Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

Fireworks are like rubbing salt in a wound for many residents of the Valley from Scottsdale to Buckeye, Cave Creek to Queen Creek. The major reason for the intense dislike is the misuse of them. Fireworks that shoot into the sky are illegal, yet many revelers persist in using them. They are noisy and a fire hazard. Add to that the extremely long periods when it is legal to shoot them off. It makes for a combination that many Valley residents are fed up with.

Here is the law as it exists:

36-1606. Consumer fireworks regulation; state preemption; further regulation of fireworks by local jurisdiction

  1. The sale and use of permissible consumer fireworks are of statewide concern. The regulation of permissible consumer fireworks pursuant to this article and their sale or use is not subject to further regulation by a governing body, except as follows:
  2. In a county with a population of more than five hundred thousand persons (This applies to Maricopa County), a city or town within its corporate limits or the county within the unincorporated areas of the county may do all of the following:

(a) Regulate, consistent with the standards set forth in NFPA 1124, the sale of permissible consumer fireworks within its corporate limits.

(b) Prohibit the sale of permissible consumer fireworks on days other than April 25 through May 6, May 20 through July 6 and December 10 through January 3 of each year and two days before the first day of Diwali through the third day of Diwali each year.

(c) Prohibit the use of permissible consumer fireworks on days other than May 4 through May 6, June 24 through July 6 and December 26 through January 4 of each year and the second and third days of Diwali of each year.

(d) Prohibit on all days the use of permissible consumer fireworks within a one-mile radius of the border of preservation lands owned by a city or town that has purchased more than fifteen thousand acres of land for preservation purposes.

(e) Prohibit on all days during a stage one or higher fire restriction the use of permissible consumer fireworks within a one-mile radius of the border of any municipal or county mountain preserve, desert park, regional park, designated conservation area, national forest or wilderness area.

(f) Prohibit on all days the use of permissible consumer fireworks between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., except:

(i) Between the hours of 11:00 p.m. on December 31 of each year through 1:00 a.m. on January 1 of each year.

(ii) Between the hours of 11:00 p.m. on July 4 of each year through 1:00 a.m. on July 5 of each year.

  1. In a county with a population of less than five hundred thousand persons, a city or town within its corporate limits or the county within the unincorporated areas of the county may do all of the following: ( I have deleted this portion as it does not apply to Maricopa County.)
  1. A governing body that chooses to regulate, consistent with the requirements set forth in NFPA 1124 and subsection A of this section, the sale or use of permissible consumer fireworks may not require any additional signage requirements for the sale or use of permissible consumer fireworks other than those signage requirements stipulated in NFPA 1124, except that additional signage that is eight and one-half inches by eleven inches in size, that is on cardstock paper in landscape orientation, that lists the days of that year that are described in subsection A, paragraph 1 of this section relating to the time frame surrounding Diwali and that contains the following language on a contrasting background may be posted by the retail sales display of permissible consumer fireworks:

State of Arizona Consumer Fireworks Regulations Arizona Revised Statutes section 36-1601, et al. The use of permissible consumer fireworks as defined under state law is allowed:                                                                                                                                                          May 4 – May 6, June 24 — July 6 and December 26 — January 4 

                                              The sale of permissible consumer fireworks as defined under state law is allowed:   

             April 25 – May 6, May 20 — July 6 and December 10 — January 3 

                                        All other fireworks are prohibited, except as authorized by local fire department permit.

The sale and use of novelties known as snappers (pop-its), party poppers, glow worms, snakes, toy smoke devices and sparklers are permitted at all times. Permissible consumer fireworks may not be sold to persons under sixteen years of age. Check with your local fire department for additional regulations and dates before using.

  1. This article does not prohibit the imposition by ordinance of further regulations and prohibitions by a governing body on the sale, use and possession of fireworks other than permissible consumer fireworks. A governing body may not allow or authorize the sale, use or possession of any fireworks in violation of this article.”

There are three major problems with this law. The first is, in Maricopa County, it is permissible to use fireworks for 22 days a year. That’s nearly a month. Is this necessary? No. I don’t know about you but growing up we celebrated the 4th of July and New Year’s Eve only. We didn’t celebrate for weeks at time. Why does the state legislature allow the sale and use of fireworks for weeks? It appears that some state legislators have interests within the fireworks manufacturing and sales communities. They apparently have had enough influence to ram through extended sales and use periods to increase profit margins in that industry. In other words, all for a buck.

The second issue is the inclusion of more holidays than necessary. Cinco de Mayo? Diwali? When people come to America for a better and more prosperous life they should assimilate. They are becoming American and need to embrace American culture. That, in and of itself, is a whole separate issue. Again, inclusion of other holidays, not part of our American culture, does not encourage immigrants to assimilate.

I am of Polish descent. When my Polish grandparents came to America, they did not presume to establish Polish holidays in this country. They became Americans and fully embraced what it was to be an American. The only two times fireworks should be permissible are New Year’s Eve and the 4th of July from the hours of 7 PM to midnight. That’s it. No exceptions.

The third issue is the types of fireworks being used. When we were kids and celebrated these two holidays, we ran around with sparklers and the adults used ground-based firecrackers. No one used aerial fireworks. The current law stipulates that aerial fireworks are prohibited in Arizona for sale or use. Yet people use them extensively. Since they cannot obtain them in Arizona, they go to Mexico or other states where it is legal to purchase them. For instance, the residents behind our home use aerials. The problem is that when the police are called, they have to see the offence in order to cite. By the time officers arrive the illegal act has long stopped. No police department has the resources to deal with illegal fireworks. That is just a fact of life. So everyone throws their hands up in utter frustration.

In addition, aerial fireworks can be dangerous and a fire safety hazard. We all have either heard or read about someone’s house or patio that caught fire because of the embers of aerials ending up on a roof. Add to that, loud aerials scare pets. Most of us who do have dogs put them inside during fireworks periods. During these periods more dogs run away than any other time of year.

What can be done? The people must rise up to speak and to push the Arizona legislature to change the law. How? A group of people should lead this charge by drafting changes in the law and then circulating those changes in the form of an initiative petition to bring this issue and the proposed changes to a vote of the people. It’s not easy and requires a lot of work and organization but others have done it successfully on other issues. There are a lot of people fed up with the use of illegal fireworks and the excessive time periods when they can be used.

We saw in our last national election that when enough people band together, they can effect change.

© Joyce Clark, 2025   

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

 

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

Yesterday, January 14, 2025, city council held its regular workshop meeting. One of the agenda items was that of moving city council assistants from the City Manager’s office to the City Clerk’s office. The item was requested by Councilmembers Tolmachoff, Turner and Conchas.

The Mayor brought up an interesting point. Apparently, these councilmembers requested that there be no discussion of the issue but rather it be on the voting agenda that night for an up or down vote. It appears that these 3 councilmembers wanted no discussion of the item and had not requested that it also be a workshop agenda item. It was the Mayor who requested that this item be brought to the workshop for a full discussion before it was to be voted on.

For Tolmachoff and Turner, who have repeatedly thrown around the word ‘transparency’, it was revealing. Apparently, they want transparency when it is an agenda item that they oppose. Then they want a full and robust workshop discussion. When it is their item, the heck with discussion. They wanted to ram it through with no discussion. It is a telling moment.

Their argument for proposing that council assistants move to the city clerk’s office centered around the notion that it was a better alignment. Their argument was that the city clerk’s office deals with citizens more extensively as council assistants do. Thereby making the two entities a good fit.

Councilmember Dianna Guzman was apparently the only councilmember to ask the council assistants directly for their feedback on the proposed move. To a person, the sentiment was that they preferred to stay under the direction of the city manager’s office. In essence, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Turner and Tolmachoff, both without council assistants, hurled a lot of innuendo. Turner called it, “chaotic at best” and felt there was “disparate treatment of councilmembers.” Tolmachoff, said, “it was not a level playing field” and she felt there were “occasions where some can hand pick” selections for council assistant. Conchas said moving them to the city clerk “keeps the city manager’s office accountable.” There was a lot of squeezing of sour grapes.

