alexquintas:

aburningrose:

whowasntthere:

mixtapecomics:

After a discussion last week with several of my cartoonist peers (and at the behest of Steve Bissette): I want to talk about image theft and uncredited content on social media. I’m only going to speak from personal experience (and only about the one image posted above) but I hope that this example will show the disservice this causes to any artist whose artwork is edited and reposted without credit.
[Disclaimer: I post all my work online for free. I want people to read, enjoy, and share my work. I have no problem with people reposting my work if it’s credited and unaltered. (That way new readers can find their way to my site to read more.) My problem is when people edit out the URL and copyright information to repost the images as their own for fun or profit.]
Below, I’ve listed the sites where my comic was posted and how many times it was viewed on / shared from each of those sites. (The following list was composed from the first ten pages of Google.) Let’s take a look at the life of this comic over the last 11 months. 
On January 23 (2013) I posted the comic on my journal comic website, Intentionally Left Blank, and on my corresponding art Tumblr (where it currently has 5,442 notes). The same day, it was posted (intact, with the original URL and copyright) to Reddit. (There, credited, it has received 50,535 views.)The Reddit post alone was exciting but on January 24, someone posted an edited version of the image (with the URL and copyright removed) to 9GAG. That uncredited posting has been voted on 29,629 times and shared on Facebook 22,517 times. That uncredited image caught on and spread like wildfire:
January 25: LOLchamp (39 comments. Views unknown.)January 26: WeHeartIt. (With the 9GAG ad at the bottom. Views unknown.)January 26: Random Overload (2 Facebook likes. Views unknown).January 26: CatMoji (41 reactions. Views unknown.)January 26: The Meta Picture (1,800+ Facebook likes. 6,000+ Pintrest shares)
February 5: damnLOL. (929 Facebook shares. Views unknown.)February 7: LOLhappens. (1,400+ Facebook shares.)February ?: LOLmaze (121 shares)February ?: LOLzbook (37 likes and 37 shares).On March 25, I was lucky and this comic was featured in a Buzzfeed post “36 Illustrated Truths About Cats.” The comic was featured alongside work by a 35 other artists who I admire and aspire to be. (Exciting!)Buzzfeed was able to trace the uncredited image back to me and listed a source link to my main website but still posted the uncredited version of the image. The post currently has 6,000+ Facebook shares, 14,000+ Facebook likes, and 727 Tweets. Ever the optimist, I’ll count those numbers in the “credited views” column.The problem with Buzzfeed posting the uncredited image and only listing the source underneath was: people began to save their favourite comics from the article and repost them in their personal blogs without credit. (13, 3, and 60 Facebook likes, respectfully.) I’m mentioning this not to target Buzzfeed or the individuals reposting, but to show the importance of leaving the credits in the original image.March 30: FunnyStuff247. (47,588 views.)March 31: LOLcoaster. (1 Facebook like. Views unknown.) April 5: ROFLzone. (1,200+ Facebook shares. Views unknown.)April 26: LOLwall. (70 Facebook likes. Views unknown.)
July 23: The uncredited image was chopped into four smaller pieces and posted on the Tumblr of TheAmericanKid, where he sourced it to FunnyStuff247. (124,786 notes and featured in #Animals on Tumblr.)
Aug 21: Eng-Jokes.com. (87,818 views and 41,400+ Facebook shares.)
Oct 2: MemeCenter. (284 Facebook likes. Views unknown.)Oct 5: FunnyJunk. (3,327 views.)Oct 10: LikeaLaugh. (1,486 views.)
Nov 20: Quickmeme. (280,090 Facebook shares. Views unknown.)Nov 20: JustMemes. (6 Facebook shares.)
There were 14 other sites which listed uncredited versions of the image within the first 10 pages of Google, but they were personal blogs so I’m not going to include them here.
One additional website I haven’t mentioned was Cheezburger, who originally posted the uncredited version of comic on January 23; but later modified it to the credited image after I contacted them. They didn’t contact me when they made the change but the image currently has 2,912 votes and 4,700 Facebook shares. Let’s be optimistic and count those as credited views and shares. 
That brings us up to the current views and shares of the comic. Now let’s do some math.
I’ve removed the comments and reactions (because they could already be accounted for in views). I’ve left in votes, however, because some sites list votes instead of views.
Taking into consideration that Tumblr notes are made up of both likes and reblogs, let’s be conservative and say the Tumblr notes are twice as high as they should be. (That every single person that has viewed the image on Tumblr has liked the image and reblogged it.) Dividing the Tumblr notes in half, that leaves us with:
Posts using the credited image:2,912 votes2,721 Tumblr notes50,535 views727 Tweets0 Pintrest shares14,000 Facebook likes10,700 Facebook shares
Posts using the uncredited image:29,629 votes62,393 Tumblr notes140,219 views0 Tweets6,000 Pintrest shares2,085 Facebook likes347,984 Facebook shares
Adding those up and treating them all like views (assuming that every shared post was viewed once):
The original (unaltered, credited/sourced) version of the comic has been viewed 81,595 times.
The edited, uncredited/unsourced version of the comic has been viewed 588,310 times. (That’s over half a million views. Seven times more than the original, credited version.)
What does that mean for me as a creator? On the positive side, I created something that people found relatable and enjoyable. I succeeded at that thing I try to do. But, given the lack of credit, it also means that 88% of 669,905 people that read this comic had no chance of finding their way back to my website.
This was a successful comic. I want to be able to call this exposure a success. But those numbers are heartbreaking.
Morally, just the idea of taking someone’s work and removing the URL and copyright info to repost it is reprehensible. You are cutting the creator out of the creation. But worse yet, sites like 9GAG are profiting off the uncredited images that they’re posting.
9GAG is currently ranked #299 in the world according to Alexa rankings. As of April of this year, their estimated net worth was around $9.8 million, generating nearly $13,415 every day in ad revenue.
As a creator of content that they use on their site: I see none of that. And I have no chance of seeing any kind of revenue since readers can’t find their way back to my site from an uncredited image. 
I don’t want to sound bitter. The money isn’t the point. But this is a thing that’s happening. This isn’t just happening to me. It’s actively happening to the greater art community as a whole. (Especially the comics community. Recent artists effected by altered artwork/theft off the top of my head: Liz Prince, Luke Healy, Nation of Amanda, Melanie Gillman, etc.) Our work is being stolen and profited off of. Right this second.
I do my best to see the positive in these events but the very least I can do as a creator is stand up in this small moment and say “This is mine. I made this.”
Something need to be done by the community as a whole: by the readers as well as the creators. We need to start crediting our content/sources and reporting those who don’t. Sites like 9GAG need to be held accountable for their theft of work. If you see something that’s stolen: say something to the original poster, report the post, or contact the creator of the artwork.
If you have an image you’d like to post but don’t know the source: reverse Google image search it. Figure out where it came from before you post. If you like it enough to share it, it means there’s probably more where that came from.

Oh hey look, another comic of ours was stolen by BuzzFeed (linked to in this post, under “36 Illustrated Truths About Cats.” )They hotlinked to ChaosLife, too, which is really fucking sickening — a hotlink basically taxes our site traffic without giving us any ad revenue - in essence, we pay more for our site server for the traffic, but get nothing in return. BuzzFeed Not Only Makes Profits Off These Articles, But They Also Pay Their Staff For The Articles. 
They Are Paying Their Staff to Steal Your Content.
We’re currently in talks with BuzzFeed about paying us, thanks to a Tweet by Erika Moen fueling them to pay her for her comic’s use, as well. They said they’ve sent a check. They’ve stolen almost 10 of our comics over just this past year for their “articles.” Most are uncredited. 
ARTISTS: If BuzzFeed STAFF MEMBERS (not users, just Staff) use your work in an article, even credited, their rate is $50 per unfair use of your comic. Contact BuzzFeed right away if your work has been unfairly used. I know it’s definitely not a lot of money (and not anywhere close to our commission prices), and not even worth what the ad revenue would have gotten if the comics hadn’t been stolen, but instead simply linked to, but it’s a way to get them to stop doing this shit.
Now, go forth and get your money. Because demanding that we get paid (even if we don’t wind up getting paid) is holding them accountable, and in a lot of ways, it will make them and sites like 9GAG think twice about their shitty theft practices.
I’m tired of being quiet and I’m tired of playing nice with sites that don’t benefit creators, but instead pocket the money for themselves.

The more I hear about websites like BuzzFeed and 9GAG stealing and profiting off of other people’s hard work, the more it makes me sick to my stomach. If those stats above are anywhere close to accurate, then we need to put an end to all of this as soon as possible.
People! Please! Don’t support websites like 9GAG and BuzzFeed with your page views! And don’t let them get away with art theft! 

Just don’t go to buzz feed… they’re part of the problem when it comes to not only art theft but “news” and information in general. And 9gag is the shitsmear of the internet. Please, be better than this..

alexquintas:

aburningrose:

whowasntthere:

mixtapecomics:

After a discussion last week with several of my cartoonist peers (and at the behest of Steve Bissette): I want to talk about image theft and uncredited content on social media. I’m only going to speak from personal experience (and only about the one image posted above) but I hope that this example will show the disservice this causes to any artist whose artwork is edited and reposted without credit.

[Disclaimer: I post all my work online for free. I want people to read, enjoy, and share my work. I have no problem with people reposting my work if it’s credited and unaltered. (That way new readers can find their way to my site to read more.) My problem is when people edit out the URL and copyright information to repost the images as their own for fun or profit.]

Below, I’ve listed the sites where my comic was posted and how many times it was viewed on / shared from each of those sites. (The following list was composed from the first ten pages of Google.) Let’s take a look at the life of this comic over the last 11 months.
 

On January 23 (2013) I posted the comic on my journal comic website, Intentionally Left Blank, and on my corresponding art Tumblr (where it currently has 5,442 notes). The same day, it was posted (intact, with the original URL and copyright) to Reddit. (There, credited, it has received 50,535 views.)

The Reddit post alone was exciting but on January 24, someone posted an edited version of the image (with the URL and copyright removed) to 9GAG. That uncredited posting has been voted on 29,629 times and shared on Facebook 22,517 times. That uncredited image caught on and spread like wildfire:

January 25: LOLchamp (39 comments. Views unknown.)
January 26: WeHeartIt. (With the 9GAG ad at the bottom. Views unknown.)
January 26: Random Overload (2 Facebook likes. Views unknown).
January 26: CatMoji (41 reactions. Views unknown.)
January 26: The Meta Picture (1,800+ Facebook likes. 6,000+ Pintrest shares)

February 5: damnLOL. (929 Facebook shares. Views unknown.)
February 7: LOLhappens. (1,400+ Facebook shares.)
February ?: LOLmaze (121 shares)
February ?: LOLzbook (37 likes and 37 shares).

On March 25, I was lucky and this comic was featured in a Buzzfeed post 36 Illustrated Truths About Cats.” The comic was featured alongside work by a 35 other artists who I admire and aspire to be. (Exciting!)

Buzzfeed was able to trace the uncredited image back to me and listed a source link to my main website but still posted the uncredited version of the image. The post currently has 6,000+ Facebook shares, 14,000+ Facebook likes, and 727 Tweets. Ever the optimist, I’ll count those numbers in the “credited views” column.

The problem with Buzzfeed posting the uncredited image and only listing the source underneath was: people began to save their favourite comics from the article and repost them in their personal blogs without credit. (13, 3, and 60 Facebook likes, respectfully.) I’m mentioning this not to target Buzzfeed or the individuals reposting, but to show the importance of leaving the credits in the original image.

March 30: FunnyStuff247. (47,588 views.)
March 31: LOLcoaster. (1 Facebook like. Views unknown.) 

April 5: ROFLzone. (1,200+ Facebook shares. Views unknown.)
April 26: LOLwall. (70 Facebook likes. Views unknown.)

July 23: The uncredited image was chopped into four smaller pieces and posted on the Tumblr of TheAmericanKid, where he sourced it to FunnyStuff247. (124,786 notes and featured in #Animals on Tumblr.)

Aug 21: Eng-Jokes.com. (87,818 views and 41,400+ Facebook shares.)

Oct 2: MemeCenter. (284 Facebook likes. Views unknown.)
Oct 5: FunnyJunk. (3,327 views.)
Oct 10: LikeaLaugh. (1,486 views.)

Nov 20: Quickmeme(280,090 Facebook shares. Views unknown.)
Nov 20: JustMemes. (6 Facebook shares.)

There were 14 other sites which listed uncredited versions of the image within the first 10 pages of Google, but they were personal blogs so I’m not going to include them here.

One additional website I haven’t mentioned was Cheezburger, who originally posted the uncredited version of comic on January 23; but later modified it to the credited image after I contacted them. They didn’t contact me when they made the change but the image currently has 2,912 votes and 4,700 Facebook shares. Let’s be optimistic and count those as credited views and shares.
 

That brings us up to the current views and shares of the comic. Now let’s do some math.

I’ve removed the comments and reactions (because they could already be accounted for in views). I’ve left in votes, however, because some sites list votes instead of views.

Taking into consideration that Tumblr notes are made up of both likes and reblogs, let’s be conservative and say the Tumblr notes are twice as high as they should be. (That every single person that has viewed the image on Tumblr has liked the image and reblogged it.) Dividing the Tumblr notes in half, that leaves us with:

Posts using the credited image:
2,912 votes
2,721 Tumblr notes
50,535 views
727 Tweets
0 Pintrest shares
14,000 Facebook likes
10,700 Facebook shares

Posts using the uncredited image:
29,629 votes
62,393 Tumblr notes
140,219 views
0 Tweets
6,000 Pintrest shares
2,085 Facebook likes
347,984 Facebook shares

Adding those up and treating them all like views (assuming that every shared post was viewed once):

The original (unaltered, credited/sourced) version of the comic has been viewed 81,595 times.

The edited, uncredited/unsourced version of the comic has been viewed 588,310 times. (That’s over half a million views. Seven times more than the original, credited version.)

What does that mean for me as a creator? On the positive side, I created something that people found relatable and enjoyable. I succeeded at that thing I try to do. But, given the lack of credit, it also means that 88% of 669,905 people that read this comic had no chance of finding their way back to my website.

This was a successful comic. I want to be able to call this exposure a success. But those numbers are heartbreaking.

Morally, just the idea of taking someone’s work and removing the URL and copyright info to repost it is reprehensible. You are cutting the creator out of the creation. But worse yet, sites like 9GAG are profiting off the uncredited images that they’re posting.

9GAG is currently ranked #299 in the world according to Alexa rankings. As of April of this year, their estimated net worth was around $9.8 million, generating nearly $13,415 every day in ad revenue.

As a creator of content that they use on their site: I see none of that. And I have no chance of seeing any kind of revenue since readers can’t find their way back to my site from an uncredited image.
 

I don’t want to sound bitter. The money isn’t the point. But this is a thing that’s happening. This isn’t just happening to me. It’s actively happening to the greater art community as a whole. (Especially the comics community. Recent artists effected by altered artwork/theft off the top of my head: Liz Prince, Luke Healy, Nation of Amanda, Melanie Gillman, etc.) Our work is being stolen and profited off of. Right this second.

I do my best to see the positive in these events but the very least I can do as a creator is stand up in this small moment and say “This is mine. I made this.”

Something need to be done by the community as a whole: by the readers as well as the creators. We need to start crediting our content/sources and reporting those who don’t. Sites like 9GAG need to be held accountable for their theft of work. If you see something that’s stolen: say something to the original poster, report the post, or contact the creator of the artwork.

If you have an image you’d like to post but don’t know the source: reverse Google image search it. Figure out where it came from before you post. If you like it enough to share it, it means there’s probably more where that came from.

Oh hey look, another comic of ours was stolen by BuzzFeed (linked to in this post, under “36 Illustrated Truths About Cats.” )They hotlinked to ChaosLife, too, which is really fucking sickening — a hotlink basically taxes our site traffic without giving us any ad revenue - in essence, we pay more for our site server for the traffic, but get nothing in return. BuzzFeed Not Only Makes Profits Off These Articles, But They Also Pay Their Staff For The Articles.

They Are Paying Their Staff to Steal Your Content.

We’re currently in talks with BuzzFeed about paying us, thanks to a Tweet by Erika Moen fueling them to pay her for her comic’s use, as well. They said they’ve sent a check. They’ve stolen almost 10 of our comics over just this past year for their “articles.” Most are uncredited. 

ARTISTS: If BuzzFeed STAFF MEMBERS (not users, just Staff) use your work in an article, even credited, their rate is $50 per unfair use of your comic. Contact BuzzFeed right away if your work has been unfairly used. I know it’s definitely not a lot of money (and not anywhere close to our commission prices), and not even worth what the ad revenue would have gotten if the comics hadn’t been stolen, but instead simply linked to, but it’s a way to get them to stop doing this shit.

Now, go forth and get your money. Because demanding that we get paid (even if we don’t wind up getting paid) is holding them accountable, and in a lot of ways, it will make them and sites like 9GAG think twice about their shitty theft practices.

I’m tired of being quiet and I’m tired of playing nice with sites that don’t benefit creators, but instead pocket the money for themselves.

The more I hear about websites like BuzzFeed and 9GAG stealing and profiting off of other people’s hard work, the more it makes me sick to my stomach. If those stats above are anywhere close to accurate, then we need to put an end to all of this as soon as possible.

People! Please! Don’t support websites like 9GAG and BuzzFeed with your page views! And don’t let them get away with art theft!

Just don’t go to buzz feed… they’re part of the problem when it comes to not only art theft but “news” and information in general. And 9gag is the shitsmear of the internet. Please, be better than this..

(via periscopestudio)

tillyouandiseethesun:

this isn’t even a problem

(via onlylolgifs)

kateordie:

chervenkotka:

for you and me who experience artblock..
keep on drawing!

Draw!

So, without further ado—many of my readers doubt know these already, having teased them out for themselves, but for anybody starting out, Things I Have Learned About Art, mostly composition and color.


- Don’t have a line going off the exact corner of the page. This activates the corner visually—it hauls the eye down and right off the page, and they may never come back. Doesn’t have to be a straight line, either. Likewise, if you’ve got a large shape going off the corner, handle it carefully—if it’s perfectly balanced in the corner, the center axis will sometimes act like a line, even if it’s not drawn in.

- If something is nearly touching something else, but not quite, it activates the space between them. If you have a tree branch that’s almost—but not quite—touching the line of the mountains, people are going to be staring at that little gap. Since there is probably nothing to see in that little gap, you probably don’t want that.

Corollary 1: The eye goes to stuff that’s crossing. If you have stuff crossing other stuff, the eye will get dragged to where they cross. This can be used to your advantage.

Corollary 2: X marks the spot. If you have stuff—tree branches, arms, mountains, whatever, form an exact right angle cross, the eye goes there and STOPS. For whatever reason, a right-angle X is like a brake. People will stare at it. Can be great if it’s on your main figure! Not so great if it’s a couple of blades of grass in the foreground. X’s, for whatever reason, will haul in the eye.

- Don’t block movement. I think it was John Seery-Lester who wrote this one, and I’ve found him to often be correct. If you have a figure moving, don’t put stuff in their way. ANY stuff. A wolf running across the painting is halted just as easily by a bright blade of grass from the foreground extending into his path as by a brick wall. Obviously you have to make some judgement calls on this one, but if you’re going for a sense of motion, don’t put in a visual obstacle course.

- People look at faces. In most paintings, all else being equal, the eye is drawn immediately to faces. This is good! You want people to look at your figure! Also, according to Michael Whelan anyway, again, all else being equal, a book cover with a large face does better on the newsstand. Couldn’t speak to that one myself.

Corollary: They look at boobs, too.

- The eye goes to contrast. The point where the darkest darks cross the lightest lights is seriously intense, and the eye will go there. This can be used to your advantage, but if you have three or four evenly spaced areas of high contrast, the eye will wander around, get confused, miss your main figure, and the viewer will get bored and get a headache. (This one’s hard to spot in practice, so don’t sweat too much. If you’ve got a piece that isn’t working, though, consider whether this may be the problem, and punch up the contrast on your main point of interest.)

- Figure out what color your light source is, and dump the complimentary color in the shadows. This depends on your color scheme, but seriously, a little purple in the shadows cast by the yellow sun of the the earth can really jazz up a piece.

Corollary: Gray looks purple if you stick it next to yellow, etc. This isn’t either good or bad, just something to be aware of.

- The eye follows lines. If you have a strong line running most of the length of the painting, have it go somewhere interesting. If it winds up nowhere in particular—if you’ve got a dais or platform with a strong line at the top, say, and there’s nothing interesting to either side—then break it up—a leg, a fold of cloth, a torch, whatever—so that the eye can get off that hard line. It’s like a monorail. You gotta give ‘em a station to get off, or they’ll just go back and forth and eventually jump, and god knows where they’ll wind up.

Corollary 1: The eye will follow lines TO stuff, too. Have your hard line lead to somebody’s face, and wham, you know the viewer’s gonna see that face. Have the line of a mountain lead to your mountain lion, or whatever.

Corollary 2: Hard lines that divide your painting in half (or a third, or whatever) are tricky. See, they split the painting HARD, and there’s a good chance the viewer will not actually register half the painting. It isolates each half of the painting. Great if you’re doing a light-and-dark shot of the same area or something—the visual similiarities will tie them together. Not so great if you just wanted to put a table there. The hard line acts as a wall. You gotta give ‘em some kind of break to get through the wall. A mountain or a tree breaking up the horizon line might be all you need.

- Bright colors come forward, dark colors recede. But you can fake ‘em out with contrast and saturation.

- Certain color combos have associations that trump your painting every time. Okay, this is totally subjective, but bear in mind that if you use dark green and saturated red together, it’s Christmas, and red, white, and navy blue are more trouble than they’re worth. You may be able to make ‘em work, people certainly do, but you’re working against an entire culture’s programming on this one.

Corollary 1: Red, blue, and yellow in equal amounts gets really cluttered. Again, it can be made to work—my icon, for example, is from a painting where I used all three—but all those primaries can be awfully busy if you’re not careful. The platypus painting was seriously minimalist and stylized, which I think is why it worked, assuming it did and I’m not delusional.

Corollary 2: Fear the rainbow. Don’t ask me why, but if you have a complete rainbow spectrum, it just takes over the image. Not neccessarily bad, but approach with caution.

Corollary 3: Warning colors draw the eye. Since we evolved to associate bright colored animals with danger, like bees and poison frogs and whatnot, the specific combinations of black and red and especially black and yellow haul the eye in like no other. Black and yellow is much more powerful than black and white.

- Symmetry is powerful, or powerfully boring. Strict, formal symmetry can make for a very imposing, dramatic painting, or it can send you to sleep. There’s a trick to it. If I ever figure out what it is, you’ll be the first to know.

Corollary: Odd numbers are good. I am told this works in landscaping, too—two of anything cancel each other out. One is an interesting specimen, three is a good dynamic grouping. It works with higher numbers too. Odd numbers add drama, even numbers balance one another. Once you get to the point where you can’t count the things, don’t worry about it.

- Any collection of three dark roundish bits is a face. Learn to live with it. If you have a face take over a painting, however, you can usually fix it by taking out one of the “eyes.”

- Same value, different hue, vibrates like hell. Okay, this is hard to explain, but if you have two colors that are the same brightness, even if it’s a red and a green or something, and you stick them together, the fact that they’re the same light/dark value gives them this freaky visual wiggle, as they both fight for dominance. You can use this to your advantage, but more likely, it’ll give your viewer a migraine. Decide which color you want to win and punch it up a few notches.

- Anything can be any color, as long as you get the shape right. Especially true of skin tones, as long as it’s internally consistent, people will assume that it’s due to weird lighting, or they won’t even notice. Jerry Rudquist, my painting teacher, art rest his soul, told me this, and I have been proving him right for the rest of my life.

Corollary: Bright yellow is brighter than white. Heh, go figure. White is usually the brightest part of a painting, but occasionally you find a painting where yellow trumps it. I don’t know what causes that to happen, but it’s interesting.

Ursula Vernon (via fuckyeahursulavernon)

All good things to bear in mind, especially for an amateur colorist like me.

(via dduane)

5:00pm~6:00pm

selenoscope:

reyairia:

70% of editing is just looking at ur work for a few hours with this face

image

true story

true for drawing

true for video editing

true for writing

just true

(via laipin)

savannahfaerie:

Welcome to portland, where we have a hentai theater next to our world class donut shop

Pretty much.

savannahfaerie:

Welcome to portland, where we have a hentai theater next to our world class donut shop

Pretty much.

(via k-y-h-u-deactivated20140827)

cloudydrake:

cloudydrake:

arcaneseamstress:

nymphominatrix:

made this transparent



I love you, sea pancake.

yes, two chances to reblog sea pancake twice in one night. excellent.

cloudydrake:

cloudydrake:

arcaneseamstress:

nymphominatrix:

made this transparent

image

I love you, sea pancake.

yes, two chances to reblog sea pancake twice in one night. excellent.

(via littlewitchlask)

madebyabvh:

Has fandom gone tooooo faaaar?
No.

Created by Bill Mudron, the Tapestry is a
“slightly ridiculous tribute to the Bayeaux Tapestry

(Animated last row in one place)
Illustration by Bill Mudron

Dammit Bill. You’re amazing.

(via dduane)

periscopestudio:

greyallison:

A little love for Garrus and FemShep! I’ve been working on this piece slowly since early January, and I’m proud to be able to post it today. Enjoy. :)

Stunning Mass Effect artwork from Grace Allison!

ALWAYS REBLOG GARSHEP <3

periscopestudio:

greyallison:

A little love for Garrus and FemShep! I’ve been working on this piece slowly since early January, and I’m proud to be able to post it today. Enjoy. :)

Stunning Mass Effect artwork from Grace Allison!

ALWAYS REBLOG GARSHEP <3

funwrecker:

nyooom:

SOMEONE MADE AN INFOMERCIALS MASHUP SET TO PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE LET ME GET WHAT I WANT BY THE SMITHS AND IT IS THE BEST THING IVE EVER SEEN, PLEASE WATCH IT IM BEGGING YOU

The internet gets it right tonight.