sorry late post;;

Petyr x Sansa Week: Day 1 Silk or Knowledge

Professor/Student AU. Professor Baelish has a hard time not picking favorites in his finance class. Especially with the beautiful redhead who always shows up early, and seems to enjoy coming to every office hour he has.

I’m pretty dang sick at the moment, but if I don’t move, like, at all, I feel pretty OK. So I’ll do that for a while and then I’m like “Oh, Artie, you were just exaggerating about being sick, you’re totally fine, stop being melodramatic” and I’ll believe it

and then I get up or move or try to do something and its like I’ve gone through a portal to hell and I remember “oh yea, I wasn’t exaggerating”

✧・゚: *✧・゚:* Pastel Witch! Hux and Monster! Kylo *:・゚✧*:・゚✧

Based on @smol-hux‘s Theme day AU, I’m having a super time doing these!

zoom under the cut

Keep reading

So much going on today!! Good old Cris at business-direction has found another example of a contract that she thinks justifies the theories they have about Larry: http://business-direction.tumblr.com/post/149344299993/entertainment-contract-excerpts

She says:

(…) the clauses were so outrageous that I wanted to share a bit. This is the best example I’ve seen, in contract language, of what 1D and Zayn have been up against. Because if a short-term player has to sign something this outrageous, you know that people that expected to be publicized in a far more traditional way have similar language in their contracts.

OK, so… I googled some of the language she quotes, and it seems to be from UFC or MMA fighter contracts. Certainly the middle section she quotes appears almost exactly, and it doesn’t look like this has necessarily become widespread standard language, as far as I can tell. I don’t know if the leaked contract is the source for her quotes - I didn’t find the other 2 sections exactly word for word, but it’s likely just a different version of the same type of contract (an ironic little Larry microcosm where she’s sharing a bit of this “secret info” she’s gotten but an entire contract is out there).

So here’s the thing - yes, these contracts are absolutely ridiculous, restrictive, exploitative, outrageous - but as soon as it leaked, people noticed. I found multiple articles expressing concern for what this might mean for the fighters and pointing out how over the top and unfair it is, which I quoted below the cut. This might be “just how things are,” but observers aren’t just shrugging it off and saying “oh well, this is normal.” The assumption that 1D would have similar (or even more restrictive) language is extremely flawed.

First off, here’s an example of what the part of the contract that’s bolded in b-d’s post (“exclusive worldwide right to use, display, disseminate, edit, reproduce, print, publish and make any other use of the name, sobriquet, image, likeness, voice, persona, signature, and biographical material of Fighter,” in this version) actually means in terms of impact on the fighters’ lives (from here):

UFC’s latest game with EA Sports leverages the license and showcases the world’s best MMA fighters to promote the upcoming release of the game in the spring of 2014. EA Sports has built marketing materials around the star power of Jon Jones, as seen in this screen shot above. Implementing tech dubbed MMAi, EA Sports has programmed the digital Jon Jones to fight with a strategy and the mind of the real-life Jon Jones, exploiting his biography, personality, and signature style.

If I’m Jon Jones or his representation, I want to control the likeness of him in this game as much as I can and make EA Sports work for Jon Jones in promoting his image and brand.

Instead, his personal brand is at the mercy of UFC and EA Sports. The game will feature Jones’ signature attacks, fight style, and personality. This is true for all the fighters licensed in the game.

I am not here in the slightest to say that these contracts are ok. I’m DEFINITELY not here to say that musicians and other performers aren’t completely taken advantage of basically any time the people with power feel they can get away with it. Contracts are unfair, they exploit people, they financially fuck them over as much as possible.

But. There is STILL no evidence that contracts can force people to pretend to act a certain way in their private life. Owning someone’s “image rights” or “identity rights” clearly does not mean “has the right to force the Fighter to say whatever they want about himself.” If Jon Jones wants to cultivate an image as a funny guy and EA Sports wants to make him mean in the game, he can’t do anything about that. But UFC can’t force him to be mean to match the game. They might convince him it’d be more profitable for him, but he would have to agree. And it’s not like Louis and Harry rely on someone else’s promotional material to define their personalities - they get plenty of opportunity to shape their own image in interviews and concerts. They wouldn’t be stuck.

Larries talk about “image rights,” but what these clauses do is give the ability to USE their image. “Use, display, disseminate, edit, reproduce, print, publish.” Not define, not control. There is no “the Fighter must behave in keeping with the image of his personality and private life as defined by UFC at all times” clause. Fucked up as that identity rights clause is, it simply provides NO justification for “he’s being forced to pretend to date various women and to claim a child as his own and sign its birth certificate.”

(And yes, there are morality clauses - such as the ones we’ve seen go into effect with Ryan Lochte. Even apart from the fact that it would be illegal to make “being gay” or even “saying you’re gay” a part of these clauses, at least in the UK, all of my research has indicated that these are not a part of music industry contracts. Record label contracts are not endorsement deals, and this sort of morality clause is not standard language, as far as I can tell.)

This remains the closest example Larries have, from Steve Brookstein after he was free to say whatever he wanted about Simon Cowell:

Taking part in the X Factor, he says, almost derailed that relationship, too. ‘Shortly after I won, I was told that it would be good publicity if we got engaged.

‘We weren’t anywhere near ­discussing that, but under pressure we agreed to do some stunt pictures looking in a jewellery shop window as a compromise.’

But, when he got there, the shop had got the engagement rings out and poured champagne. Steve and Eileen were engaged — ready or not.

Agreeing to pose for pictures looking at rings with your actual girlfriend, and then being tricked into making it look like they were engaged - absolutely shitty. But it is just not an entire fake double life. This is a stunt - a little exaggeration to create a story and generate some publicity. This is something I can imagine happens regularly. Fake babies are not just the more thorough version of what Brookstein describes. It’s not the same thing on a different level. That’s something that no one has ever done, and that no one could ever possibly be forced or tricked into doing without recourse.

Below the cut are some articles I found about these contracts. A full contract was released in 2012 as part of a lawsuit, but there were articles about some of the troubling elements even before that. It’s not a secret, it’s not something the whole industry just accepts. If record labels were maintaining unrestricted, perpetual rights over the use of their artists’ identity, we would hear about it - especially if they were somehow able to use those rights to control their artists’ actions. Instead, when I researched it before, I found that the relevant clauses gave record labels rights just for promotional purposes, and artists had approval power over what material was used. One Direction were popular and successful, not powerless. If Harry and Louis were miserably trapped, they would at least be able to leak info, build public sympathy, press for change, or sue for unconscionability… or at the very least, like… not re-sign in 2013.

There is no support for the idea that a contract could control someone’s private behavior like Larries think it does, and there’s even less support for the idea that Harry and Louis would be helplessly trapped if this were the case, unable to do anything but go along with each new stunt. At the beginning they could have been pressured into staying in the closet, sure. But nothing beyond that is remotely plausible. And yet these are essential elements of the Larry theories - that everything we see is fake, but that Louis and Harry are not at all responsible for their participation. They can point to as many shitty contracts as they want - that artists and entertainers are exploited by corporations is a fact, it just doesn’t make any of their wild fantasies remotely true.

Keep reading

Some A lot of late-night thoughts on fusing with Steven.

I, personally, adore the slight awkwardness to Smoky Quartz’s design because it’s got me thinking about what a variable Steven is in fusion. Granted we’ve only seen him fuse with two people now, but hell two’s enough of a trend for my conspiracy-theory-spinning noggin to obsess over.

Every fusion we’ve seen between the CGs has been tall, elegant, and graceful with the possible exception of Sugilite. After that, only other pure-gem fusions we’ve seen are either Mega Hell Toddler Ruby or Malachite; but, even Malachite was eerie and beautiful in her weird, handsy way. They’re also new, singular beings, totally separate from their component gems (especially while the fusion is stable).

On the other hand, Steven’s fusions still seem to have relatively separate consciousnesses. The two parties involved even refer to each other by name while fused, or will hold casual conversations. As far as I remember, the only time we’ve seen a pure-gem fusion conversing with herself is when Garnet and Malachite were in danger of destabilizing. However, Steven’s only half gem. I don’t think the human half of Steven can merge with gems (or for that matter, the gem half being unable to fully merge with Connie), so there’s always that degree of separation. 

More to my original point, this does leave the fact that there’s only half of Steven that can contribute to a fusion at a time. Especially after meeting Smoky Quartz, I think his role in fusion is to optimize the character traits of whoever he’s with. Sure, Stevonnie is gorgeous and elegant like the CG fusions, but I believe–for the most part–that’s Connie. Specifically, that’s Connie standing taller and being comfortable speaking authoritatively when supported by Steven’s optimism and feeling his adoration for her. She’s the part of Stevonnie that takes charge and makes the analytical choices that made them the awesome warrior that took down Jasper. Steven gives Stevonnie the peace of mind to trust themselves in these split-second decisions.

Meanwhile, neither Steven nor Amethyst have the personality to carry themselves as some ethereal being from space. Instead, we get Smokey Quartz. A chunky little powerhouse with an uneven number of arms who can still fight amazingly well. Just like Steven taking a back seat while Connie drives, ultimately it’s Steven’s presence that lets Amethyst get out of her head enough to fight Jasper without getting stuck in a loop of self-deprecation. His half of the fusion keeps things light and cracks jokes at inappropriate times, because that’s what the Gem at the Wheel needs to be her best in that moment.

I realize this could’ve all been said in half as many words, but In Short I think all of Steven’s fusions (personality and visual-wise) will end up boiling down to him helping his partner be at their absolute fullest potential instead of creating an entirely new person.

7

ML FANDOM WEEK 8/14-8/20