The first question that arises is, why don’t Turner and Tolmachoff have council assistants? Everyone in city hall knows why. Suffice it to say, their offices have revolving doors, and each has gone through many, many council assistants. It is common knowledge that their council assistants left because of the treatment they received.

Case in point, during my last two terms as councilmember, I had 3 council assistants, all of whom I loved and with whom I had an excellent working relationship. They were all fantastic and did excellent work. Shelly and Shannon left when they had opportunities to advance their professional careers within the city in other departments. Council assistants have no opportunity for advancement. My last one, Riley, remains a council assistant for newly elected Yucca councilmember Guzman. There was no revolving door.

However, Turner and Tolmachoff each had numerous council assistants. Far more than I or councilmembers Malnar or Hugh. Again, the question is why.

Another startling moment came when the Mayor asked for consensus to move this item forward for a voting meeting. Councilmember Conchas softly said ‘no’ to moving this item forward. Councilmember Turner was surprised, to say the least. After all, Conchas was supposed to be on his side after his endorsement and the hefty campaign contributions he gave to Conchas. To have Conchas betray him on the very first contentious issue where Turner counted on his support must have been quite a shock to Turner.

A majority of council, Mayor Weiers and Councilmembers Malnar, Baldenegro, Guzman and surprisingly, Conchas did not give affirmative consensus to move this item to a voting meeting. Once again, Tolmachoff and Turner remain on their little island of dissent.

© Joyce Clark, 2025   

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

About a month ago, on Tuesday, December 11, 2024, Glendale held its Installation Ceremony for re-elected Mayor Jerry Weiers, re-elected Councilmember Ray Malnar and Councilmembers-Elect Dianna Guzman and Lupe Conchas. Malnar, Guzman and Conchas were asked to keep their remarks brief, to three or four minutes. Malnar and Guzman did so but not Conchas. It appeared that he deliberately chose to ignore that request and he rambled on and on and on for at least ten minutes. It appeared to be no more than a campaign speech.

Conchas’ speech is too long for inclusion, but I did note some rather interesting remarks (his in italics and mine in parentheses and bold) that I bring to your attention.

He said, “I started my career as a community organizer.”

(He still is. He is Regional Organizing Manager for ONE Campaign based in Washington, D.C. Was Regional Organizer for Bread for the World, Washington, D.C. from 2019-2023.)

Then he remarked, “The unions who (unintelligible), to Worker Power, to Unite Here, to the teacher’s union, to the iron workers, to IBEW, to UFCW, to SMART, and to America Labor Federation, your belief in me kept me going and you stood by me every step of the way. And I will not forget that.”

 (These unions endorsed him:

UNITE HERE Local 11

Worker Power

International Brotherhood of Teamsters Union

United Food and Commercial Workers Union

International Painters and Allied Trades Union

Ironworkers Union Local 75

He publicly declared that he will support their agendas. That includes Worker Power which has mounted several lawsuits and initiatives against the city and VIA Resort. I smell a conflict of interest.)

He went on to say, “I’ve spoken to the City Manager here tonight. I’m excited to announce now that the City of Glendale has secured a $6.7 million-dollar federal grant for pedestrian safety improvements here in Glendale… This grant is a testament to what happens when we listen to our community, and we fight for change…”

(There is not even one, tiny Conchas fingerprint on the securing of this grant. The application was submitted months ago, long before he became Councilmember-Elect. He did not fight for change as he implies.)

He also said, “…a motivating factor in my decision was the quality of our early childhood education programs and my goal to increase literacy in our community. By investing in Pre-K and after school programs…”

(Glendale’s public policy mandate does not include education. That is the responsibility of our multiple school district’s Boards of Education. Glendale city council has no say and does not fund the education of your children. That is done through your property taxes and the line item tax allocations to various educational districts.)

Then he said, “I admire the bravery of our police officers who are standing in the back. A big round of applause for our fire and police officers.”

(This is the same guy who demonstrated against ICE in 2019. His position is one of distrust of and disrespect for law enforcement.)

Lastly, he remarked, “Now, some of you may know that Proposition 314 has been approved by the voters. It’s a new immigration enforcement bill… And let me be 100% clear, my focus is on preserving the civil rights of our residents…”

(He is a participating member of Promise Arizona, which advocates for Democrat party immigration reform. You can assume that he will work to preserve the status of the illegal immigrants who have flooded this country.)

Keep this fact in mind. Lupe Conchas won the election by 69 votes. That is not an overwhelming mandate by the voters in the Cactus district. He did what any good organizer does. He went to apartment complexes and trailer parks to register folks who had never voted and then made sure they did vote…for him. Even using that tactic, he still won by only 69 votes.

Did you know that he moved to Glendale in 2017 to the Ocotillo district?  At that time Jamie Aldama was its Councilmember. I think it’s fair to assume that he knew he couldn’t beat Aldama, and little did he know that Aldama would resign his seat to run for Mayor in mid-2024. In 2023, he moved to the Cactus district with the idea that he might have a better chance of knocking out incumbent Vice Mayor Ian Hugh and it worked.

If you go to the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund website, you will discover that Conchas publicly acknowledges that he is a cisgender male and gay. I don’t care one way or another, but I bet there are many Hispanic voters who are faithful Catholics. Conchas’ lifestyle is a slap in the face of one of their staunchest beliefs. He acknowledges that organization’s endorsement as simply the Victory Fund, not the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund. How many votes would he have garnered from the Hispanic community if they had known this fact?

Many view him as a one-term councilmember. They think he is merely using this council seat as a steppingstone and that his next move will be to run for the Arizona state legislature and eventually on to a congressional seat.

How he performs on Glendale’s city council will determine his future political aspirations. Will he support a majority of this council’s agenda which becomes city policy, or will he assume his traditional role as an activist and disruptor?

© Joyce Clark, 2024    

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

Today, just before the deadline of 24 hours before a posted council meeting, a new item was added to the city council workshop agenda. It was called for by Councilmembers Tolmachoff, Turner and Conchas. It is a tactic not used before. Probably because there was a strong majority of 4 councilmembers who would not have supported an item presented by the minority.

These three councilmembers want to discuss how council assistants are selected. There has been a push of late by some on council to hire council assistants by a councilmember’s sole discretion. On the face of it, it sounds great. Why shouldn’t a councilmember be free to select any one they want for the position, whether qualified or not. The concern with that position is that the selection can become a political appointment rather than one chosen by merit. This is a slippery slope indeed. I have seen a case where that occurred. After some time, that person left the position.

Here is the agenda item:

Subject

**DISCUSSION REGARDING THE CITY COUNCIL ASSISTANT POSITIONS                        Presented by: Councilmember Turner, Vice Mayor Tolmachoff and Councilmember Conchas

Purpose and Recommended Action

This is a council-requested item by Councilmember Turner, Vice Mayor Tolmachoff and Councilmember Conchas to discuss the council assistant positions.

Background

The mayor may, or at the request of three (3) members of the council shall, by giving notice thereof to all members of the council then in the city, call a special meeting of the council for a time not earlier than three (3) hours nor later than forty-eight (48) hours after the notice is given. Special meetings of the council may also be held at any time by the common consent of all the members of the council.  This request was made in accordance with the above-referenced Glendale City Charter provision.

Here’s a little inside baseball. Tolmachoff and Turner use every instance they can to make the City Manager, and the Mayor look bad. They appear to purposefully look for council discussion items that provide them the opportunity to say something nasty about either. They seem to harbor an intense dislike for both gentlemen. This discussion item will give them another opportunity to publicly emphasize their feelings.

There is more to this discussion, however. The minority has a coalition of three councilmembers with the addition of Conchas. Keep in mind, Conchas is beholden to Turner. Turner not only endorsed Conchas enthusiastically, but he also donated 90% of the funding for Conchas’ last hit-piece, a campaign mailer portraying Vice Mayor Ian Hugh as a racist.

At one point in his installation speech Conchas said, “…your belief in me kept me going and you stood by me every step of the way. And I will not forget that.” He was referencing the unions and others, like Turner, who had endorsed him and contributed to his campaign.

