Untitled by choice

Photo

Thu, 23 May 2013 15:43:19 -0700

"Only in America can you be pro-death penalty, pro-war, pro-unmanned drone bombs, pro-nuclear..."

Thu, 23 May 2013 15:13:04 -0700

““Only in America can you be pro-death penalty, pro-war, pro-unmanned drone bombs, pro-nuclear weapons, pro-guns, pro-torture, pro-land mines, and still call yourself ‘pro-life.’””

- John Fugelsang

over 3k notes fuck yeah

(via araberber)

I wanna be the one to put it in a song: Copyrights vs. Trademarks

Thu, 23 May 2013 14:50:59 -0700

fyeahcopyright:

A lot of people have a lot of opinions about the place of fanfiction and copyright in the wake of Amazon’s announcement that they will publish and sell fanfiction for specific franchises. One author/fanauthor I follow sifted through the whole mess and had some questions lingering before she would hypothetically allow her original worlds to be available in this Amazon project:

Will I lose my copyright in the world/characters I’ve created if I allow others to use them or if I look the other way if someone else uses them in something that’s commercial? ? Further, what copyright do the fanfic writers retain on their work using my world/characters? How would that pan out?

One very common copyright myth that goes around is that your copyright will expire if you don’t vigorously protect it. Author Orson Scott Card has famously said ”if I do NOT act vigorously to protect my copyright, I will lose that copyright.”

Not only is this wrong, but it displays a fundamental misunderstanding of what copyright is, and how copyright functions under the Intellectual Property umbrella. Patents are about unique, non-obvious inventions. Trademarks are about branding. Copyright is about authorship.

Let’s take a look at all the music downloading cases— we all know the stories: you download one song off The Pirate Bay, your IP gets flagged, and the next thing you know you’re getting served with papers suing you for $150,000 per song you ever downloaded.

But let’s break down how these suits work: torrents are peer to peer networks, which means there’s an entire group of people downloading and uploading the same song/tv episode/movie simultaneously out of a decentralized web. Hypothetical You, who is now a defendant, is the only one of the swarm being sued. The record label is going after only one person.

However, the record label’s choice to bring one suit at a time doesn’t damage their ability to later go after anyone else in the swarm. If in two years they decide to pull your neighbor’s IP address out of the hat, they still have a valid case against your neighbor.

Not only that, but ignoring a thousand other people downloading the file doesn’t mean they’ve given up the copyright. Even if they never sued anyone for infringement for the download, they’d still own the copyright, and can still go after anyone who downloaded it.

The same holds true for fanfiction: our use of these worlds in no way diminishes or devalues the copyright the author holds in the original work.

Trademarks and copyrights aren’t the same thing. Copyright exists automatically in anything you create, but trademarks only exist for something you’re marketing, selling, promoting or using as a brand. And if you don’t protect your trademark against infringers, you run the risk of losing it, because if the awesome phrase you’re using as your trademark becomes associated with things not created by you & yours, then it no longer identifies only your stuff/goods/services/brand.

(This doesn’t mean you can - or should - go after anyone who uses the same phrase or design in any context, because other people who use your trademark in limited ways, such as to describe your thing or compare their stuff to yours, or in a narrative context, or in a transformative work, can do so. You don’t have to try to stop them, and the lack of trying won’t impact your trademark rights.)

fishingboatproceeds: TRIGGER WARNING: Rape, misogyny, general...

Thu, 23 May 2013 13:49:32 -0700

fishingboatproceeds:

TRIGGER WARNING: Rape, misogyny, general horribleness

I am asked all the time why I think Professional Internet Types tend to be male more often than female. Is it because women aren’t as aggressive about building an audience and so struggle amid the media saturation? Is it because women aren’t as funny, or aren’t as talented, or blah blah blah?

Maybe we need to consider that one of the central reasons women artists/vloggers/musicians/etc. are less likely to rise to prominence online is that whenever women build an audience online, men threaten those women with rape and murder. And unlike traditional celebrities, most of these women do not have the resources to hire the kind of lawyers and bodyguards that one needs to stay safe.

Like all misogyny, and I want to emphasize this, this is bad not just for women but also for all human beings. We are better off as a species if everyone has a chance to be heard, and we are worse off if talented people like Kitty Pryde don’t have the basic safety and security that one needs in order to effectively make and share stuff.

But it’s not just these kinds of horrifying threats (which as pointed out above is “the most normal thing”).

I also want to say something to all those guys who are like I was as a teenager: You’re not a sick person trying to get someone’s attention by harming or threatening them, but you do have a weird relationship with the women who make work you like. You think that if this person knew you, you could be friends…maybe more than friends. And so you want to get her attention, so you can get to know each other, because then you’ll definitely become friends or maybe—

Stop.

When you start falling down that rabbit hole, stop. I know it’s hard. But stop.

What we love—even if these people make highly personal and confessional vlogs or whatever—is the stuff they make, not the people themselves. And what we really want is for more of that stuff to exist in the world. So the only proper way to be a fan is to let them be, so that they can bring more good and useful stuff into the world for us to enjoy.

hellotailor: cthonical: a-sensitive-psychopath: deathpoolquinn...

Thu, 23 May 2013 13:17:36 -0700

hellotailor:

cthonical:

a-sensitive-psychopath:

deathpoolquinn:

I’m CRYInG

Nothing has ever explained our fandom SO well

That’s it that’s the fandom shjfdhsdjfkhskfgffffff

hannibal fandom. HANNIBAL FANDOM……….

THIS FUCKING FANDOM.

sirdef: ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME Has anyone shown this to...

Thu, 23 May 2013 12:37:16 -0700

sirdef:

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME

Has anyone shown this to Gyzym yet?

penguinsweaters: brooklynmutt: “Well this looks familiar:...

Thu, 23 May 2013 11:20:53 -0700

penguinsweaters:

brooklynmutt:

“Well this looks familiar: every lawmaker at the House hearing on the nationwide 20-week abortion ban is a man.” - @LEBassett

What does it say about US politics that I’m not even surprised by this?

lunsfuhd: kirkspocks: buzzfeedceleb: Benedict Cumberbatch...

Thu, 23 May 2013 08:45:12 -0700

lunsfuhd:

kirkspocks:

buzzfeedceleb:

Benedict Cumberbatch deleted shower scene from Star Trek Into Darkness

#HE LOOKS LIKE A CAT GETTING A BATH

Oh so it’s okay for us to freak out over Benedict’s shirtless scene and have multiple scenes of Pine being in underwear but the same people who enjoy those scenes are the ones who are up in arms about this:

Double fucking standard.

*Walks into debate 15 mins late carrying Starbucks*

Mr. Lunsford, I’m sorry to pile on about this but I think you’re missing a few key points in the mess. You say you’re for equality, and that’s good. That’s fantastic. But I don’t think you see why things are unequal at present, and why the picture you posted is a problem.

For full disclosure, I have yet to see Into Darkness, though I plan on going eventually. I’m working off what I’ve seen in trailers, and the bits of interviews that have filtered down to me.

First, lets start with camera angles: In the .gif of Cumberbatch, we see the camera zoom in and up from his chest to his face. Effectively, this tells us that yes, we’re showing off his body, but ultimately, we’re focusing on his face, on his expression, on what he’s about to say (if he says anything in this scene, and I’m guessing he does.)

In the screencap you posted, We see a full zoomed out bodyshot of Alice Eve in her underwear, top of her head barely in frame. We are also standing below her, looking up, so that her body fills in the central part of the frame: Her boobs are where Benedict’s eyes end up. Her chest is where we look expecting to see a face.

Second, let’s talk about who made the decision to have each of these actors nearly naked. If Alice Eve was just that proud of her body and wanted to show it off, good for her. That’s absolutely fine, and I support HER decision to show off her body in any way that SHE wants. However, because this is a film, she is not the one making her own wardrobe choices. I haven’t looked at the credits to see who the production designer is, but chances are it’s a man. A MAN is making the decision to put her in her underwear screaming her face off.

When she says in interviews that she’s proud of the work she put in to be able to pull off this scene it changes nothing, because it wasn’t her decision to stand around in her underwear. The mere fact that she was asked a question about this is a problem: men answer characterization questions all the time. Women get asked what they ate to fit into their costumes (see last year’s Avengers press tours where the character who solves everything, Black Widow, gets asked questions about her underwear and tight costume at press junkets).

Again, I have not actually seen the movie yet, but ask yourself: could she have been completely clothed and still carried out the point of the scene? I’m guessing the answer is yes. Ultimately, this scene with Cumberbatch got cut, because it didn’t serve the overall plot. But Alice Eve’s scene likely could have been filmed just fine with her fully clothed, and we’d lose nothing of the story. The decision to keep her scene in, with her nearly naked cements the idea that she’s decorative only.

When you say that Cumberbatch’s cut scene scene and multiple scenes of Pine shirtless are the same thing, they’re not. Catering to the female gaze is a very new thing in media, and most movies that do swing this way get categorized as “chick flicks”, ie, not serious film to be taken seriously by men.

When you say that we are objectifying men in scene’s like the one above, and all of Pine’s shirtless scene’s, we’re really not. We are not taking these fully fleshed out male characters and reducing them to sex objects only. They are only occasionally being shown shirtless to cater to a female gaze instead of a male gaze. Even if there was a male character whose sole purpose was to stand around shirtless, for female audiences to oogle, it would not carry the same history of misogyny, rape culture and oppression that doing the same with a female character does. Again, catering to a female gaze is a new thing. (We won’t get into why it’s arguable that this is even what’s happening, but there are tons of excellent discussions in comic fandoms over this same topic - generally showing a well muscled man in a tight costume is a male power fantasy, not a female sexual one. See this comic from Shortpacked.)

Mr. Lunsford, I highly doubt that at this point in the debate you’ve read this far. If you have, thank you. I know you say you believe in equality, but please make more of an effort to understand why these two things are only equal on the surface.

wtfevolution: One night evolution had a vision of a world where...

Thu, 23 May 2013 08:16:20 -0700

wtfevolution:

One night evolution had a vision of a world where things were perfect. Life coexisted peacefully with other life; nobody fought or died or ate each other’s entrails. There were no monsters in the ocean, only leafy sea dragons, fluttering calmly back and forth to keep everyone safe. It was a world of serenity, a world of quiet splendor, where everything was beautiful and nothing hurt.

leafy sea dragons are the best. totally beautiful and ridiculous animals.

mattbomeritalia: USA Network Modern Family “Frames” 2012...

Thu, 23 May 2013 07:44:13 -0700

mattbomeritalia:

USA Network Modern Family “Frames” 2012 Upfront Reel

Photo

Thu, 23 May 2013 07:39:31 -0700

weeaboo-chan: ok so i tried to find out what breed of cattle...

Wed, 22 May 2013 21:43:00 -0700

weeaboo-chan:

ok so i tried to find out what breed of cattle this is and i havent been successful but i found these two

and their names are texas tornado and johnny football

the pics are from this website

edit: they are apparently called Double Bred Composite Charolais (fancy ass cows)

Hey Fortysixthhour! I think we need a few of these cows for our farm in new zealand.

tielan: Well, it’s certainly a very distinctive safety talk!

Wed, 22 May 2013 21:42:03 -0700

tielan:

Well, it’s certainly a very distinctive safety talk!

ashley-de-riveter: I can’t will all the beauty and grace that’s...

Wed, 22 May 2013 21:35:47 -0700

ashley-de-riveter:

I can’t will all the beauty and grace that’s going on here.

