Face Making

Artist Gwenn Seemel’s bilingual blog about art, portraiture, free culture, and feminism.

7 lessons learned while doing public art through the RACC

2014 . 10 . 01 - Comments / Commentaires (19)

Over the last few months, I’ve been thinking a lot about right and wrong as well as about the nature of truth, and much of this reflection comes from interactions I have had with the Regional Arts and Culture Council. I’ve talked openly about the situation numerous times on my blog, starting last year right after the first part of the exchange happened. Most recently, I even spoke to the press about the situation.

But, in all this talking, I’m not certain that I translated my experiences into something useful for other artists. And that’s unfortunate, because my intention in talking about everything I talk about on my blog is to help other artists navigate art-making and the business of art better. Being as transparent as I am about all aspects of my process keeps me centered and forces me to evaluate my own actions thoughtfully. It’s a good exercise for me, but it’s important that it to be useful to others as well.

Today, I’m going to try to do things right. Today, I’m publishing a portion of the correspondence between me and the RACC. It’s some of the stuff that documents the RACC’s repeated request that I break the law, its refusal to back me up if I got caught, and the way it responded when I gave it feedback.

When I first thought of publishing these emails, I worried that no one who didn’t already trust me would believe that they were real. They just seemed so misguided to me that I was certain people wouldn’t want to believe that the RACC had written them. This still worries me a bit, but, with some perspective, it occurs to me that people might not view these emails as misguided at all. Clearly, the RACC didn’t think what it was saying was wrong, so it’s likely others won’t either.

I’ve come to realize that what’s most important to me in this situation is that each reader be allowed to decide for themselves what they think about the RACC’s behavior and about my reaction. What really matters when disagreements like this one occur is that we all get the chance to learn something about our world.


drawing of Kirk Reeves

The story began in summer 2013 when the RACC offered me yet another opportunity. This time, the RACC was presenting me with a public art project—my first! I was informed that, as a result of City ordinance, a particular wall was in need of art, and I was advised that I shouldn’t charge more than $5000 as a first-time muralist. I was also told that the building’s owner liked my work and that he wanted me to paint a composition with multiple faces, anonymous people with a we-are-the-world feel.

Instead, I showed up to my meeting with the owner with this drawing of Kirk Reeves, the street performer who passed away a few years ago. Kirk was my friend and I wanted to create a memorial for him. I also wanted more than $5000 dollars to do so. When I named a fee that followed logically from my commission price list, the owner was visibly surprised by the number I quoted. In response, I handed him a print-out of my price list, explained that portraiture was not something every artist could do, and told him I was open to talking about the price.

But the owner decided to have a chat with the RACC instead. Afterwards, the RACC called me to tell me that I was asking for too much money. I explained my logic, pointed to my price list, and lamented the fact that the RACC was brought into negotiations between two mature people who both run businesses. What’s more, I pointed out that a portrait was not what the owner had asked for, so I would understand if he wanted to go with a different artist.

After my conversation with the RACC, I did end up negotiating directly with the owner. At that time, he asked me to paint former Mayor Bud Clark instead of Kirk. I replied that I could do Clark’s portrait or that I could paint Kirk for $1000 less—I really wanted to do a memorial for Kirk. The owner didn’t make up his mind, but informed me that we would be presenting two complete applications to the City…

mural mock-up

application mock-up

...one with the image of Clark…

mural mock-up

application mock-up

...and one with Kirk’s portrait.

Much to my relief, the mural committee decided that Kirk’s portrait was more interesting. That said, it wanted me to alter the image. Among other things, it wanted me to portray Kirk wearing a Mickey hat, as he sometimes did.

The first time I heard of the City wanting me to infringe on Disney’s copyright, I was on the phone with the RACC. I was surprised that I’d be asked to break the law, and more than a little intimidated by the whole thing, just as most artists are when dealing with institutions. Still, I managed to stop the conversation and communicate that I wouldn’t be taking on that kind of legal and financial risk on my own. I have Mickeyed around in my studio practice now and again, but I wasn’t going to do it in a mural—too many factors, too much money involved, too public.

The RACC wasn’t worried about my copyright concerns, but I insisted, so we compromised. I ended up submitting two new mock-ups for the mural committee to review…

mural mock-up

problematic mock-up

...one with the ears…

mural mock-up

what ended up being the official mock-up

...and one without. When I sent these new mock-ups to the RACC, that email began a written conversation with the institution, and it’s this conversation which documents much of the situation that’s caused so much tension and reflection for me over the last few months.




