Ask me anything

Loves Penguins hockey, Marvel comics, and SPN. Obsessive tagger and links compiler, multishipper and rare character lover, het mpreg stan, and fan of all the female characters. I also hang out on LiveJournal and at AO3.

pripple:

Uncanny X-Force : Archangel and Wolverine secretly assemble a new X-Force Team including Fantomex, Deadpool and Psylocke.

(via comic-clown)

jayrockin:

Lenten Roses - Onyx Odyssey variety, doubled and undoubled

(via thetrollingchaos)

paulmartinamericanhero:

i might do a series called “photoshoots sidney crosby wishes he’d never done” and these potential 90’s sitcom pictures about a dad and his son would be at the top of the list. 

image

image

image

image

(via mysweetsummerchild)

dragonagestuff:

characterundefined:

And…finished.  I think that when I do these kinds of paintings in the future, it would be best to have the environment sorted out before adding the figures.  However, for something that started out as a throw-away doodle, I’m pretty satisfied.

This piece is…Stunning.

dragonagestuff:

characterundefined:

And…finished.  I think that when I do these kinds of paintings in the future, it would be best to have the environment sorted out before adding the figures.  However, for something that started out as a throw-away doodle, I’m pretty satisfied.

This piece is…Stunning.

(via thetrollingchaos)

sherlockedbadwolf24601:

kasumychan:

myed89:

I do what I want

You do not control me!

Can we talk about how much freaking effort it took for that diver to get into all of that gear just to take that stupid picture in the hot tub? You’re all fucking losers and I love you

(Source: iraffiruse, via ghostyouknow27)

skunkbear:

So photographer David Slater wants Wikipedia to remove a monkey selfie that was taken with his camera. As you can see from this screen shot, Wikipedia says no: the monkey pressed the shutter so it owns the copyright.

We got NPR’s in-house legal counsel, Ashley Messenger, to weigh in. She said:

Traditional interpretation of copyright law is that the person who captured the image owns the copyright. That would be the monkey. The photographer’s best argument is that the monkey took the photo at his direction and therefore it’s work for hire. But that’s not a great argument because it’s not clear the monkey had the intent to work at the direction of the photographer nor is it clear there was “consideration” (value) exchanged for the work. So… It’s definitely an interesting question! Or the photographer could argue that leaving the camera to see what would happen is his work an therefore the monkey’s capture of the image was really the photographer’s art, but that would be a novel approach, to my knowledge.

(via operafloozy)