Chipped Cup Awards are still on!

Hello, all you lovely Rumbellers!  It’s nearly November, and you know what that means: it’s time to start thinking about nominations for the Chipped Cup Awards!

As many of you are aware, The Espenson Awards, our fandom’s beloved event to send love to Rumbelle writers and artists, was retired last year.  In an effort to keep the fandom thriving, we decided to make an event that will keep the spirit of the TEAs alive, while putting a new spin or two on it.  

One thing we heard from several participants was that the size of the ballot could be daunting to fill out.  We listened to your feedback, and did our best to distill the nomination categories into something that’s a bit more manageable, while still giving plenty of individual categories to choose from.   You can see the complete list below the cut.  If you have any feedback on these categories, you can send us an Ask.  We’ll be happy to take it into account!

We’re also reducing the number of nominations needed for each entry down to three, where previously it was five.  We’re hoping that this will give a wider range of fan works to choose from.

Finally, we’re adding a new feature: shout-outs.  This will operate similarly to the Newby Spotlight, in that it is not a voting category.  It gives the fandom the chance to shine the spotlight on some old favorites that may have been forgotten over the years.  You can find more details on this feature at the bottom of the nomination categories under the cut.

We hope you’ll enjoy this event - both the tried and true aspects, and the new spins we put on things.  If you have any questions, concerns, or other feedback, feel free to send us an ask or respond to this post.

Love,

TCCA Mod Team

Keep reading

ONCE UPON A TIME 2.19, Lacey

casting a spell of finish your wip rb to pass it on

Things my mom told me would be hard that were actually easy: buttonholes.

Things my mom told me would be easy that were actually hard: gatherings.

Zippers: Cannot get them right.

Handsewing: I prefer this. Machine stitches look cheap.

So I did a thing.

Remember when I accidentally tagged my papafire artwork with 'Killian Jones' and wondered for months why no one liked it?  No?  That's okay.  The two audiences don't tend to mix much.

It's been two years since I posted Never Let Go, my fluffy Rumbelle novel-length.  There is a tiny mention of a past non-con event from an uninvolved third party's perspective in the second chapter, therefore the archive warnings say 'rape/non-con.'

… said 'rape/non-con.'

Yeah, I don't read that stuff much either.

For those intrepid enough to venture past, the entire fic must have been a question of 'When's the other shoe gonna drop?'  For those who clicked because of the rape/non-con warning, my apologies for disappointing you.

Two. years.

ETA: Here's my cover art added to the post, because it needs its picture.

ETA2: Memory is an odd thing, isn't it? Without spoiling too much, the above should read:

There are several mentions of non-con within Never Let Go, always in the past tense and off-screen (so to speak). At its core, Never Let Go is a story of healing.

😄🐻🎃.

Noms.

So I did a thing.

Remember when I accidentally tagged my papafire artwork with 'Killian Jones' and wondered for months why no one liked it?  No?  That's okay.  The two audiences don't tend to mix much.

It's been two years since I posted Never Let Go, my fluffy Rumbelle novel-length.  There is a tiny mention of a past non-con event from an uninvolved third party's perspective in the second chapter, therefore the archive warnings say 'rape/non-con.'

… said 'rape/non-con.'

Yeah, I don't read that stuff much either.

For those intrepid enough to venture past, the entire fic must have been a question of 'When's the other shoe gonna drop?'  For those who clicked because of the rape/non-con warning, my apologies for disappointing you.

Two. years.

I couldn't ask for a better beta reader than you. Your encouragement and insight meant the world to me.

So I did a thing.

Remember when I accidentally tagged my papafire artwork with 'Killian Jones' and wondered for months why no one liked it?  No?  That's okay.  The two audiences don't tend to mix much.

It's been two years since I posted Never Let Go, my fluffy Rumbelle novel-length.  There is a tiny mention of a past non-con event from an uninvolved third party's perspective in the second chapter, therefore the archive warnings say 'rape/non-con.'

… said 'rape/non-con.'

Yeah, I don't read that stuff much either.

For those intrepid enough to venture past, the entire fic must have been a question of 'When's the other shoe gonna drop?'  For those who clicked because of the rape/non-con warning, my apologies for disappointing you.

Two. years.

If anybody out there avoided this fic because of those tags, or simply hasn’t gotten around to reading it, I highly recommend this fic. It’s tender and thoughtful and sexy and gives Rumpel the big family he deserved.

You are the best. Thank you!

Not Today

Season 5 AU where the contract for Rumple and Belle’s child is broken in a different way.

***************************************

“Sorry to break up this beautiful domestic scene, but your baby is still mine.”

“No,” Belle insisted. “We had a deal. Gaston went in the sea.”

“I said I would break the contract if Gaston or Rumplestiltskin threw the other in the river,” the god of death refuted.

As his words sank in, Rumplestiltskin alone noticed a hooded figure slowly approach Hades and held Belle a bit closer.

Hades seemed unfazed by any of it. “But since Belle did the deed,” he went on with a chuckle. “What a…a fun surprise that was… no deal.”

Keep reading

Oh I needed this. Thank you!

Rumplestiltskin, too good for the Airport.

You know one beauty trend I really miss from the early 2000s!? Body glitter! I was never allowed to have it but I got ONE (1) singular tube as a gift one time and coveted it. What's a beauty/fashion trend from the early 2000s or late 90s you'd love to see come back, no matter what other people think? 🌈

Stovepipe jeans. They hung straight down from your butt and didn't make thighs piano-shaped.

@thecompletebookworm

Honest question here: why is fanart apt to be monetised (tons of people sell their fanart, including here) and why can you make merch and sell it (people do that too) but fanfic crosses the line? I feel like it should all violate copyright and I know sometimes businesses like the Disney corporation will go after people who make unlicensed merch specially but those things still happen and yet it’s when people talk about monetising fanfiction that everyone goes nuts (and drag out the dead horse that is Anne Rice’s epic freakeouts over fanfiction years ago). Why is this not a conversation we have about ALL fanworks? Is there a legal reason why fanfiction is set aside as, I dunno, EXTRA illegal?

Seems odd, doesn’t it? And I have no basis in any LAW here, but these are just my thoughts from bouncing around fandoms. 

But I think that what it comes down to is that a piece of fanart can be easily licensed, and it doesn’t matter if it’s canon or not, a still image can evoke thoughts, but can only tell so much of a story. Artists will always need the base source material on which to base their art, and to get other people to buy their art. So the original copyright/license holder is only in minimal danger of losing money. (incidentally, I think this is why we see so many internet artists who get big followings eventually get granted licenses to be official. Once the source holder sees there’s real money to be made, they can charge the licensing fees, not have to do any work, and make money) 

An author, however, has the potential to tell a better story than the copyright/license holder. (We have ALL come across that- fics that are far better than their source material.) Once you have someone else competing for a consumer’s dollar- that consumer can only spend that dollar in one place, and if the fanfic author’s story is better than the new movie, the fanfic author might get that dollar instead of the studio or copyright holder. As long as fic stays free, there’s no competition for that dollar- the consumer can enjoy all the fic they want, and when there’s time for a new movie, book, etc, they can spend it there. 

Again, no legal basis for this, just my thoughts. Because I have run into SO MANY authors who are better than TV or movie writers, and studios know that if we’re forced to make that choice, today’s generations are actually likely to choose the small, independent creator who loves the characters and is really invested in the story instead of the blockbuster designed to look good on screen.  

That is, I feel, the reason why some writers are against fanfic and I get it from that POV but my confusion is exclusively for the legal side of things. With the whole tumblr+ debacle I’ve seen hundreds of post about how MAKING MONEY OUT OF WRITING FANFIC IS ILLEGAL but no one mentions making money out of fanart or other fanworks that ALSO violate copyright. I don’t get it.

Quite honestly, to “get it” I think you need to really delve into Creative Commons and Fair Use Law, which is super complicated and I think a LOT of it has to do with the cost reward of who they go after and why (aside from authors or copyright holders not wanting other creators creating stories around their characters for vanity reasons) 

For example, I’m a dance teacher. In order to use music in my classroom I have to do two things: Pay for a music license to the three major music studios (which pretty much covers all published music) and then PURCHASE said music. When I buy the music I am buying it for my personal use, and then the licence the studio pays for allows us to use it in class, which the studio gets paid to provide to our students. 

INTERESTINGLY. If I do not want to pay for licenses, I can just ask my students to bring in music. If my students bring in their own music, I have to assume they paid for it, so I’m not responsible for buying it. And since the student is the one paying to be in dance class, using the music THEY brought SOMEHOW (don’t ask me, I don’t really understand it, either) does not require a license. Totally leagal but it sounds like BS. I cannot, however, use this workaround for a recital where I charge money for people to come see it- I’d have to buy the licenses for public use. 

Also, take plays and musicals for example. Under Creative Commons law, you can put on a whole ass broadway play, as long as you don’t charge anyone a cent for it and it has some kind of “educational” value. (ie, kids summer camp) The second you charge anyone any money to see it, it becomes illegal unless you’ve paid for the rights to do it. 

This is also really interesting because a lot of schools/camps, etc WILL pay for the rights to the musical/play but then they do one of two things which are illegal, even once they’ve bought the rights: change things (songs, lines, etc) to make it more like the broadway or movie version, AND/OR use the broadway blocking and choreography. Unless you PAY for the choreography, you should not be using it. And these companies KNOW that. they know exactly how much you paid for the show and if you bought the rights to the choreography and when you are putting the show on- but they almost NEVER bother to show up or go after schools who make changes or steal choreography. They DO go after schools who do shows for profit without getting the rights. 

Honestly, I wish I understood it better, but after living through those years where things were getting banned and writers were getting sued and all that- I just don’t even want to risk it, you know? I do all this for fun and for catharsis and to escape from real life and I just really, really don’t want to lose that. 

Sorry. Rambling. Again, I don’t know for SURE, but based on my experiences in the Dance/musical world, this would be my guess. 

I still don’t get why legally fanfic writing is basically the only type of fanwork that you cannot profit from. Understand here that I am not complaining about being unable to profit from writing fanfiction, but annoyed that OTHER forms of fanworks can be monetised.

From a non-legal point of view I do feel like there’s a definite, 100% fandom bias against writers who in any way, shape or form profit from writing fanfiction, even when it’s 100% legal (because the copyright has expired). There’s a DEFINITE idea that being a fanfic writer should be 100% a passion project and making money out of it is not only a no-no from a legal POV but also ethically or morally repugnant. I see NO compunction with fanartists who profit from their art, and people actually encourage it. And then there’s the endless mockery and disdain from people who turn their fanfiction into original content (and people DO NOT discriminate between people who do it the right way, who completely turn their fanfic into something significantly different from the original medium that inspired it, and people that pull an EL James). And I don’t get it. I don’t get it from the legal POV and I definitely don’t get it from the moral fandom POV.

Well, and you have that same idea with the general idea of fanfic, too. Celebs interact positively with cosplay or fanart or photo manips or gifsets, but fanfic is something they make fun of or use to make each other uncomfortable. I’m not saying celebs should be forced into fandom; they are allowed to engage however they want. But their view tends to model the general view.

Most people who aren’t in fandom spaces look at fanfic - whether it’s monetized or not - as morally or ethically repugnant. You have authors like OSC who are adamantly opposed to the principle of it, of using other people’s characters to write stories instead of making their own (and then he hypocritically wrote Hamlet’s Father, which is, you guessed it, Hamlet fanfic. But it’s fine and acceptable because Hamlet is in the public domain and so then it’s not fanfic, even though, really, it is).

I appreciate someone being salty with me. I think this whole tumblr+ thing triggered my ire because everyone on this fucking website was up in arms about MONETISING FANFIC and how that’s ILLEGAL while fully supporting people selling their damn fanart and merch in here. Like, which one is it???? And if there IS a legal distinction, WHAT IS THAT DISTINCTION.

Okay so to my understanding, under fair use, all for-profit transformative works of copywrited works stand on pretty much the same footing: they’re illegal if they don’t fit into a protected category, and seek to steal the market of the original work. (Bear in mind this is my personal understanding and not a legal opinion, it’s based on Lindsey Ellis’s videos about the Alpha/Omega trope I’m on mobile so I can’t link it but it’s great go watch it.)

I’m also only talking about the legality of works where there’s a profit to be made. Free fanworks, as AO3 demonstrates, are much easier to defend and stand on different and stronger legal ground .

So fundamentally profiting off another’s intellectual property without permission is illegal. However clearly it is more complicated than that bc transformative works for profit do exist and thrive. The exceptions are a) fair use, or b) original creators’ pragmatism about where they enforce the rules.

In terms of fair use, that’s what’s meant above by ‘spending the dollar’ - if I want to consume a narrative for pleasure, the assumption under the law is I will only do so once. Therefore, if say someone writes an incredible MCU fanfic about Natasha Romanov’s backstory in the Red Room, the theory goes that if I spend money to read that I will not spend money to go see the new Black Widow movie. I won’t spend money to consume broadly the same narrative twice, even if the narrative is different, and the fanfic is fundamentally trying to do the exact same thing as the original: entertain me with a story. Legally the rightful profits of the original creator are therefore stolen by the fanfic author who did not do the creative work of inventing the character and the world in the first place. Unfortunately telling a fun fictional story is not a protected function under fair use. However, if someone makes a good faith critical YouTube video ABOUT the Black Widow movie, that’s transformative because it’s a different function AND importantly, that function is protected by Fair Use - it is for parody, education, etc. In this case the law considers I might spend the dollar once to see the movie, and again to watch a critique of it - I’m not performing the same action (consuming a narrative for pleasure) twice, and it’s understood that critique is a socially important function that creators shouldn’t be allowed to silence and that needs to fund itself. The Nostalgia Critic really pushed this one by basically playing the whole movie in his review videos to the point where watching an NC review is basically the same as watching the movie. It has been argued a bunch of times that fair use doesn’t cover you if even in the guise of a protected function you do the same thing as the original for money.

Anyway, paid fanfic is making money in the same way as the original, without either this transformation of purpose or the protected social good of critique parody eduction etc. The distinction is that if money is being made, it can’t theoretically be the same pot of money (my ‘consume narrative for pleasure’ money) that the original legal creator was intending to profit from, and it has to be from one of the pots of money protected by law, e.g education or critique.

Fanart, merch etc is a step removed, however it would be considered stealing the market of the original merchandise so it’s still functionally illegal if it doesn’t meet the test above (transforming it substantially for a protected purpose). However this is where what is the case de jure (under the letter of the law) buts up against de facto (in reality). De jure, profiting off the creative work of another when you have not substantially transformed it into a new thing and it isn’t under a protected category is illegal. For example, a parody cartoon in the New Yorker of Black Widow mocking the movie won’t fall afoul of fair use because it’s transformative and it’s under a protected category. However using Black Widow’s name and face to sell things without permission is stealing the market of legitimate merchandise without a protected function. You could get sued for that. But you probably won’t.

This is because, de facto, big creators recognise that my buying a cool Black Widow T-shirt on Etsy is not going to necessarily interfere with me seeing the movie, and I might well not have bought the real merch anyway because it isn’t available in my country, or it isn’t as cool looking or whatever. In fact cool fan work might make me see the movie where I might not have otherwise. There is a perception that fanart is less threatening because it is a) not filling the same function as the original (a narrative to be consumed for pleasure), and b) easier to turn into a positive for the creator by either passively accepting it as free advertising or by directly licensing it and profiting off it. Creators understand that cool fan activity makes their thing look cooler by association. They also understand a really good fanfic can supersede the original work in a way a really good piece of fanart can’t. They cannot profit off fanfic, they fear losing profits to fanfic, and therefore fanfic cannot risk being profitable and realising these fears. Fanart is stealing the market of merch not the original property, and can be a positive for the original creator. Fanfic cannot.

This means that historically it is safer for fandom communities to market fanart, but there is a long history of fan communities being decimated by attacks on fanfic. The compromise that is found with fanfic is that if we’re not stealing their profits than it’s not illegal, and AO3’s lawyers can clearly fight that corner. However, fanart is both legally and de facto seen as less threatening to the original work than fanfic, and potentially even a good thing. It’s therefore safe for us to want to buy fanart, but it threatens fan communities’ ability to exist freely online to buy fanfic.

Tl;dr: don’t put your fanfic behind a paywall.

I’m an artist and a writer, and I do actually know a few things about copyright law, and there are some misconceptions/lack of information here. I get it, if you’re not an artist yourself, you probably don’t know what it’s like. So maybe I can set a few things straight.

There’s a misconception here about just how legal/okay monetising fanart is. Just because someone puts their fanart up on Redbubble doesn’t mean it’s legal. In fact, fanart gets taken down on Redbubble all the time because the copyright holders issue a takedown notice. And if you get too many take-down notices, RB will close your account, because you’re breaking their TOS. Some creators are okay with fanart merch; for a small-ish TV show or book, fan merch might be helpful, since it increases fan investment and helps promote the thing without them having to invest a single dollar, and it’s not competing with their own merch because they’re not selling merch. It may not be technically legal, but the creators simply won’t do anything about it. But try putting up Marvel fanart or Disney princess fanart, and see how long it takes before Disney sends you a cease-and-desist. I mean, they went after people crocheting Baby Yodas on Etsy.

The whole “fair use” thing is really a philosophical debate. In reality, if the copyright holder issues a takedown notice, the thing gets taken down. Yes, you can file a counter-notice, but that constitutes a legal agreement to go to court over it. And realistically, there’s no way any of us are going to win against Disney’s lawyers, fair use or not. You do not want to sign up for that, believe me. Much better to just let it go.

What saves most fanartists isn’t the fact that it’s legal, it’s the fact that a cease-and-desist is usually a copyright holder’s best approach. If you issue a CAD, you can’t then sue someone if they comply, unless they file a counter-notice. It’s the easiest and cheapest approach for Disney and in 99% of cases it makes the most sense, and luckily, is also the one that lets the fanartist off the hook with nothing more than having to take the work down. I don’t know how likely it is that this would also be the approach for monetised fanfiction.

Another important thing: fanfic is a different medium. Gifs and fan videos are also examples of fanworks that you can’t monetise. It’s not just fanfic. It’s partly down to the medium and the fact that you can’t sell merch with anything except fanfic. Nobody pays just to look at fanart, trust me.

And a huge factor is that most fanfic is based on stories - films, books, etc. Fanfic is therefore automatically less transformative and a more direct rival to the source, especially if that source is or includes books.

I mean, think about it like this. You write a fanfic. Someone draws an illustration for it. Most writers would think that’s awesome, right? Now imagine someone rewrites your fic with a different ending, or takes your premise and all the little details you came up with and basically steals them for their own fic. Still awesome? Because most fic writers consider that plagiarism, and get very annoyed.

So authors, especially, are often cool with fanart but not with fanfic. Because fanfic is essentially taking the thing you wrote, and rewriting it. Even fanfic writers don’t like it when someone takes the thing they wrote and copy or rewrite it, so maybe you can understand why original creators don’t like it either? Now add money into the equation, and imagine that you put all this time and effort into creating characters, getting published, etc - and someone else just copies your work and sells that. Would you be okay with that?

The exact same thing happens with art, by the way. It’s just that most fanart is also based on stories, not paintings or photos. But if you copy an artist’s painting and call it “fanart” and sell it, I promise you, they’re going to be pissed off. You’re much more likely to get away with using it as inspiration for a story. In fact, I think writers tend to get away with this more, if anything - you can write a story inspired by a photo you saw, and the photographer will likely have NO chance of proving that it’s essentially fanfic of their work. If you wanted to write and sell fanfic based on some artist’s paintings, I’m pretty sure the tables would be turned and you would get away with it while a fanartist trying to sell copies or re-interpretations would not.

Also: there are creators and celebrities who are cool with fanfic and have explicitly support it, and there are instances where fanart has been laughed at (I distinctly remember them showing pinup art to Hayden Christensen on some talk show to embarass him and laugh at it; same with Chris Hemsworth).

And finally, you can sell fanfic if you change the names and details and make it an original novel. Sure, there might be people who sneer at it, but trust me, there’s people who sneer at artists for all kinds of reasons, too. (Did you know that digital art isn’t “real” art? And that charging money for your art devalues it and artists should starve for their art if they really mean it? And that if I put my art on the internet, it’s free game for anyone to take and do whatever they want with it? And that fanart isn’t “real” art? The list goes on.)

I’ve got firsthand experience with both sides here. So I can tell you that if you think selling fanart is just always allowed, and artists don’t have to deal with any kind of backlash or people looking down on them… you don’t have the full picture. It’s not nearly as simple or as one-sided as it might seem.

Reblogging for interesting additions to the discourse. And because I finally understand what “transformative” means in relation to fanworks.