At the end of this email, I was saying “no” for the second time to breaking the law without someone backing me up. The first time was on the phone, which is what I was referring to when I say “as we discussed a few weeks ago.”


On reading “I would think that unless this image turns into a commercial enterprise for you, you are safe,” I had two reactions:

1) I’m not sure how being paid thousands of dollars to paint a mural is not a commercial enterprise.

2) The RACC is not my lawyer.


This was the third time I was presenting my very reasonable request that the people who wanted me to break the law should also be the ones who pay if I get in trouble.


In this email, the RACC acquiesced to involving a lawyer and, for the first time, it did so without dismissing the importance of my question about liability.



The juxtaposition of the sentences “I am not in a position of offering any legal advice on this issue” and “remember, this image is temporary and you are not selling it for commercial purposes” made me very uncomfortable.

Nevertheless, I followed with the RACC’s recommendation and spoke with the intellectual property lawyer. And as an attorney, he definitely gave me lots of advice that sounded official, but, because I wasn’t paying him, none of his advice actually counted as advice. He wasn’t being an expert in IP as it related to me, and he wouldn’t start being my expert unless I coughed up some money. As intimidating as his knowledge of IP may have been, I wasn’t going to change my mind unless he offered to represent me pro bono if Disney sued, and he never did make me that offer.

By this point, I had said “no” to breaking the law once on the phone and two more times in writing, but the pressure from the RACC was still coming in the form of a request that I speak with someone who not only was not my lawyer but who also had some pretty strange ideas about what I should be willing to do in the name of art. (See below in my email from 13 December 2013.)

I determined that the one way to be sure that the RACC wouldn’t continue to ask me to break the law is if I asked the arts council to follow the law to the letter. Copyright law doesn’t automatically stop you from using artistic material: it only requires that you request permission of the copyright owner before doing so.






Before moving on to my reaction, I should first say that, since there was no credit line for the attached image in the email, I don’t know whose work this is. Please let me know if you recognize the piece and I’ll give proper credit.


In response to this email, I got nothing. There was complete silence for six weeks. I assumed that the project wasn’t going to happen, and I moved on with my life. Then, suddenly, I got an email asking me when I was planning on doing the mural.

And this was something that happened numerous times. The RACC would ignore my feedback, take no action, and keep on doing its thing like everything was fine. I tried several more times to broach these issues with the RACC. I did so at a meeting in February 2014 with a couple of RACC employees, in my final report after the piece was done at the beginning of August, and then by email with a few other members of the RACC’s staff. In response, mostly what I got was silence.

Until, that is, I wrote to the RACC’s director.

I’ve published our full exchange below, and, as I look at the emails now, it’s clear to me just how angry I was. The RACC’s view that the mural was not a “commercial enterprise” had colored every subsequent interaction for me. I’d spent months working with an institution that I knew did not take artists seriously even though it kept up the public appearance that it did, and I was not happy that I’d had to do so. But, against all odds, I had finally managed to create the memorial for Kirk that was important to me on a deeply personal level. Now I no longer had a reason to put up with anything from the RACC, and, as I’ll explain below these emails, I’d already put up with one too many things from this institution.






The precise moment when I decided I wouldn’t let the RACC off the hook occurred right as the mural was getting underway in mid-July. I’d sent out a number of press releases about the project and the RACC had as well, and I quickly noticed a big difference between the journalists who came to me as a result of my press release and those that approached me because of the RACC’s. The latter all thought that the City had decided to honor Kirk and that it had picked me to do it.

To be fair, I don’t think that the RACC intended to claim credit for the idea to do a memorial for Kirk. Certainly, its press release didn’t say that the City commissioned me. Rather, people just seemed to take for granted that this mural was something that had originated at the RACC.

That said, when I alerted the RACC to the problem, they seemed unfazed. In an email exchange with their communications associate that was cc-ed to another employee, I said:

“[L]ots of people (press people and other people) seem to be assuming that the City chose me to do the painting, the [sic] it chose the building the mural is being painted on, and that the City is paying for this project. This is an issue because many Portlanders have very strong ideas about what should be done to honor Kirk, so there’s some frustration about what they perceive as the City/Trimet not doing enough to honor him or not doing the right thing. I don’t know how you want to handle this, but, when it comes up, I’ve been telling people exactly how this project is funded and that it came about because I suggested it when I was offered the wall and the money.”