The ladies all dressed up to accept the award for Outstanding Drama at the Gracie Awards.

Photo credits: M Public Relations, Jodi Belfour, and
Janis Lundman

Is it just me or is Ali Leibert’s outfit a subtle TARDIS cosplay?

leupagus: mnemehoshiko: rob-anybody: merfology: textiledreams...

Wed, 22 May 2013 14:00:22 -0700

leupagus:

mnemehoshiko:

rob-anybody:

merfology:

textiledreams:

“Supercolorfragilistic” bulky handspun

Chain ply but the color sections were too short for it to show

pretty!

#yarn you might just be the most gorgeous skein I’ve ever seen #I would knit the shit out of you #but in a respectful way where I would then make you breakfast in the morning #I don’t remember what my knitting tag is (cortue)

Reblogging because Sarah’s tags are completely accurate and absolutely hysterical.

…damn that is a gorgeous skein

That horrible moment when you realize three different people you follow all a) know each other and b) are dirty knitting perverts.

Jumping on the dirty knitting pervert pile because omg that is some gorgeous yarn.

fortysixthhour: untitledbychoice: fortysixthhour: cleolinda: Still on the Amazon fanfic thing,...

Wed, 22 May 2013 13:50:54 -0700

fortysixthhour:

untitledbychoice:

fortysixthhour:

cleolinda:

Still on the Amazon fanfic thing, sorry

I’m rambling now, but the tl;dr is that I’m not worried about fic becoming illegal or that amazon and WB will start sending out C&D letters. I am worried about a trend towards fanfic and fandom culture as a commercial thing, and not a thing by fans for fans, where we’ve carved out safe spaces for ourselves.

Thanks for the explanation! But you say that fic isn’t illegal right now… but what about authors like Anne Rice and Anne McCaffrey and George RR Martin who hate fic, and have C&D letters sent to anyone who writes fic about “their” universe? If an author can do it, why can’t a company?

Just because they’re sending out C&D letters doesn’t mean that they’ll win in court. (I’ve seen people send C&D letters with fraudulent allegations to get out of contracts they don’t like anymore.) People send those because they tend to scare the peasants - you get a letter on official letterhead saying STOP WHAT YOU’RE DOING OR I’LL TAKE EVERYTHING YOU LOVE and you stop. If it came down to it in court, it’s doubtful they would win.

astolat: Cherrypicking and signalboosting this from the OTW...

Wed, 22 May 2013 13:03:51 -0700

astolat:

Cherrypicking and signalboosting this from the OTW post today because it’s really important IMO and it’s a quick and easy thing you can do to help:

http://fixthedmca.org/unlocking-technology-act.html

In short, this amends the DMCA so that getting around digital rights management (DRM) software is only illegal if you’re doing it in order to circumvent copyright. This is super important for vidders — we would no longer have to constantly go after an exemption.

Please take a look at the site and take a few minutes to call your reps!

Signal boost!

Re: the Amazon thing. Thoughts on what happens when (and sadly I think it's 'when') someone plagarizes a fic, but publishes it via Amazon? What happens? Who wins? (I know we don't have enough info to even remotely answer this satisfactorily, but preliminary thoughts?)

Wed, 22 May 2013 12:50:27 -0700

That’s a complicated situation. I’m mostly going on stream of thought here, with no organization:

Obviously, copyright vests with the original author, but I doubt anyone’s registering fic with the copyright office, and registration is usually what’s used to prove first authorship. But given that things are posted publicly in fandom, there’s definitely proof of who posted it first.

On the other hand, the plagiarist has a “license” to do it, so there’s competing interests there.

Honestly, I”m not sure what would happen. I think we need to see exactly how this is going to work.

fortysixthhour: cleolinda: Still on the Amazon fanfic thing, sorry Mildly-supported intuition as...

Wed, 22 May 2013 11:34:27 -0700

fortysixthhour:

cleolinda:

Still on the Amazon fanfic thing, sorry

Mildly-supported intuition as to what I think Amazon’s doing here. Short version: Acquire material for tie-in books they don’t have to adequately compensate for (as greyduck mentions in the comments—also possibly an idea farm for future TV episodes); prevent another Fifty Shades of Grey scenario where everyone makes out like a bandit except the original inspiration/rights holder; exploit a creative community without understanding how it works.

A comment I just added, as well: I see a majority of fandom writers (and readers?) not being on board, but the writers who do publish through Amazon appealing to non-fandom readers. Which may be all Amazon wants after all—a few potential tie-ins, not the entire conversion of fandom for profit. The real problem would come in if whoever decided to stop any fanfic that wasn’t published for profit through Amazon. That would be like herding cats (and then trying to issue them C&Ds), though.

The real problem would come in if whoever decided to stop any fanfic that wasn’t published for profit through Amazon.

This is what is freaking me out the most about this situation. I don’t understand how the legal system works (does anyone?!). But it seems to me that if WB has an “official” source of fanfiction, they can then say “look, there are people infringing on our market, sue them!”. I feel like this is similar to the Jayne Hat situation that occurred recently; for 10 years, Fox didn’t care about Jayne hats. Then they started selling their own official versions. And now it’s illegal to make Jayne hats. What’s to stop WB from doing the same with fanfiction?

As someone who spent a lot of money and time to learn how the legal system works, here goes:

I’m not worried about fic becoming “illegal”. Recent trends in copyright law and policy are towards opening up space for fan creations (see: you’re allowed to rip DVDs for vidding purposes - it’s perfectly legal under the copyright act.) Fic is, and unless this trend completely reverses itself, totally legal under fair use. That much is not in danger.

What I am worried about is a trend towards rights owners trying to take control of fandom spaces. I think a lot of rightsholders see things like Fifty Shades and want to recreate that situation with the money flowing towards them. With fandom gaining ground in mainstream media (Remember Lev Grossman’s article?) it’s no longer just that thing your weird nerdy friend from high school did.

Look at Star Trek: years and years and years of jokes about “trekkies” as geeks in basements who have no social life and spend all their time at conventions. Now, we just saw the release of the second reboot movie with HUGE fanfare. The franchise is now something cool.

The same thing is happening with fic, but no one’s earning money on it. WB and Amazon saw the opportunity to earn a few bucks out of a culture that is largely free and went for it. Attempting to exploit niche markets is not a new thing.

But what happens when they want a bigger slice? I know for a fact that there are tons of lawyers in fandom who will go after any attempt to shut down spaces like AO3 (I’m one of them). Now that people are realizing that fandom has money to spend, they’re trying to get it. Notice all the exclusives available at SDCC.

I’m rambling now, but the tl;dr is that I’m not worried about fic becoming illegal or that amazon and WB will start sending out C&D letters. I am worried about a trend towards fanfic and fandom culture as a commercial thing, and not a thing by fans for fans, where we’ve carved out safe spaces for ourselves.

Arizona’s Ban on Abortions Struck Down in Federal Court - NYTimes.com

Wed, 22 May 2013 09:53:15 -0700

Arizona’s Ban on Abortions Struck Down in Federal Court - NYTimes.com:

A federal appellate panel struck down Arizona’s abortion law on Tuesday, saying it was unconstitutional “under a long line of invariant Supreme Court precedents” that guarantee a woman’s right to end a pregnancy any time before a fetus is deemed viable outside her womb — generally at 24 weeks.

The law, enacted in April 2012 despite vociferous protest by women’s and civil rights groups, made abortions illegal if performed 20 weeks after a woman’s last menstrual period, or roughly 18 weeks after fertilization, even if the woman learned that the fetus had no chance of surviving after birth. At 18 weeks, many fetal abnormalities can be detected through sonograms.

In its opinion, the panel of three judges assigned to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco wrote that a fetus’s viability “varies from pregnancy to pregnancy,” which should be determined by doctors, not legislators.