How do you derive (~P -> Q) from P v Q as the premise using Fitch?

I've been scratching my head about this for a while. I understand that the definition of an implication would make it ~~P v Q which is P v Q, but I can't figure out how to do it using the Fitch method. Any help is appreciated!

If you look at p. 208 of my Introduction to Formal Logic (the book is now freely downloadable from https://www.logicmatters.net/ifl) you'll find the proof you want [with the $P$ and $\neg P$ trivially the other way about].

I won't reproduce the proof here, however. That's because -- given that you have asked this elementary question -- I suspect that what you really need is a better grip on the basics about Fitch-style proofs. So can I suggest reading at least all of the two chapters on proofs with disjunctions and conditionals?