In response, the RACC thanked me for my comments and said “we will keep that in mind.” To my knowledge, it never tried to correct anyone’s mistaken idea that the City of Portland was finally doing something for Kirk.

I’m pretty liberal when it comes to credit and my art, but this was different. The City had not wanted to be responsible for the mural if it had Mickey ears and Disney came calling, but it was okay with taking full credit for the idea. That was what made me crack.

After all I’d been through to make this project a reality—I haven’t even told you half the stuff—I wasn’t going to let the RACC crush me under its massive institutional weight. I wasn’t going to pretend that I was okay with any of what had happened just for the sake of staying in the RACC’s good graces. The moment the RACC allowed everyone to think I was just a hand it had hired to carry out its vision was when I decided to make sure that the RACC understood that it couldn’t treat artists like they don’t matter.

Kirk Reeves mural

Gwenn Seemel
Somewhere over the rainbow
acrylic mural
10 x 38 feet

Despite everything I’ve just revealed, I’m still grateful to the RACC. I’m grateful for the money and opportunities it’s given me over the last decade and I’m even grateful for everything that happened with my first public art project. Navigating the many issues I had with the RACC taught me a lot about the way artists are seen in our world and about other things as well.

These are seven of the lessons I learned:

1) The gatekeepers who work for institutions are not fairy godparents who only have artists’ interests in mind. They’re people with power and sometimes they don’t recognize the power they have. Artists need to be prepared for that possibility.

2) Institutions will sometimes be acting as an artist’s advocate but they might also be acting as a broker between the artist and their community. It’s important for artists to recognize the difference, even when the institution does not.

3) An artist can think that copyright law and the system it engenders are deeply flawed, but, if the artist chooses to follow that law rather than breaking it in a particular situation, it doesn’t mean they lose their status as a free culture advocate or as a transgressive artist. It only means that they are a person with enough life experience that they can make decisions about risk in an adult manner.

4) Just because someone is an expert in their field doesn’t mean that their advice pertains to an artist in particular, and that’s especially true when that someone is a lawyer and the artist is not paying the lawyer.

5) When an artist is the only one taking on legal and financial risk for doing something that’s against the law, the decision about whether or not to do it belongs to that artist alone. When someone else tries to influence the artist’s decision without taking on any risk, their advice may be interesting, but it cannot have the same weight as advice coming from a party who is willing to stand by the artist.

6) It’s okay for a person to say “no” when they’re not comfortable with what’s being asked of them, and it’s okay for them to keep saying “no” until they are heard.

7) No matter how much an institution does for artists, those artists don’t owe it anything more than gratitude. An institution may have given an artist lots of opportunities, but that doesn’t mean an artist should allow themselves to be pressured into doing anything that they perceive of as harmful to their art or to their future.

- When the Regional Arts and Culture Council lied
- My TEDx talk! / Ma conférence TEDx!
- The monumental stupidity of copyright / La bêtise monumentale du droit d’auteur

CATEGORIES: - English - TOP POSTS - Business of art - Drawing - Featuring artists - Kirk Reeves - Process images - Reviews - Uncopyright -

Gwenn Seemel on Liberapay     Gwenn Seemel on Patreon

(19) Comments / Commentaires: 7 lessons learned while doing public art through the RACC

-- Libby Fife -- 2014 . 10 . 01 --


There is a lot here. Thank you for taking the time to present the entire story. It would be overwhelming to comment on everything so if I could just say one thing. After reading your post, I focused in on the idea of the small business person. (Not that your business is small somehow but that you are only one person really as opposed to a partnership, LLC or large corporation.) The copyright issue aside, it’s hard for people that have only ever worked for a company in a company setting to understand what it means to be one person who owns a business. The many against the one is a difficult scenario. You did a great job of sticking to your guns and of navigating that relationship. I really applaud your tenacity.


--- -- - --- - ---- - ---- - --- - -- ---

-- Madeline Bishop -- 2014 . 10 . 01 --

Oh my gosh, Gwenn!  What a hassle!  I had no idea.

I agree with your seven lessons, especially number 5.

You are a very strong individual.  You were firm and polite in every response to the RACC.  I admire your strong stance against breaking the copyright laws, even if you don’t believe that those laws are helpful to the place of art in our society.

Bravo, mon amie.


--- -- - --- - ---- - ---- - --- - -- ---

-- Adrienne Fritze -- 2014 . 10 . 01 --

Talk about perseverance, pluck and integrity! YOU have them all.

As a former artists’ advocate* who buckled under the weight of resistance and no support in dealing with the City of Portland, certain developers in the city who dominate the art scene there, and the double-standard offered by RACC and other “arts” organizations—I am proud and amazed by your resilience and level of integrity in staying the course no matter what storm came your way.

Ever since being forced to mothball** the Working Artists Network in 2010-2011, and everything else I built with it (the gallery, studios and artists’ services such as healthcare coverage, free pet care, business ownership and development training, etc.) I have wanted to find a way to re-open the doors of the organization.

It was the only organization in Portland built by an artist, that advocated on the behalf of artists who comprised its membership.

Your sharing this dilemma leaves me with an opening as I see the need for such a group is needed as much, and possibly more than ever.

I would love to talk about this when you have a moment. Let me know if you’re interested, and when would be a good time.

My best,

*via my mothballed organization Working Artists Network, the arts-business incubator / accelerator and chamber of commerce I closed in 2011

**The result of a one-two punch: the local economy collapsing + my own physical and financial exhaustion. THe former I had no real control over, the latter as I lacked the skills to build up a core team and reliable cashflow to keep the whole thing going.

--- -- - --- - ---- - ---- - --- - -- ---

-- Lynette -- 2014 . 10 . 01 --

Great post.  As Libby wrote, Gwenn, you stuck to your guns to be true to your art and future.  Your beautiful public mural of Kirk Reeves is not rebel street art like FrankenMickey.  It’s too bad the RACC couldn’t appreciate the difference. Sending you a big hug!

--- -- - --- - ---- - ---- - --- - -- ---

-- Pysanky Pittsburgh -- 2014 . 10 . 01 --

Wow. Where to begin? I will actually start with the end - great lessons FOR ALL artists. May they all be as diligent, mature and strong in implementing them.  I think the reason that you wanted everyone to know that it was your idea for a ‘Kirk’ mural and not RACC’s idea is because he was your personal friend, AND the beauty of your artwork made such a splash, AND because they had run you through the gristmill - enough was enough…and you ARE so ‘polite’ and forthcoming about public domain. You did the right thing, in a very graceful, cosmopolitan way. They were just trying to give you a royal screwing…but, like the professional that you are, YOU taught THEM a lesson (many actually). I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall when the Eloise woman read your response.  HAHAHA! You anticipated her move, but she thought that she was ‘clearing the air’ with her statements of ‘not telling you to break the law’ - well - she thought she had tidied the game, and in some respects, they won the battle, but you gave the checkmate and won the war. Stay sassy and sweet, Gwenn!!

--- -- - --- - ---- - ---- - --- - -- ---

-- Gwenn -- 2014 . 10 . 02 --

@Libby: As always, an excellent point. And we can all always do better at trying to see things from the other person’s perspective.

@Madeline: That number 5 really is good for so many situations, isn’t it? So hard to remember that we can and should be responsible for our own decisions as much as possible, especially when others are trying to butt in superficially but remain mostly untouched. Bisous to you!

@Adrienne: Thank you for your kind words! I do think that Portland is hungry for alternatives. I’d never heard the term “art mafia” applied to the RACC until recently, but, unfortunately, it does feel like there’s some truth to it. So much art power and art money concentrated is bound to create a lot of art problems. :(

@Lynette: Another really good point. I so appreciate your perspective. And it’s true: that the RACC seemingly doesn’t differentiate between a memorial for an individual and a piece of political art is just weird.

@Pysanky: While I don’t know that anyone ever really wins this war, I will say that I absolutely love your take on the situation. smile Also, I admit to fantasizing about seeing all the RACC employees’ responses to being called out by a peon like me. And I really wish they would give feedback to me publicly about all this. Imagine if the RACC actually engaged publicly with artists! Imagine if RACC employees saw themselves as our equals and spoke with us as peers! I think that world would be so swell to live in.

--- -- - --- - ---- - ---- - --- - -- ---

-- Kate Powell -- 2014 . 10 . 03 --

There is so much here.

Politico talk is what you got.  Trained operatives are supposed to be good at throwing the ball back in your court with a nod and a wink and also, not committing themselves to any direction.  I am amazed at the lengths they went through and thankful that you thought on your feet and made it through.  Asking them to contact Disney was the nail in the coffin. 

For those of you who think that the Mouse shown is not Disney’s, I am sure they don’t see it that way—and would sue if they could.
I’d like to talk over tea—do you have any time next week?

--- -- - --- - ---- - ---- - --- - -- ---

-- Jeff Hawthorne -- 2014 . 10 . 03 --

Hi Gwenn. Jeff Hawthorne here. We emailed a couple times when I was preparing RACC’s press release and follow-up story for your mural. I just wanted to chime in to say that many of us are indeed following your blog with great interest. I especially appreciate this post and your articulate distillation of “lessons learned.” I don’t think you’ll be surprised to hear that we too are learning from this experience, and in fact some of our lessons learned are the same as yours.

My coworkers and I understand that there were several missteps in this project, and we are learning from them. I have specific ideas about ways that our press releases can be more clear so as not to create some of the mistaken ideas that other people had about how your mural came about. That’s on me. Also, the entire public art staff has been actively learning about alternatives to copyrights, and looking for ways to change some of our policies and practices. Furthermore, my colleagues acknowledge/understand that when we ask artists to consider doing something like paint a Mickey Mouse hat, our words carry great weight (pressure) and so we cannot be so cavalier as to even suggest something like that, especially if it could create legal risk for the artist that we ourselves are not willing to defend.

I definitely understand your comments about gatekeepers and power brokers, which is why I think it’s been good for you to air your experience free of interruption and debate from anyone at RACC. This is your blog, and it’s not our place to defend actions or describe motivations uninvited. I am a big fan of public dialogue, but I think this whole situation has been helped by us just listening right now. And learning. Which we have been doing. So, thank you.

The risk of me posting this comment is that you could critique some aspects of it, or find my words hollow, or accuse RACC of trying to save face. I think that speaks to the accumulated tension of this conversation. But I did want to acknowledge your request for input from RACC, and invite more dialogue in whatever format you choose. I’d also love to reach out again in a month or two when we have some specific next steps to report with regard to copyright alternatives. 

--- -- - --- - ---- - ---- - --- - -- ---

-- Gwenn -- 2014 . 10 . 03 --

@Kate: Yes please to tea! I’ll PM you.

@Jeff: No way I will ever belittle the RACC for engaging publicly with artists! The public space is a hard one to navigate, so even if I didn’t like what you were saying I would still appreciate you saying it publicly. As it is, you have made the world a little more swell by talking to me as a human instead of as an institution, and I am grateful for it.

And if you or anyone from the RACC did want to defend any of the RACC’s actions, you are absolutely invited to do it here. I meant what I said about everyone being able to make up their own mind about what happened and more information from the RACC would certainly help us to be able to do that.

--- -- - --- - ---- - ---- - --- - -- ---

-- pysankypittsburgh -- 2014 . 10 . 03 --

While I can appreciate Jeff Hawthorne’s view…it would have been SO much better to hear them from the Elaine’s woman’s view - just my humble opinion!!..IF you EVER need help, Gwenn, let me know…I can rally some very deep pockets… looking forward to seeing more of your work.

--- -- - --- - ---- - ---- - --- - -- ---

-- joyce -- 2014 . 10 . 04 --

Thanks for shedding the light on all this interaction with the RACC.  I find it very thought provoking, to say the least, and very admirable of you to be so well versed in your business mindedness to be able to protect yourself and ask all the pertinent questions.  I do think that big organizations (from small city sized to large corp.) view artists in that eye of “...they should be grateful to be offered the work, or for the opportunity to be exposed.”

--- -- - --- - ---- - ---- - --- - -- ---

-- cjy -- 2014 . 10 . 05 --

Good for you Gwenn. Fortitude and grace evert step of the way.

--- -- - --- - ---- - ---- - --- - -- ---

-- cjy -- 2014 . 10 . 05 --


--- -- - --- - ---- - ---- - --- - -- ---

-- Jeff Hawthorne -- 2014 . 10 . 06 --

Hi, Gwenn. I don’t think there’s anything left to debate, you’ve been very thorough. I think my coworkers and I are more inclined to learn from this and move forward, rather than to re-litigate the past. It’s clear that you felt pressured and we appreciate that now. I don’t know if you’ll believe me or understand when I say that nobody here thought/believed/understood that they were pressuring you at the time. Or worse, bullying you. All of the correspondence in 2013 was very congenial. Still, you were right to stand firm in your request that RACC seek Disney’s approval. But the fact that you felt pressured or bullied means that we have to understand everything we did wrong and make sure that it doesn’t happen again. When RACC staff said to WW that we hadn’t pressured you, you accused RACC of lying. And later when RACC staff apologized that you felt bullied, it came off as sounding patronizing. I understand all of that. I’m not defending any of the words that were used, I’m just explaining how I think things got so bad. Just my personal observations.

--- -- - --- - ---- - ---- - --- - -- ---

-- Copyright -- 2014 . 10 . 06 --

BULLY - a person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker.

They may not have twisted her arm and pressed her agains the wall but from what I can tell here, Gwenn said no 5 or 6 times to the RACC.

Pressuring an artist to put themselves in a potentially risky legal/financial situation—using advice from (unpaid) lawyers, examples of street artists who infringed on Disney’s copyrights, and repeatedly belittling the artist’s role as a business entity—could certainly count as a form of bullying, especially since the RACC had the money dangling on a stick over the artist’s head and they were not themselves willing to go out on the limb.

It doesn’t seem like the RACC was malicious about this, however. It seems more like the RACC didn’t know what it was doing and was operating from a place of privilege/ignorance.

Very interesting discussion…

--- -- - --- - ---- - ---- - --- - -- ---

-- Gwenn -- 2014 . 10 . 07 --

@Pysanky @Joyce @CJY @Copyright: Thank you, each of you, for your encouragement and all the good points you make!

@Jeff: Thank you for your response. It does make me feel better to know for certain that the RACC is working to understand its influence better. That said, I would like to add one thing that you didn’t mention and that I feel is a big issue.

The next time an artist gives the RACC a final report that was as strongly worded as mine was, I hope that your institution will choose to reply immediately and set up a conversation with them. Because, while I do believe that my airing both the story and my anger publicly will ultimately make a positive difference for the RACC and for Portland artists, none of it was any fun.

--- -- - --- - ---- - ---- - --- - -- ---

-- Jeff Hawthorne -- 2014 . 10 . 07 --

Gwenn, I think that’s an excellent, specific suggestion. Thank you. I’m going to see what I can do to make sure we do that. I look forward to talking with you again soon under happier circumstances.

And PS to @Copyright: I agree that RACC demonstrated some privilege and ignorance in all of this. It’s not a defense, but I think what was unique about this situation is how many people (the business owner, community leaders, and even RACC staff) were enthusiastic about memorializing Kirk Reeves with a Micky Mouse hat that was so much part of his identity. But repeatedly encouraging Gwenn to incorporate the hat was the wrong thing to do. I am happy to report that we are in the midst of broad, extensive training to prevent RACC from misusing its position of privilege, and we are boning up on copyrights and creative commons to replace our ignorance on that topic as well.

--- -- - --- - ---- - ---- - --- - -- ---

-- Vashti Verschoor -- 2015 . 04 . 23 --

*Mind Blown!*  Thank you for posting!!  I am learning SO much!! I will be following all of the links in your email to Eloise to educate myself on Copyright and Creative Commons… Creatively yours, Vashti

--- -- - --- - ---- - ---- - --- - -- ---

-- Gwenn -- 2015 . 04 . 23 --

@Vashti: I’m glad it helps. Thanks for commenting!

--- -- - --- - ---- - ---- - --- - -- ---

Add a comment / Ajouter un commentaire

Name / Votre nom:

Email / Votre e-mail:

(Visible only to Gwenn / Visible uniquement pour Gwenn)

URL / Votre URL:

(Optional / Facultatif)

Comment / Commentaire:

(You can use / Vous pouvez utiliser: < a >, < b >, < i >)

 Remember me for next time. / Retenez mes coordonnées.

 Email me new comments. / Abonnez-moi au fil de discussion.

Please enter the characters you see below / Veuillez rédiger le mot que vous voyez ci-dessous: