Lady Gaga Fame : Perfume Review


After months of media buzz, Lady Gaga Fame has finally been launched.  You probably know by now how this celebrity perfume thing works.  Some celebrities—like Sarah Jessica Parker—get down and dirty in the design process, vetting the concept, going through the mods, arguing for dirtier musk, losing argument for dirtier musk, announcing that next time things are going to be different.  Then there are those under whose noses you presume a scent strip has passed, but who have not attended that endless cycle of developmental-phase meetings.

Lady Gaga appears to be of the assertive former type.  Early reports had it that the singer wanted her perfume to be based on blood and semen.  These notes, which might seem shockingly brave, are not new: Etat Libre d’Orange has already done both in Sécrétions Magnifiques.  But as happened with Parker’s dirtier musk, these notes didn’t make the final cut.  Instead, Fame, billed as “the first ever black eau de parfum,” contains “pulverized apricot, crushed heart of Tiger Orchidea, and tears of belladonna.”

I doubt that the Lady Gaga perfume, Fame, is going to have quite the notoriety of Lady Gaga the performer.  Or maybe it will, because, unlike its alleged creator, it’s a wimp. The most controversial thing about Fame is likely to be the racy series of television commercials and print ads that have a nude and masked Gaga being climbed upon by tiny men. In case this is too provocative, there is also a scientific, French-language ad that purports to show the inner workings of Haus Laboratories, where the sizzling, hissing brew is concocted and which features the gears and levers of modern industry rather than the star.

But Fame is a cop-out.  It’s a powdery floral, that’s too sweet and virtually base-less. It seems to be less about Gaga than it does about marketing research.  It smells mostly of a creamy orchid with a touch of violet and apricot. The base claims a note of “black incense” that will surely disappoint anyone who has ever tried any of the Comme des Garcons incense fragrances.  The incense is wispy and hidden by the sweet, creamy powder. It’s one of those very linear modern scents that come at you all at once (like Gaga herself) with no nuance or notational shading.

The singer can reach a higher top note than this fragrance can:   Fame is all about its abstraction of a white bouquet with very pale hints of muddled fruit.  It lasted through the night, having more stamina than I did. I tried in vain to find a controversial note but could not. I’m disappointed; if Gaga couldn’t have her bodily fluids, then at least she could have had a chypre.  Fame turns out to be one of the duller new releases in a decade of dull.  It is reminiscent of Alexander McQueen My Queen, another fruit/floral powdery cop-out.  The bottle at least is interesting and seems descended from a mating of Alien and Arpège.

The local roll-out features a few rectangular columns printed with a picture of the bottle and strategically placed around the cosmetic department.  I can attest that there is nothing provocative about them.  There was a voice-over being piped throughout the store that urged you to try Fame immediately, but I didn’t notice anyone in particular being persuaded. In the distance, the gears and wheels of market research clattered away like the white noise that is this latest celebuscent.  They go ho hum, ho hum, ho hum.

Lady Gaga Fame includes notes of saffron, honey, apricot nectar, jasmine sambac, tiger orchid, white peony, amaryllis, and black incense. Available from Macy’s, Bloomingdale’s, Nordstrom and other major retailers.



  • silverdust: Suzanna, I don’t like what Gaga and her ilk have done to the popular culture, so I wouldn’t have had a hard time denying myself the purchase — if I had liked it — but, thankfully, now I don’t even have the curiosity to want to sniff it, and for that I thank you! August 24, 2012 at 9:37am Reply

    • Suzanna: silverdust, you are welcome! You might try it anyway, if you come across it, for its pandering to mediocrity August 24, 2012 at 10:55am Reply

  • marsi: My 12 year old cousin has two big posters of Lady Gaga in her bedrooms. so I’ll probably be buying a bottle of it for them so long as it’s less sticky-sweet than Britney Spears Fantasy! August 24, 2012 at 9:59am Reply

    • Suzanna: Marsi, yes, it is less sweet than Fantasy. It’s a different type of sweet. It’s that powdery-sweet orchid/violet type of sweetness, not gourmand candy sweetness. August 24, 2012 at 10:32am Reply

  • Anne Sheffield: I must admit, I never purchase celebrity scent, i never even try them. It s a too obvious commercial exercise too me. And to my knowledge ( but I could be totally wrong), no celebrities has ever created a masterpiece. Enjoyed the reviews though :-). Thanks, Anne August 24, 2012 at 10:05am Reply

    • Suzanna: Anne, they pander to the mass market and therefore you get a really broad mass market scent. The only time in recent memory I can recall a departure from it was with Covet, but that was a mistaken exercise in misapplied “edginess” that flopped. August 24, 2012 at 10:33am Reply

      • Daisy: I do have to add that Kate Walsh Boyfriend surprised me . . . August 24, 2012 at 11:08am Reply

        • Suzanna: Daisy, agreed! Really stood out–in a good way. I like the original better than “Millionaire,” too. In general, woody scents appeal to me more than powdery florals anyway. August 24, 2012 at 12:36pm Reply

        • Trish: That’s another celebuscent that I liked enough to buy a small bottle at Sephora. August 24, 2012 at 3:12pm Reply

      • Lisa: Confession: I actually like Covet a lot — it has a weird bittersweetness to it that my nose finds particularly compelling. Covet was definitely one of those love it/hate it fragrances. August 24, 2012 at 1:03pm Reply

        • Trish: I like Covet too, something different from the usual fruity florals. August 24, 2012 at 3:11pm Reply

  • Lucas: I want to try it myself to see what I think but you’re a 2nd person (right after The Candy Perfume Boy I talked with yesterday) who admits that it’s dull and not very Gaga style. August 24, 2012 at 10:16am Reply

    • Suzanna: Lucas, you might as well try it. I’m sure Candy Perfume Boy and I will not be the only ones talking about it! August 24, 2012 at 10:34am Reply

  • Occhineri: I tried this yesterday, and it reminded me of Daisy drizzled with caramel, very fruity and sweet and not very floral. And very boring. I’m not a fan of celebrity scents, and I wasn’t surprised, but I had a glimmer of hope that this would be at least a tiny bit weird. No such luck. 😉 August 24, 2012 at 10:23am Reply

    • Suzanna: Occhineri, I’m glad you tried it and can add your thoughts to the discussion. I found it to have orchid sweetness, as I said to Lucas, and not really gourmand (but I measure that by extreme cases of sugar notes, like Fantasy).

      I, too, hoped it would be weird, but weird won’t sell in that market. August 24, 2012 at 10:36am Reply

  • Noah: Suzanna, I’m kind of a newbie to perfumes and love your blog. I was excited to give this one a sniff and like most people you can’t help but be disappointed that its so initially generically assaulting and yet tepid (nothing at all what the black fluid, bottle design, and crazy Steven Klein ads would imply).
    So, what happened!? She seems like she had so much control over every aspect of the fragrance except the actual way it smells. Does Coty convince Gaga that it will sell more if its more mainstream smelling? Contractually does Coty have the final word on what’s released? Its baffling that its so mediocre. And why wouldn’t celebs team with other perfume houses? I mean I know it happens (Tilda Swinton, Cumming, etc), but it seems like Coty just craps out all of this junk. Imagine Comme des Garcons or Mugler’s take on Fame.

    p.s.– how would you describe that sharp floral top note that burns my nose? (ooh did I just do it?) August 24, 2012 at 10:26am Reply

    • Suzanna: Noah, it’s the synthetic floral mash-up, otherwise known as “the sharp floral top note that burns Noah’s nose” and a very chemical-smelling thing. 🙂

      Coty and the star would like to make money, no doubt. That’s the bottom line. It’s so at odds with her image and her alleged input that it can’t help but be confusing–misleading really.

      Do not know about contractual right over final product. August 24, 2012 at 10:41am Reply

  • Absolute Scentualist: Ho hum indeed. 🙂 There seems to be a lot of that involved with recent celeb and non-celeb fragrance releases lately. I’m looking at you, Coco Noir, Eau Sauvage parfum and now this Fame perfume. Or perhaps I’ve gotten too picky.

    I won’t automatically dismiss a scent because there’s a celebrity involved. Keith Urban Phoenix, SJP’s Lovely, Halle and yes, even BS’s Curious were, in my opinion, quite enjoyable perfumes. But the hype for Lady Gaga’s perfume just felt way too saturated and “trying too hard.” The notes didn’t look all that enticing but I was hoping for something remotely interesting.

    Sounds like this, along with Illamasqua’s Freak, had evocative ad campaigns but the fragrance doesn’t come close to living up to the ideal. I wouldn’t refuse a sniff if I have the chance, but it is unfortunate most celebrities (and even some of the older and more established fragrance houses) aren’t able or willing to take more risks these days for fear of disappointing the masses rather than impressing the smaller number of devoted. August 24, 2012 at 10:34am Reply

    • Suzanna: Absolute Scentualist, you are right. And perhaps the best thing that could be said about Fame is that it is wearable. It’s robotic and blah, but so are most of the celeb scents.
      Thanks for pointing out those celeb scents that are not total dreck! August 24, 2012 at 11:54am Reply

  • Aimtx: Color me unsurprised. August 24, 2012 at 10:35am Reply

  • Smoo: Scathing! Love it. August 24, 2012 at 11:01am Reply

    • Suzanna: Smoo, it’s really just a non-event. Much ado about nothing, or in this instance a mediocre abstract orchid floral. August 24, 2012 at 12:37pm Reply

  • Daisy: Oh, I was hoping for something more memorable given all the hype. I guess you can only push the boundaries so far at Sephora 🙁 August 24, 2012 at 11:10am Reply

    • Suzanna: Daisy, everyone wants to make money. Gaga has excelled at making statements AND money, as did Madonna. But they aren’t making a perfume. Coty or other big businesses do, and they agonize over that bottom line and how best to get it, based on their hours and hours of market research. This is why companies want “the next” big scent that smells like a clone of one before it–Give me the next Angel! Gaga’s scent is a natural extension of this. August 24, 2012 at 12:39pm Reply

  • Trish: ‘In the distance, the gears and wheels of market research clattered away like the white noise that is this latest celebuscent. They go ho hum, ho hum, ho hum.’

    I laughed hard when I got to this point. Great review, Suzanna! Can’t say that I’m surprised. August 24, 2012 at 12:01pm Reply

    • Suzanna: Glad you had a laugh, Trish! This is why I brave these new frontiers for you guys. August 24, 2012 at 12:41pm Reply

  • Starr6972: Give me the classics any day! Chanel no.22…Clive Christian no.1…L’ombe dans leau…These celebrities should stick to what they know. Blood and semen! Really??? August 24, 2012 at 12:34pm Reply

    • Suzanna: Starr, yes, that is what Lady Gaga said this perfume would be. I wish someone would ask her what happened to those notes. At least they made for some interesting speculation, although as I note they have been done before.

      Agree with you about classics. I think I will wear No. 22 today as counterpoint. August 24, 2012 at 12:40pm Reply

  • Rashid: Fame… ” contains “pulverized apricot, crushed heart of Tiger Orchidea, and tears of belladonna”.

    It reminds me of the movie Jason and the Argonauts of 2000, when princess Medea rubs an eternal oil on Jason before the bullfight, that “comes from the Caucasian Crocus, a flower of saffron color, the first flower sprung from the blood of Etheus…”

    I guess no matter how fancy the campaign sounds, a fragrance will speak for itself. August 24, 2012 at 12:55pm Reply

    • Suzanna: Rashid, they always do, don’t they?

      LOL re Jason and the Argonauts. August 24, 2012 at 4:02pm Reply

  • Lisa: I sampled Fame at Sephora from an advance tester and found it extraordinarily lacking, for a better word. My skin chemistry is very fickle, picking up something vile, screechy and shrill, an eau de public toilet cleaner note that overwhelmed everything else in the juice. After that finally went away, it smelled sort of like a nice shampoo. The perfume itself runs directly contrary to the ad campaign, IMHO. August 24, 2012 at 1:01pm Reply

    • Suzanna: It def. had that industrial smell to it Lisa, and I am glad you noticed it. There can often be such a fine line between functional fragrances and those meant for personal use. Here, the line is muddled. August 24, 2012 at 4:03pm Reply

  • Alyssa: Well, at least your review was great! 🙂 “if Gaga couldn’t have her bodily fluids, then at least she could have had a chypre” Amen, sister. August 24, 2012 at 3:31pm Reply

    • Suzanna: Thanks for the compliment, Alyssa! August 24, 2012 at 4:01pm Reply

    • annemariec: Yes, it is sounding as if the most enjoyment I’m going to get from Fame is Suzanna’s review.

      Still, I’ll give the perfume a go. Open mind, and all that … August 24, 2012 at 6:46pm Reply

  • Katrina: Fame won’t be out in Australia for a few more weeks and I can’t wait to try it and most likely buy it. It sounds like something I would like even though I was hoping for something a bit darker. August 24, 2012 at 6:25pm Reply

    • Suzanna: Katrina, there’s nothing dark about it. Still, anyone who likes creamy, powdery florals with light fruity accents may well like this one! August 25, 2012 at 12:01am Reply

  • Amer: too bad for Gaga. I thought she’d make the difference. I had found the mockumentary to be great fun and was hoping for a surreal and humorous approach to perfumery. Lets hope they will realize their mistake and issue a reformulation soon August 24, 2012 at 8:23pm Reply

    • Suzanna: Amer, you always make me smile! What would you suggest for reformulation? August 25, 2012 at 12:00am Reply

  • Joan: What a shame. I was looking forward to trying this one. Of course, Lady Gaga is a copout too. Her songs used to be catchy until she started singing about self-esteem and how she was “born this way”. She was better before she tried to be relatable. August 25, 2012 at 12:49am Reply

    • Suzanna: Yes, Joan, you’ve nailed it! Being relatable means the end of idiosyncrasy in art and in perfume! August 25, 2012 at 8:24am Reply

    • Camille: You could still try it…. August 25, 2012 at 2:10pm Reply

  • Chris: Hi. I’m disappointed that her perfume ended up being bland, as I’m sure I read she was aiming for the upper end of the market, rather than the typical celebrity brand demographic. However, just a note on the perfume not matching the image – I think this was somewhat intentional. Isn’t the ‘artistry’ behind it supposed to be that fame is sweet and alluring but dark and destructive? I am a Lady Gaga fan, but I do enjoy Klein’s promo for the perfume – I think it’s one of the best things either of them have done in a while. Particularly cool that it’s premiering at the Guggenheim museum. But still! Shame the perfume couldn’t rise above mediocrity! August 25, 2012 at 11:22am Reply

    • Lily: No No No Chris this is not cool that it is premiering at the Guggenheim – can you tell this is news to me? AND it makes me Hulk-sized angry!

      The video is awesome and a great perfume ad but it’s also highly derivative, and the last two teaser trailers are culled quite directly from the opening moments of Matthew Barney’s Cremaster art films (which are pretty well known), down to the Johnathan Bepler-style screechy audio crescendo. OMG the last one, released yesterday which has a lot of Gaga in the black bath, is recognizably Barneyesque. Barney’s final of the five Cr. films was showcased along with a huge installation and performance piece, in – you guessed it – the Guggenheim. **This is art theft.** Haus of Gaga can steal away from all the great artists around her from Madonna to McQueen and I love her product when she does – I LOVE the bad Bad Romance vid – but DON’T crib off an artist and then assume his site-specific Artist mantel b/c that is morally wrong. To me, as of now, Gaga is no artist, unless you count rip-off artist. :'( August 25, 2012 at 12:47pm Reply

      • Suzanna: Thanks for that info, Lily, and for adding to the discussion. I keep in mind that the Guggeheim welcomes this premiere with open arms, though, while obviously knowing of the similarity to the predecessor. August 25, 2012 at 1:19pm Reply

        • Lily: Yes, no doubt they welcome the $$$ too. Art and commerce are like cookies and milk. Cremaster was a cash cow for the Gug too, but as far as sellouts go the Fame thing is pretty bad. And it loses sight of the fact that as you point out in the review the perfume itself is lame even by celebrity scent standards. It’s as if Nicki Minaj bought some paint-by-number kits and they displayed them at MoMA. >:( August 25, 2012 at 1:36pm Reply

        • Lily: Also wanted to add that the tone of my comment was directed at the “Gaga ad at Guggenheim” news and not at Chris or Chris’ comment – it sounds like we both share sentiments about Lady Gaga, the Klein ad, and the fragrance. I’m usually more disimpassioned in my comments! August 25, 2012 at 2:07pm Reply

          • Suzanna: Lily, you always add so much to any discussion. Thanks for sharing your opinions! August 25, 2012 at 2:14pm Reply

      • Harold: I hope you’re well aware of the fact that it wasn’t just Gaga. Gaga, Steven Klein, and RSA Films created this ad. The ad is more Girl With The Dragon Tattoo and Prometheus than the things you mentioned, which makes sense because of Ridley Scott’s company producing the ad.

        You can talk about stealing, but don’t mention Madonna when trying to assert you views about the issue. That woman has stolen from more people in the past 30 years than every major popstar of today combined, and she’s been sued more than every major popstar of today combined.

        McQueen and Gaga were friends and he even premiered Bad Romance at his show. There was no stealing. August 26, 2012 at 11:42pm Reply

        • Suzanna: Let’s try to keep the discussion on topic–about the perfume! Thanks. August 27, 2012 at 8:11am Reply

        • Lily: Quick reply to Harold, I am an Alien fangirl so I am of Ridley Scott’s stewardship, Steven Klein a la Gaga’s Alejandro vid, and that the DP of the Gaga spot shot The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. I got Prometheus x Alejandro x TGWtDT title sequence – same black fluid, maybe same effects team? – and *I really like the ad* BUT as the subsequent teasers came out I also kept seeing more and more of the Matthew Barney influence. Going to the Guggenheim is assuming his mantel – Fame the perfume is arguably a weak release and a Guggenheim press party is just a self-congratulatory bridge too far IMO.

          And yes Madonna stole Vogue and everything else she’s done. And if you go frame by frame thru the Fame ad, you can see a little space jockey hidden in the background.

          Sorry to go off-topic, altho marketing is what moves mainstream perfume. August 29, 2012 at 12:39pm Reply

          • Lily: (should read “so I am *aware* of”) August 29, 2012 at 6:03pm Reply

  • Suzanna: Chris, it seems the promo is in keeping with what Gaga originally said about the aesthetic of this perfume. She mentioned much darker notes and ideas, and there was nothing said about any switch to a powdery floral. The ads are about as dark as they come! The perfume doesn’t reflect anything to me in particular other than standard fare on Sephora’s shelves, but that is just my impression. August 25, 2012 at 12:14pm Reply

  • Ronan Bennett: I have to disagree with a few of these views. I do believe that this fragrance is VERY Gaga as she is now. Lady Gaga has matured recently and has become a mysterious and enigmatic woman in a new, reformed kind of way. This fragrance reflects that.
    The fragrance is black in colour and sprays clear. Symbolic and reflective of her ever changing style. Upon sampling the perfume, it begins quite sharp and strong which could put people off — much like her herself. People who encounter her first may feel overwhelmed or intimidated. Then the fragrance changes to a sweeter more floral note which signifies her personality once you get to know her. And also her ever changing style once more. The fragrance continues to alternate between these two notes and, for me, this is Very Gaga.
    I was very satisfied with this fragrance and am delighted that it has gone to number one in the US. August 25, 2012 at 1:35pm Reply

    • Suzanna: Thanks for taking the time to share your point of view, Ronan! That is what makes for an interesting discussion of perfume. And this topic has covered a few bases!

      You may have a future in writing perfume copy! August 25, 2012 at 2:13pm Reply

    • Lily: Ronan I just read your comment and I think it’s a beautifully written argument! August 29, 2012 at 12:42pm Reply

  • Camille: I’d rather try it myself – you never know. August 25, 2012 at 2:07pm Reply

    • Suzanna: Camille, you never do know! August 25, 2012 at 2:13pm Reply

  • Carla: Brilliant ending to your review! August 25, 2012 at 2:42pm Reply

    • Suzanna: Why thank you, Carla! August 25, 2012 at 11:28pm Reply

  • Andrea: Hi all! I just wanted to put a few words in. I bought the perfume, however, I’m not a huge GAGA fan, although I do tend to love her more controversial songs. Anyways It just so happened that I ran out of the perfume that I have been wearing for 10 years now, gone through a couple bottles for SJP Lovely, But I ran out and decided I would go find a new one. I’m real big on having my perfume correspond to my chemistry, and Fame did this perfectly for me. It’s not for everyone and can even smell horrible on some people but on me its awesome! My boyfriend loves it and cant stay off me. My friend tried it too and hated it on herself and loved it on me. Even a girlfriend of a friend, whom I had just met, said she could smell a huge difference in the scent between me and my other friend. So take away all the marketing and the glitz of the GAGA name and you are left with a unique scent that complements a certain body chemistry. For me it works, for others it doesn’t. I could care less if its by Lady Gaga, it could have been by anybody, and if it smells as wonderful as it does on me, not just sprayed on a scent strip cause even thats different, I would still have bought it. August 26, 2012 at 3:38pm Reply

    • Suzanna: Andrea, thanks for stopping by and leaving your thoughts. Skin chemistry is a funny thing, as you point out. What works for one person will not for another! Enjoy your purchase! August 26, 2012 at 3:48pm Reply

  • hajusuuri: I smelled this on paper at Sephora today and also got a spray sample which I have not tried as yet. Part of me was curious to see if the perfume would turn clear once decanted (well, since it’s supposed to become clear once it hits air)…but the juice in my sample looks like dirty gray water, so I have to wonder if one needs to be careful because it may stain. Anyway, I’m on the fence about this and will need to use it a few times to decide. The price point is not bad.

    I also went to Nordstrom. The perfume testers there are usually on the counter, easily accessible and you can even make your own spray samples. To my surprise, but then again, maybe not, the Lady Gaga Fame bottle was actually tethered to the counter top display with a retractable string! What does this say about the type of people Nordstrom expects to try and/or buy this? August 26, 2012 at 9:05pm Reply

    • Suzanna: hajusuuri, this is interesting! And about the tethered bottles, shoplifting is always an issue in stores. I think the tethering is a response to the anticipated popularity/desirability and not a reflection of the type of people. August 27, 2012 at 12:16am Reply

  • Ducky: I am morbidly curious about the perfume. I can’t do strong flowery smells at all, they flare up migraines every time especially rose scents. Not quite sure as to why, but that’s beside the point. So the more powdery smell might actually suit me better. No telling until I try it I suppose. August 30, 2012 at 4:21am Reply

    • Suzanna: Ducky, no way around the fact that migraines can be set off by perfumes (I know from experience). I’d approach any new perfume with caution. This one is pretty dense, so sniff carefully. August 30, 2012 at 8:38am Reply

  • Elias: I guess being to much floral and sweetness ruined the deep darkness of the colour there is no harmony between the darkness of the fragrance which suppose to reflect the the dark soul of Fame according to gaga and the illumination of sweetness and fruity smells contadict the whole theme which is the darkness.

    I had expected mysterious spiritual smells with hidden sweetness and more deep dangerous shadows like what she showed in the commercial video that she made for the perfume.

    Sadly it is very disappointing 🙁 September 22, 2012 at 9:19am Reply

  • rachel: I think the perfume smells really good when it is freshly sprayed! But, when I’ve been wearing it for one or two hours, it smells like cigarette\ringolo chips September 23, 2012 at 9:21am Reply

  • isabelle: Got a bottle for half price in a bargain bin at Boot’s in London. First it smells like cough syrup than it evolves towards something like Glade, the interior perfume. All in all it’s very plain, basic stuff, smells lie an old lady house. February 25, 2013 at 6:33pm Reply

    • Suzanna: That’s some description, Isabelle! And it’s interesting that Fame has already made it to markdown. February 26, 2013 at 7:14am Reply

  • cara: I absolutely love this perfume! I got a roller of it at Sephora for around $20. Although the light scent is amazing, it does fade very quickly. I put some on this morning and i can barely smell it right now; I have to press my nose against my arm. But the roller tube is easy to carry in a purse, so I recommend it so that you can reapply. It is definitely more flowery than fruity, so if you don’t like that kind of thing, then stay away. But I love this fragrance and the black color is awesome. April 30, 2013 at 5:51pm Reply

  • Suzanna: It’s always good to hear from fans of a perfume, so thanks for stopping by! May 1, 2013 at 9:15am Reply

  • Louise: I do actually like Gaga’s Fame, as a fun, throwaway sort of scent, perfect for the younger crowd who it’s no doubt aimed at.
    Interesting that she said quite recently she “didn’t like selling her fragrances” (at 0:18).
    Wonder if the phase of “beginning to say No” was established by the time of Eau De Gaga’s release, which she did very little promotion for?
    (I’m probably on my own here, but I like both perfumes). December 18, 2015 at 5:01pm Reply

What do you think?

From the Archives

Latest Comments

Latest Tweets

Design by cre8d
© Copyright 2005-2021 Bois de Jasmin. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy