It's true that there's no practicable way to frame "style theft" as an intellectual property issue that wouldn't have horrifying consequences for independent artist, but that doesn't mean we can't have sympathy for all the artists who've spent their lives perfecting the craft of drawing moist-lipped, glassy-eyed, vaguely oily-looking anime girls in three-quarter profile and now everybody thinks they're a robot.
Disability Pride month let's not forget about the people in our community with intellectual disabilities!
I just found out about the Stay Up Late campaign to advocate for people with intellectual disabilities to have the right to go out in the evening and not have to be in bed by 8pm
I learned about it from this video:
And I found the website for the campaign which is here:
boy it would be nice to be able to google something related to personality disorders, psychosis, intellectual disabilities, autism, DID/OSDD, etcetera without finding majority articles that are like “how to deal with a person with X” “how to cope with your child with X” “how to spot someone faking X” “can people with X be cured?”
the funniest thing about tumblr fandoms for good well-made thought out media is seeing people point shit out while saying "i know its not that deep but-" girl it literally is. sometimes good writers will make the curtains blue on purpose to symbolize something. you are analyzing and interpreting bro
ngl, I'm beginning to take issue with how in conversations about anti-intellectualism almost automatically, the face of girls and women will be slapped on the problem.
wish for smart autism people to STOP saying things like "most autism people actually smart ! ". is not true! is just so erase big part of autism community ! of people like Pixie, and intellectual disability autism people !
STOP say , is not okay ! people like Pixie, people with intellectual disability , are BIG part of autism community ! we deserve be part of own community !
Mickey Mouse's entry into the public domain comes with significant caveats. While the Mickey Mouse who appears in Steamboat Willie (and other media published in 1928 or earlier) is free to use, there's established precedent that specific elements of a character which appear exclusively in later works which still fall under copyright may be protected, if sufficiently distinctive.
(This is the basis of, e.g., the infamous "Sherlock Holmes can't respect women" lawsuit: the Doyle estate, which at the time owned only a tiny handful of the latest-written stories, the others having already fallen into the public domain, argued that specific personality traits which Holmes exhibits only in those later stories are sufficiently distinctive as to be the valid subject of an infringement claim.)
With respect to various elements of Mickey's visual design, such as his red shorts and signature gloves, the matter is clear: just don't use those for another few years. However, there's another thing Mickey's public domain iterations don't exhibit: speech.
The present consensus among copyright scholars seems to be that "a character speaking" is not sufficiently distinctive as to qualify for protection, but the vocal characterisation with which Mickey Mouse is famously associated may so qualify. So, if you want to be scrupulously safe, you can have him talk, but not in that exact specific voice.
Which raises a fun question: what voice would you give him? Wrong answers only.
Just gonna have to wait and see, right? Just wait and see! Just gotta wait and see! Who knows, we'll just have to wait and see! It's anybody's guess, we'll just have to wait and see! The future is exciting, we just gotta wait and see!
Okay but do you support the people whose disorders do define them?
Do you support people with the chronic illnesses who have had to develop whole lives around their conditions? Do you support the intellectually disabled people whose whole way of thinking is defined by their disorder? Do you support the people with personality disorders who literally have a disorder as a personality? Do you support the autism/ADHD people whose disorder you can’t separate from who they are? Do you support the DIDOSDD people who have multiple definitions of themselves because of their disorder?
Or are you just saying that because a disorder defining someone means you can’t ignore it.
Hearing constantly about gifted autistic kids and people seeing it as THEE autistic trait has completely disregarded those who aren’t gifted and made a HUGE divide in the community. Seeing constantly “yeah autistic people are usually gifted” is so annoying because a VERY large chunk of autistic people, aren’t actually gifted and media has just put the gifted people at the front because they’re more palatable. The “autistic gifted kid burnout” has become more so a trend than anything and I’ve seen a lot of people assume they’re autistic because they are the “gifted kid burnout person” when that isn’t even a requirement for an autism diagnosis. You don’t have to be gifted to be autistic. You don’t have to be!!
Start putting the people who struggle more in the spotlight. Those with intellectual disabilities, those with learning disabilities, those with cognitive disabilities, those who are just generally stereotypically “dumb” and embrace it!
We need to have a very big discussion about this as a community and it needs to start today.