coincidence(yea, right again)

    Anyways, who cares? You guys are acting like Emily the Strange is a terrible influence on young people.
    I myself am a 13 year old girl, and Emily the Strange helped teach me its good to be an individual. I can just be me and not some stereo-type like everyone else.

  35. Lisa Says:

    I do see what you mean, but I do have to point out that the teaparty shot with the cats sitting at the table and the slogan “we’re all strange here” is an homage (ie rip off) of an illustration from Alice in Wonderland, and a reference to the chesire cat saying “we’re all mad here”:

    http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rgs/alice25a.gif

  36. Ally Says:

    Guys, you’re all arguing about the same thing, what you need to realize is, everything today is unoriginal. Everything has been done.
    You’re not going to walk into a book store, clothing store or turn on your television without seeing something that resembles something else.

    I can see the obvious similarities that Emily has to Rosamond, but Reger took Emily and aimed to make her, her own because her gave her, her own world.

    ‘Cosmic Debris contended that Emily and Rosamond both drew from a tradition of similar characters including Vampira and Wednesday Addams, and argued that while the text of the initial Emily illustration was nearly identical with Sharmat’s text, that illustration had been withdrawn in 1998 and the statute of limitations had therefore run out.
    On August 12, 2009, creator of Emily the Strange and the creators of Nate the Great jointly announced an agreement resolving all disputes between them. Each side agreed to give up all claims against the other as part of their settlement. “We recognize that Emily and Rosamond are both unique and original characters, and we are pleased that we were able to resolve this dispute,” said Marjorie Sharmat and Marc Simont. “We wish Rob, Cosmic Debris, Emily and her fans all the very best.”‘

    Thats something from Wikipedia, and i know that site isnt always correct, but Sharmat and Simont never copy righted that phrase, and when it says ‘the statute of limitations had therefore run out.’ it mean that that phrase was older than twenty years, because ‘Nate The Great Goes Undercover’ came out in 1974 that meant the limitations went up in roughly 1995. Yes, that’s long after the bumper sticker, but by now, anyone could use that phrase.

    So if tomorrow a new character came out, and some one used a the same text, but changed the name, would you sue them?

  37. AJ Says:

    I know this is an old argument, but I just wanted to throw in my two cents. Has it occurred to anyone that it might have been an unintentional rip off? I write and draw a lot for fun, and there are a few times where I’ve felt suddenly inspired and written or drawn something and later realized that I had seen it somewhere before. I didn’t mean to rip anything off, but my brain confused a memory with an idea. Since the Nate the Great books came out in the 70s, it is entirely possible that one or more of the Emily people had read the books and forgotten all about them. It could have been completely subconscious and accidental. Heck, I read those books as a kid too, and I barely remember any details about the characters. Besides, as several people have said, strange girls with long dark hair and several cats are not a new idea at all. Not new in the 70s either.

  38. randomemilyfan Says:

    the only picture that was plagerised is the original one which wasnt even made by rob reger!and since then they have had a court hearing court hearing which was ended with the original picture no longer allowed to be used since then rob reger and buzz parker have been trying to slightly change emilys image, like how emily’s cats now have distinguishing features emily now has her own style which is still slightly similar to rosamond but it is much different because emily is now a way of expression she now has many lines some of which are teachers pest and i want you to leave me alone and rob reger says that he has never drawn inspiration from nate the great seiries and that he never will and after the court hearing the writers of nate the great wished rob and emily well so i think that this missunderstanding is over.

  39. Lil Says:

    This debate has already been cleared up. In fact the Rosamund creaters wished Rob Reger the best. I believe it was a subconscious mistake. And anyway, I really like Emily Strange and her personality is utterly original and indie cool, so I think she should be left as is.

    Besides, the creaters of the Nate The Great can always sue Emily Strange if they want to, so whats the point of creating a fuss??

  40. Lil Says:

    Oh and always to Ybloc, it wasn’t actually Rob Reger who drew Emily. It was a skateboarding friend of his, and he wanted to use it for tee-shirting. It then grew into gift books, then comic books and finally a young adult novella series.

  41. James Says:

    Lil is right – Reger didn’t create Emily, he just took the idea from someone else who ripped it off from a kid’s book.

    Reger isn’t even creative enough to have come up with the rip-off idea.

  42. Not You Says:

    The hair, dress, and cat idea is the only thing the two have in common. She’s a scientist, an inventor, an individual, a skater, and a virtuo-spastic guitarist. Emily dislikes people, and obviously Rosamond doesn’t, seeing that she has close friends. Also, Emily’s nocturnal. Rob may have read the book and used a few pieces, but it’s not like he copied her.

  43. Not You Says:

    Rob Reger wrote,

    Dear Emily the Strange Friends and Foes,

    I’ve been made aware of this blog and some similar ones with inquiries regarding the origination and creation of the Emily the Strange character. As you may be aware by what has been noted in many interviews and on Wikipedia, Nathan Carrico first conceived of and used Emily as a character for a skateboard design back in 1991. After seeing a sticker of the design, I thought the quirky “looks strange” design was in line with other tees Cosmic Debris was doing, and that it might resonate well with the crew I was selling to. I asked and received permission to use the design from Nathan. We then began creating Emily’s gothic, nonconformist, dark world by using a variety of original expressions (”I want you to leave me alone”, “Teacher’s Pest”, “Emily doesn’t search to belong…” etc.) and unique Emily designs on our t-shirts and other products. Several years thereafter, the character of Rosamond from the children’s book series Nate the Great was brought to my attention for the first time.

    Although the designs and worlds of Rosamond and Emily are different and readily distinguishable, and although we never received any complaints from the author, the artist, or the publisher, we phased out the original skateboard design upon learning of the Rosamond character, and worked with the creative team to further distinguish Emily and her universe. Regarding copyright law, there is legally nothing wrong with sharing or implementing a unique variation on a concept. I have never drawn inspiration from the Nate the Great series or Rosamond. In fact, we at Cosmic Debris have always moved to individualize the idea of Emily the Strange and her universe, which are original to Cosmic Debris.

    Today Cosmic Debris prides itself on what it has become over the years: the creative design house that is responsible for providing consumers with strong messages about feminism, empowerment and individualism. Through years of development,

  44. Not You Says:

    ^Just in case you guys didn’t read this earlier.

Leave a Reply

free blog themes