That is why Conchas will always follow Turner’s lead and agenda.

It is common knowledge around city hall that both Tolmachoff and Turner have consistently treated their council assistants badly. Each has gone through quite a few council assistants. Each believes that they are good bosses but with a slew of council assistants leaving each of them, the facts prove otherwise.

If you have the time and inclination this might be a good council workshop to view. I know that I certainly will watch.

© Joyce Clark, 2025   

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

I applied for the city’s Planning Commission. I would have been appointed by a majority of 4 of the councilmembers with 3 dissenting. I would have been a good commissioner as my goal was to preserve existent residential developments from new development. With my 24 years on city council I believe that my expertise would have served Glendale’s residents well.

A funny thing happened along the way. Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff has decided that if I report on any of certain councilmember’s antics (she characterizes them as attacks) I will be violating some Code of Conduct that reminds one to say nice things about everybody all the time. She is concerned about topics of future blogs.

I don’t believe she is correct. I believe it is a matter of free speech, and it is preserved whether I am a sitting councilmember or commissioner on a board or commission. During my 24 years on city council I have reported on various actions and positions that councilmembers have taken. Some of the councimembers have been furious and tried to muzzle me in the past. It did not work then, and it would not work now.

I would have prevailed in this dispute, but I have chosen not to argue the matter. Consequently, I have withdrawn my name as an appointee to the Planning Commission.

I intend to write a great deal this year and sometimes it will be, among other things, about certain councilmember’s actions or lack thereof.

This issue is a matter of free speech and threats and intimidation posed by Councilmember Tolmachoff or other minority members of council will not deter me. You will see what I mean in my next blog.

© Joyce Clark, 2025   

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

New Year, new beginnings

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

Today marks January 1, 2025. It is the start of a new year for all of us.

I no longer make resolutions as I have found that it doesn’t take me long to break them. Rather, I have set a goal of finishing a major cleaning of “stuff” accumulated over 50 years. Last year I successfully cleaned out about half of the house. My goal this year is to finish the job. It’s the year of decluttering!

I wanted to take a moment to reflect on my decision not to run for another term as the Yucca district councilmember. Unlike President Biden, my mind is as sharp as ever and I have a wealth of knowledge regarding Glendale government.

However, the same cannot be said of my husband. He worked hard all of his life. He did hard, manual labor as an electrician for many, many years. After his retirement, he had stroke. Although physically he recovered and has the use of all of his limbs, it did a number on his brain and actually killed a portion of it. It resulted in dementia that has gotten progressively worse.

That made the last year of my service as a councilmember difficult. I still fulfilled all of my responsibilities. I attended city events, participated in regional activities and attended all council meetings and workshops but I worried. I had to get care givers to come in and watch my husband while working. Even then, I still worried.

God was getting my attention and telling me it was time to take full-time care of him. So, I made the decision to retire. It, like any activity you enjoy yet can no longer participate in, is bittersweet. I miss council activities, but I don’t miss worrying about my husband any longer.

Over the course of this year I will share what it was like to serve on city council. My service was for 24 years but not all at once. I was first elected as the very first Yucca district councilmember in 1992. In 1996 I quit when my Mom was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. The next four years gave my husband, my Dad and I the luxury of time to find a new home that could accommodate all of us, knowing that my Mom’s disease would progress.

I ran again in 2000 having gotten my family matters in order. I ran successfully again in 2004 and 2008. In the 2012 election I was defeated by Sammy Chavira and we now all recognize what a train wreak he turned out to be. I successfully ran again in 2016 and 2020. I served a total of 6 four year terms.

Elections are challenging and I am very honored and grateful that the majority of Yucca district residents had faith in me and allowed me to serve them. My emphasis during my terms was always on constituent service and over the years I helped many in their interactions with government. I was pleased to do so. That’s what being a servant to the people is all about.

I’d like to think that all of my policy decisions while on council were good but sometimes, despite a lot of knowledge and best efforts, I know I missed the mark.

This year I will be sharing stories about my time on council.

© Joyce Clark, 2025   

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.