A Sassination

I'm a competitive debating, swing-dancing, feminism-loving law student. Be aware that I sprinkle my writing with liberal amounts of obscenities, vulgarities, profanities, expletives, and just plain naughty words.

gailsimone:

5ummit:

angelus-a-gratia-exciderunt:

And he is so cute too… Osric talks about how he wanted to be stunt guy, but he wasn’t good enough so he became an actor. HE STILL DOES THIS THOUGH. BECAUSE HE IS FOLLOWING HIS DREAMS. ANY. WAY. HE. CAN. 

This has been me telling you: if you don’t love Osric Chau, you are doing it wrong.

Petition for Osric Chau to play Shang-Chi

Or Ryan Choi!

(Source: cool-antonia-summer)

kingtrinbago:

The Greatest Thing Since Sliced Bread

WHY DID I NOT FIND OUT ABOUT THESE UNTIL AFTER I FINISHED LAW SCHOOL

I AM ACTUALLY SO ANGRY RIGHT NOW

(via atomicsorcerer)

ghostferry:

cheatthis:

me all through class today:

image

actually you know what i’m going to reblog this one, this gif is the most amazing canadian facepalm you will ever see

Paul Dewar is a delightful human being.

Paul Calandra, on the other hand, not so much.

salparadisewasright:

estufar:

An actual headline from The New York Times in 1919 


I love this so much.

salparadisewasright:

estufar:

An actual headline from The New York Times in 1919 

I love this so much.

(via gingerhaze)

sewerclown:

ok i officially need to read this. if it’s ACTUALLY about them and they’re not a side note in a boring male power fantasy

(Source: breakourbones, via tariqk)

moniquill:

folieadontleaveryan:

map-of-problematique:

shawnsmirk:

I WANT TO DYE MY HAIR BLUE

I WANT A NOSE RING

I WANT A TATTOO

I WANT TO DO THINGS

WITH MY OWN BODY

BUT I CANT

BECAUSE OF SCHOOL

AND ALSO BECAUSE MY MOM

MOSTLY BECAUSE MY MOM

Don’t fret young one. One day you’ll be old enough and independent enough that you can replace ‘because of school’ and ‘because of mom’ with ‘because of job’

ughhh because of job

I just want to be a lawyer with blue hair why is that not a reasonable thing to be

misotrashy:

knitmeapony:

ONE TWEET. THIS FIT IN ONE TWEET. IF YOU FUCK IT UP YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE.

So much of this. An apology is NOT “I’m sorry BUT here’s why I’m totally in the right and think I did nothing wrong.”


Also not “I’m sorry YOU FELT THAT I did [thing].” Just accept that you screwed up, and then learn from it. View high resolution

misotrashy:

knitmeapony:

ONE TWEET. THIS FIT IN ONE TWEET. IF YOU FUCK IT UP YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE.

So much of this. 

An apology is NOT “I’m sorry BUT here’s why I’m totally in the right and think I did nothing wrong.”

Also not “I’m sorry YOU FELT THAT I did [thing].”

Just accept that you screwed up, and then learn from it.

(Source: ethiopienne, via alieeila)

fyeahcopyright:

In the last few days, a number of Teen Wolf fanartists with stores on RedBubble have posted/tweeted about takedowns by RedBubble of some of the items in their stores. From what we’ve been told, all the items either had “Teen Wolf” in the tags, in the item or store description and/or in the item/store title; RedBubble isn’t claiming ownership of the works, and the language in the emails doesn’t say whether Viacom complained, or whether someone “authorized to act on their behalf” (namely, Redbubble themselves) cited the work as having issues.
This is not the first time RedBubble has taken down merch and sent an email to the store operator; RedBubble does this when their bots ”see” something that could be infringing (even if it isn’t) and generally RB tells the site operator that they were taken down after RedBubble ”received a complaint from [a major multinational rightsholder], the claimed owner or licensee of related intellectual property, and in accordance with Redbubble’s IP/Publicity Rights Policy.”
Back in 2003, CafePress took down fanart inspired by the Harry Potter characters from HPEF’s Nimbus - 2003 fancon store, because the site’s bot did some image recognition thing and CP’s policy was to take things down if the image matched up with images submitted by the copyright and/or trademark-holders. We replied to CafePress, explained that the works were transformative works and didn’t have any trademarks on them, and they were put back up shortly thereafter. Similar things have happened over the past 11 years. Every single popular show/film/brand/band/comic/series is included by CP and RB in their “usage review” systems.
As CP said in a recent annual report, ” We maintain content usage review systems that, through a combination of manual and automated blocks, monitor potentially infringing content of which we become aware.” Redbubble said something similar this summer:

Although we’re not required by law, we take further proactive efforts on many occasions and work closely with numerous content owners, brands and individual artists to minimize instances of third party infringement of intellectual property rights via the Redbubble marketplace. 

They don’t always notify the copyrightholders or trademark owners expeditiously; CP and RB’s bots check the images and the descriptions and take things down just because the IP owner has put their brands and sometimes their art into the CP and RB content management system. That doesn’t mean there aren’t “false positives” - the content management system doesn’t check for fair use or parodies or commentary/criticism, and we’ll explain how to make them aware of that below.
The laws in the US regarding transformative works and copyright infringement have expanded over the last decade to define more things as Fair Use - and the bots that stores like CafePress and RedBubble use have become more precise; they’re similar to “Search By Image” on google. However, the laws regarding trademark infringement in this sort of situation are relatively unchanged.
Fanart shared in the “gift economy” is fair use; we posted extensively about noncommercially distributed fanart back in January. Selling fan art may also be fair use as a matter of law, for purposes of determining whether it infringes on someone else’s copyright.  However, even if a work is fair use under copyright law, selling it in connection with someone else’s trademarks may constitute trademark infringement.
It’s not a given - it won’t always. If the marks are used descriptively, if they’re used to compare things, etc., it may not be trademark infringement. But you are less likely to get a takedown notice if you don’t include tags that are a show or film or band’s trademark - use a shortened version of the show title (TW, ST, SPN, AOS, etc.) or a ship name or a character’s last name instead.
If you do get a takedown notice and you think that what’s been taken down is fair use, you are allowed to respond and explain why the work is noninfringing. You can discuss these factors:
1. The purpose and character of the work (Is the fanart transformative? Was it made for non-commercial purposes? Selling something on RB impacts on this factor, but it’s not the only element at issue, especially if the fanart doesn’t replicate something seen on screen or in a comic strip panel.)
2. The amount and substantiality of the copyrighted work used (How much of the copyrighted work was used and why was it used? For fanart, usually little if any of the copyrighted work was used.)
3. The effect on the market of the copyrighted work (Will the work be used as a substitute for the original copyrighted work or impact the market for sales of merchandise related to the original copyrighted work?)
You also might want to include language inspired by this:

As fair use is a lawful use of a third party’s copyright, to the extent that this art uses another’s copyright, it should be deemed fair use under 17 USC 107 because it is (a) transformative and (b) does not adversely affect the market or potential market of the original work or derivative works. When determining if fair use is applicable and thus a work noninfringing, the central purpose of said investigation [into purpose and character of use] is to see … whether the new work merely “supersede[s] the objects” of the original creation, or instead adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message; it asks, in other words, whether and to what extent the new work is “transformative.” Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579, 114 S.Ct. 1164, 127 L.Ed.2d 500 (1994), Zomba Enterprises, Inc.; Zomba Songs, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Panorama Records, Inc., Defendant-Appellant., 491 F.3d 574 (6th Cir. 2007).


 Takedowns like this happen all the time; they happen when they’re justifiable because someone’s uploaded a show-created poster as a Redbubble tote bag or CafePress coaster, they happen when someone “markets” their fanart using a trademark that the show’s creators or distributors own, and they happen when works are completely noncommercial and only on display. Absent other information, it’s not practical to assume that it’s part of a crackdown on specific artists or ships, and with regard to what’s happened to some Teen Wolf artists this week, it’s impossible to even know if the takedowns were because the trademarks were used, or because of the images themselves. We’d love more info, though - so if your art has been taken down on RedBubble and you weren’t using Teen Wolf - or any character names - in the tags or descriptions, and you’ve submitted a “Fair Use” counternotice, and it still hasn’t gone back up even though a few business days have passed, please let us know and we’ll see if we can learn more.
Follow FYeahCopyright for more on legal issues of concern to fandomers.

fyeahcopyright:

In the last few days, a number of Teen Wolf fanartists with stores on RedBubble have posted/tweeted about takedowns by RedBubble of some of the items in their stores. From what we’ve been told, all the items either had “Teen Wolf” in the tags, in the item or store description and/or in the item/store title; RedBubble isn’t claiming ownership of the works, and the language in the emails doesn’t say whether Viacom complained, or whether someone “authorized to act on their behalf” (namely, Redbubble themselves) cited the work as having issues.

This is not the first time RedBubble has taken down merch and sent an email to the store operator; RedBubble does this when their bots ”see” something that could be infringing (even if it isn’t) and generally RB tells the site operator that they were taken down after RedBubble ”received a complaint from [a major multinational rightsholder], the claimed owner or licensee of related intellectual property, and in accordance with Redbubble’s IP/Publicity Rights Policy.”

Back in 2003, CafePress took down fanart inspired by the Harry Potter characters from HPEF’s Nimbus - 2003 fancon store, because the site’s bot did some image recognition thing and CP’s policy was to take things down if the image matched up with images submitted by the copyright and/or trademark-holders. We replied to CafePress, explained that the works were transformative works and didn’t have any trademarks on them, and they were put back up shortly thereafter. Similar things have happened over the past 11 years. Every single popular show/film/brand/band/comic/series is included by CP and RB in their “usage review” systems.

As CP said in a recent annual report, ” We maintain content usage review systems that, through a combination of manual and automated blocks, monitor potentially infringing content of which we become aware.” Redbubble said something similar this summer:

Although we’re not required by law, we take further proactive efforts on many occasions and work closely with numerous content owners, brands and individual artists to minimize instances of third party infringement of intellectual property rights via the Redbubble marketplace.

They don’t always notify the copyrightholders or trademark owners expeditiously; CP and RB’s bots check the images and the descriptions and take things down just because the IP owner has put their brands and sometimes their art into the CP and RB content management system. That doesn’t mean there aren’t “false positives” - the content management system doesn’t check for fair use or parodies or commentary/criticism, and we’ll explain how to make them aware of that below.

The laws in the US regarding transformative works and copyright infringement have expanded over the last decade to define more things as Fair Use - and the bots that stores like CafePress and RedBubble use have become more precise; they’re similar to “Search By Image” on google. However, the laws regarding trademark infringement in this sort of situation are relatively unchanged.

Fanart shared in the “gift economy” is fair use; we posted extensively about noncommercially distributed fanart back in January. Selling fan art may also be fair use as a matter of law, for purposes of determining whether it infringes on someone else’s copyright.  However, even if a work is fair use under copyright law, selling it in connection with someone else’s trademarks may constitute trademark infringement.

It’s not a given - it won’t always. If the marks are used descriptively, if they’re used to compare things, etc., it may not be trademark infringement. But you are less likely to get a takedown notice if you don’t include tags that are a show or film or band’s trademark - use a shortened version of the show title (TW, ST, SPN, AOS, etc.) or a ship name or a character’s last name instead.

If you do get a takedown notice and you think that what’s been taken down is fair use, you are allowed to respond and explain why the work is noninfringing. You can discuss these factors:

1. The purpose and character of the work (Is the fanart transformative? Was it made for non-commercial purposes? Selling something on RB impacts on this factor, but it’s not the only element at issue, especially if the fanart doesn’t replicate something seen on screen or in a comic strip panel.)

2. The amount and substantiality of the copyrighted work used (How much of the copyrighted work was used and why was it used? For fanart, usually little if any of the copyrighted work was used.)

3. The effect on the market of the copyrighted work (Will the work be used as a substitute for the original copyrighted work or impact the market for sales of merchandise related to the original copyrighted work?)

You also might want to include language inspired by this:

As fair use is a lawful use of a third party’s copyright, to the extent that this art uses another’s copyright, it should be deemed fair use under 17 USC 107 because it is (a) transformative and (b) does not adversely affect the market or potential market of the original work or derivative works. When determining if fair use is applicable and thus a work noninfringing, the central purpose of said investigation [into purpose and character of use] is to see … whether the new work merely “supersede[s] the objects” of the original creation, or instead adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message; it asks, in other words, whether and to what extent the new work is “transformative.” Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579, 114 S.Ct. 1164, 127 L.Ed.2d 500 (1994), Zomba Enterprises, Inc.; Zomba Songs, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Panorama Records, Inc., Defendant-Appellant., 491 F.3d 574 (6th Cir. 2007).

 Takedowns like this happen all the time; they happen when they’re justifiable because someone’s uploaded a show-created poster as a Redbubble tote bag or CafePress coaster, they happen when someone “markets” their fanart using a trademark that the show’s creators or distributors own, and they happen when works are completely noncommercial and only on display. Absent other information, it’s not practical to assume that it’s part of a crackdown on specific artists or ships, and with regard to what’s happened to some Teen Wolf artists this week, it’s impossible to even know if the takedowns were because the trademarks were used, or because of the images themselves. We’d love more info, though - so if your art has been taken down on RedBubble and you weren’t using Teen Wolf - or any character names - in the tags or descriptions, and you’ve submitted a “Fair Use” counternotice, and it still hasn’t gone back up even though a few business days have passed, please let us know and we’ll see if we can learn more.

Follow FYeahCopyright for more on legal issues of concern to fandomers.

nezua:

5centsapound:

Disarming Design from Palestine


Disarming Design from Palestine is an inclusive design label that presents functional products from Palestine, that provide an alternative narrative from what you might usually find in the high street. The collection includes objects such as hourglasses that use cement from the separation wall, a dress made out of one keffiyeh, embroidered car decorations, scarfs depicting landscapes, olive leaves as earrings and an impossible chess game with water tanks and watch towers. The growing collection of products is presented on-line and through a traveling exhibition.*

As a collection it aims to represent Palestinian culture in its current reality and reflect upon the function of art in situations of conflict.

The goods are developed, designed and produced by contemporary designers, artists and students in collaboration with local artisans and producers.

During several ‘create-shops’ they engage in an enriching design dialogue with small emerging businesses and international colleagues. The project aims to catalyze the development of design as a discourse in Palestine.

Deep.

(via jhameia)

yamino:

Another favorite architect of mine is Antoni Gaudí.  I think his art just speaks for itself, don’t you?

(via blackinkpen)

Ultralite Powered by Tumblr | Designed by:Doinwork