If you've been hanging out in other communities, you've probably heard about Nick Simmons tracing from popular manga and other sources (http://community.livejournal.com/bleachness/446299.html) --including DA artists.
Tracing another's work might have some (small) merit for practice, but certainly not for profit. You would think that the son of a musical artist that blamed people downloading music for the hard times of the music industry(In a November 2007 interview, Gene Simmons said "Every little college kid, every freshly-scrubbed little kid's face should have been sued off the face of the earth.") would take copyright a tad more seriously.
Wow, that is just a little too close for comfort.
Well, he's not tracing...copying, absolutely, it's obvious that he's spent too much time using Bleach as a reference, and that's pretty bad, arguably plagiarist for sure, but I wouldn't call it tracing. Really, professional comic artists have been doing this since, uhm, I guess always. If you go through a lot of the silver-age comics and even stuff from the 90s, you'll find a lot of this kind of thing, though not so much of a 1:1 ratio. There was an incident a few years ago when a Marvel artist was found to be tracing...legitimately paper-over-paper tracing every panel from photographs (not taken by him), so it's not that out of the norm. His mistake wasn't so much copying someone else's shit (though I do think that's wrong) but doing it so brazenly from a single source.
Some are outright traces, others do look like copies. And apparently he has copied from sources like Hellsing as well.
I realize it's a common practice in some companies, but I personally never knowingly buy from an artist that I know traces from copyrighted material comic artist or otherwise.
The least he could do is trace and copy text from a good series. Pfft. ;D
Quote from: raerae on February 26, 2010, 11:58:10 AM
Tracing another's work might have some (small) merit for practice, but certainly not for profit. You would think that the son of a musical artist that blamed people downloading music for the hard times of the music industry(In a November 2007 interview, Gene Simmons said "Every little college kid, every freshly-scrubbed little kid's face should have been sued off the face of the earth.") would take copyright a tad more seriously.
Piracy is not plagiarism. I wrote my doctoral dissertation on piracy and will not hesitate to post my powerpoint slide on it if anyone questions. This is definitely a form of plagiarism, and should be dealt with like any other plagiarism scenario.
The series has gotten high praise from certain sources while clearly in design (as well of some of the dialogue I've seen) there is not a fresh or original thing in his books. And, to top it off, THIS.
If you're going to copy from someone, make it look better than its source.
BUT, if you're good enough to do that, then make something original.
And, if you're not, then why are you printed agghh.
I liked Kubo's Twitter response, which basically boiled down to "So wait this kid calls himself a manga-ka?"
I hate how this kind of thing has to be so common in comics. Really is it that hard to come up with a panel? Just go by Wally Wood's 22 panels guideline if it's going to be that hard for you, gosh! And there's a point past which "homage" is just a huge crock.
There has been some interesting discussion around the interwebs on a related topic: why is it that so many people are quick to condemn Nick Simmons, but have no problem with artists at selling prints of their own drawings of characters who belong to someone else? I see this kind of thing all the time at anime cons, rows of people selling nothing but prints or buttons of popular manga characters. Drives me nuts, especially when they seem to make more money than I do. :P For that matter, even at comic cons it is an acceptable practice for artists to make money selling sketches of their versions of Superman/Batman/Spiderman. It makes no sense to me.
I suppose there's an honesty issue.
We all know that the artist at the con doesn't own the character and they're not trying to fool anybody to think anything else. It's a copyright infringement, but it's an honest one if that makes sense. Nick Simmons on the other hand has been pulling a fast one on people, passing off traced images as completely new work. We know that the person selling Batman sketches didn't create the character or have the rights to sell images of him, but they're not cheating their audience or getting an undeserved head start over other artists who can probably do a better job of drawing from scratch.
Hahaha. This is awesome and awful.
If you're going to swipe from something don't swipe from some world-famous property with legions of fans.
Man. The guy's got balls. I'll give him that.
Quote from: TTallan on February 27, 2010, 10:47:47 AMI see this kind of thing all the time at anime cons, rows of people selling nothing but prints or buttons of popular manga characters. Drives me nuts, especially when they seem to make more money than I do. :P For that matter, even at comic cons it is an acceptable practice for artists to make money selling sketches of their versions of Superman/Batman/Spiderman. It makes no sense to me.
I've heard that it's accepted for artists to draw Superman (DC characters), Spider-man (Marvel characters), and Invincible (Image characters) because when the artists are no longer on a project (they were already paid their page rate) it's a way to make some money at the convention and still promote the brands. This goes for established artists who have drawn an issue or two for the big companies and for the unestablished artists who may someday draw for the big companies.
Kind of a unwritten rule, which leads to objections of hypocrisy.
Manga (Japanese comics) are considered a separate entity - even though fans of comics are fans of comics no matter where the comics originate from. I guess manga fan artists will always just be fans because their chances of getting hired overseas is very small.
Quote from: KidGalactus on February 27, 2010, 12:15:53 PM
Man. The guy's got balls. I'll give him that.
Is it "balls" or some kind of distorted view of work ethic? How much pressure is there on him to "succeed"? Why not use one of the most successful mangas out there for reference?
Has Nick made any comment on this?
(Try not to double-post and simply edit your post if you need to add something --Dr. BlkKnight)
When I ask an artist to draw me a famous character or I buy a sketch of a famous character from them I know they don't own the property but there is something to be said for purchasing their "interpretation" of that character.
I think what Simmons is doing is completely different. And far less agreeable.
But then I use a lot of "Google Image" photo references when I draw (trace) and I don't cite the original work. So maybe I'm just as bad. I don't know. Perhaps my claims to not be an artist shall serve as my defense. ;D
Personally, if I had a famous set of characters and people sold their interpretations of them, I wouldn't be bothered -- especially since they couldn't possibly be making more cash off it than me, and especially since it couldn't be that damaging to me. Same with doujinshi. (If I were ever to meet them, they would be personally obligated to give me a print or two for free...:D) If they were straight-up copying my style, however, that would kind of suck. That isn't even the least bit fresh.
My local con recently banned fanart, and that not only brought in a new slew of artists last year but caused a bit of griping. Since I don't read much manga compared to some (and the series people usually draw fanart for I couldn't care less about), I love artist alleys full of original works, but I don't have a huge problem with fanart sales so long as that's not
all they do.
http://manga.about.com/b/2010/02/26/nick-simmons-bleach-manga-plagarism-scandal-rocks-the-comics-twitterverse.htm This article has a great lot of discussion and response from people on the various aspects of tracing, plagiarism, piracy, and doujinshi.
QuoteIs it "balls" or some kind of distorted view of work ethic? How much pressure is there on him to "succeed"? Why not use one of the most successful mangas out there for reference?
From his DA:
QuoteTools of the Trade: Brain, balls, left hand, pencil. In that order.
Straight from the horse's mouth. But he left out "other people's published work".
Most fanart is an interpretation and/or homage. They at least pay their respects to the original creator and don't claim the characters as their own.
While I draw the occasional fanart, I personally don't sell or buy fanart either. It doesn't feel right to me, so I don't.
The only thing he did that isn't done by a lot, and I mean A LOT of other artists, was grift his work from one single source. It happens all the time that one professional artist will lift poses and panels from other artists. In fact, throughout the history of art, you find artists who copy other, more talented artists. Hell, this happens all the time in manga comics alone...it's probably happened many times with Bleach. Hell, chances are the artist of Bleach lifted a panel or two from someone else. The only reason we don't see this exact story happening every day is because most other people who do it are smart enough to lift from many different artists. Is this guy an uninspired hack? Sure. Should he hang his head in shame at the contrast of his ironic braggadocio? Damn right. Should everyone who wants their money back for what they bought receive it along with a hand-written apology? Absolutely. Is he a thief? Arguably, but this is only a concentrated form of a time-honoured tradition of thievery. The only thing he's guilty of is being stupid instead of talented...and maybe of being the son of an icon and more fun to crucify.
Oh yeah, I definitely would not sell fanart myself. I'd much, much rather sell original work. It'd be more of a personal success to me, whereas selling fanart would be more of a "for cash" thing, admittedly, and I can make cash other ways.
I tell you, that guy didn't deserve well near 200,000 pageviews in the mere matter of a few days. People are still commenting him like it would make any sort of difference in his or their lives. Crazy. Well, it's undoubtedly the kind of unrecoverable "bad publicity" attention. I truly wish anyone guilty of this could be so scrutinized sometimes, but people don't tend to do this unless they think they can get away with it (unless they truly think it's "okay", in which case they have issues).
I have no issues with fanart-- I'm sure nearly all of us artists started by doing fan art, one way or another (at one point I was obsessed with copying Macross characters, for example). I am delighted when someone creates fan art of my characters and posts it on their DA account or blog or whatever. But if they were to sell prints of that work without asking my permission, I would be mighty annoyed.
Homage sketches and prints are, I suppose, a grey area of comicdom (and I agree that it is morally worse to do what Nick Simmons did). But I have heard stories of Disney taking a very firm line with their copyrighted characters and going as far as to tell a daycare centre (I think it was a daycare centre) to remove a hand-painted mural of Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck from its walls. Now that Disney owns Marvel, I have to wonder how long it'll be before they put a similar foot down on convention sketches...
Most (http://calibretto3.deviantart.com/art/Color-Safe-Bleach-Alternative-59211889) of (http://calibretto3.deviantart.com/art/Pokemon-Hidden-Leaf-Green-57433224) the (http://calibretto3.deviantart.com/art/Shinigamimon-59455987) fanart (http://calibretto3.deviantart.com/art/Superman-Made-Interesting-84390921) I sell (http://calibretto3.deviantart.com/art/Muppet-Gear-Solid-129901754) at cons (http://calibretto3.deviantart.com/art/Who-you-gonna-call-131241322) are humorous or parody (http://calibretto3.deviantart.com/art/Sailor-V-59212174), while I do have one (http://calibretto3.deviantart.com/art/Thrall-Son-of-Durotan-74761093) or two (http://calibretto3.deviantart.com/art/Cairne-Bloodhoof-128548007) that are straight-up fanarts. I don't feel comfortable making and selling "straight-up" prints of other peoples characters at cons, but I don't mind doing a humorous twist and selling those. It actually involves me being somewhat original in coming up with an idea or joke.
I never trace though. (The only time I've traced for my comic is one time I tried to trace a photo I took of my car, and it looked like crap, so I never tried it again.) I certainly have been influenced by comics and manga, even to the point of looking through various books to see "how ____ did this or that." (For example, I dug through three different tpbs last week to find out how three different artists handled crying for one of my comics last week. I didn't copy any of them, but I just got an idea of how they dealt with drawing it.)
Personally, I'm against tracing photos, even ones you've taken yourself. I'll use photo references (which reminds me, I need to take some shots for an awkward post that's coming up . . . ) but when you trace them, the drawings look static and stiff, instead of fluid and dynamic. I'm also against tracing other peoples art. I know some people say that tracing is a good way to learn how to draw, but I don't believe it is. I think it's fine to copy other peoples art in order to learn how to draw (I have a box full of drawings copied from every X-Men book in the Rochester public library,) but when you trace, you don't learn anything other than how to trace. And even if you do start out copying drawings, you need to learn and understand the fundamental basics of drawing before you can grow as an artist. Copying only gets you so far. Doing a webcomic for the last seven years has really helped me. When I started, I tended to copy other peoples work. When I started my first webcomic, I found that my "original" stuff didn't look nearly as good as my "copied" stuff, so I had to almost completely re-teach myself concepts like proportion and perspective. I couldn't just gank the pose from page "A" and the background from page "B" anymore.
This Simmons kid is an idiot, and I hope he gets the crap sued out of him.
I took a look at this just yesterday for the first time. It's really obvious that he used Bleach as a reference for some of the stuff, but I can't call the examples "tracing" unless he's a really bad tracer. I, myself, am a pretty good mimic and when I copy something freehand I get much closer than those examples. I think the most he can be accused of is being a bit too blatant in utilizing references from a very popular series.
Quote from: LegendWoodsman on February 27, 2010, 04:56:42 PM
I've heard that it's accepted for artists to draw Superman (DC characters), Spider-man (Marvel characters), and Invincible (Image characters) because when the artists are no longer on a project (they were already paid their page rate) it's a way to make some money at the convention and still promote the brands. This goes for established artists who have drawn an issue or two for the big companies and for the unestablished artists who may someday draw for the big companies.
A lawyer friend of mine explained to me one time that there was a lawsuit against a married couple in the SW US (either NM or AZ, can't remember at the moment) where Paramount sued them for selling fan art of Star Trek at a sci-fi convention (a few years back Paramount had been sending incognito reps to conventions to look for bootlegs and such). The couple happened to be lawyers as well as fans. Constitutional lawyers, at that (what are the odds? i dunno...). They ended up winning the suit. Seems that its totally legally to sell fan art of something so long as you don't represent it as anything else.
Of course, you can sue a ham sandwich for being too cheesy, regardless of the actual validity of the claim, which probably explains why conventions tend to disallow doujins and other fan art these days. One could argue that conventions should have better legal representation/counsel, but oh well.
There are a few overlays floating around. Some I think are stretching, but others match up pretty damn well.
One of my friends just showed me this (http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/4389/incarnateskinwalkers.jpg), though. It's not even a trace or copy, just the actual image with blood painted on.
Quote from: raerae on March 03, 2010, 02:22:10 PM
There are a few overlays floating around. Some I think are stretching, but others match up pretty damn well.
One of my friends just showed me this (http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/4389/incarnateskinwalkers.jpg), though. It's not even a trace or copy, just the actual image with blood painted on.
Definitely the same image, but:
- Depends on the licensing of the image
- I wish people would stop using hyperbole, there's a lot more editing going on in that image than simply just having "blood painted on".
Perhaps that's my main problem with the whole drama. That is, people straying into hyperbole at the drop of a hat. Drama benefits no rational argument.
Quote from: Knara on March 03, 2010, 04:11:30 PMPerhaps that's my main problem with the whole drama. That is, people straying into hyperbole at the drop of a hat. Drama benefits no rational argument.
It's mine too. One person says 'tracing' and suddenly everyone is under the assumption that he's tracing, which he isn't. Granted, the Skinwalkers image is pretty damning if he didn't license the photo, but what he's done otherwise isn't even that far out of the norm. Close or not, it's obviously not traced and he's certainly not using someone else's original artwork. Elvis Presley did worse than this and he's hailed as a god.
Quote from: Knara on March 03, 2010, 04:11:30 PM
Perhaps that's my main problem with the whole drama. That is, people straying into hyperbole at the drop of a hat. Drama benefits no rational argument.
Yes but the internet runs on LoLCats and drama. It is the fuel that drives the engine and lo be to any who resist it as they will be mashed in its relentless gears.
My feeling on all of this sort of stuff is sort of circumspect. On the one hand I am unhappy with the person doing the copying because they are cheating to get ahead and like all people who have worked much of their life fruitlessly whilst watching cheaters get ahead and get over and get away with it, it pisses me off to no end.
But that's my hang up.
The other side of the argument for me is if Shonan Jump or whoever's publishing Bleach this week doesn't care why should I? If I'm that devoted a fan I can go out of my way to let Tite Kubo know about it and after that it's up to him and his legion of samurai lawyers to take it from there.
I don't have any legal standing to do anything about it and this ridiculous effort to "educate" people about the theft so they don't support Simmons is kind of like a demon singing to a hellish choir in hell. They all know the song and everyone's suffering regardless of the song. The vast majority of these folks would have never even heard of his work and if anything he's probably made more money and gotten more promotion since the controversy came about. So it's the inverse of the intention by the fans.
And that brings me back to the creators and their lawyers. If they cared there would be nothing to discuss because all of his comics would become the property of Kubo and any money he made selling them would be forfeit as well. Because that's the way copyright law works. And it wouldn't be hard to prove in this case. It's the kind of case a copyright lawyer dreams of. So once again, if Kubo and Shonan Jump don't care, why should I?
And that goes for any other copyright cribbings too. If DC or Marvel or whoever is getting ripped off and they don't care why should I? Let them know about it sure. But after that the only thing you can do is join the choir and suffer some more. Why not just let it go and do something productive with your time. Like eat an apple or get a haircut or finally clean those gutters your mom's been bugging you about.
Quote from: Rob on March 03, 2010, 04:47:05 PM
My feeling on all of this sort of stuff is sort of circumspect. On the one hand I am unhappy with the person doing the copying because they are cheating to get ahead and like all people who have worked much of their life fruitlessly whilst watching cheaters get ahead and get over and get away with it, it pisses me off to no end.
I agree. Were I his mentor/teacher/editor my comment upon seeing it would be, "You're better than this, Nick. Try harder."
Just don't think I necessarily would place it into the "blatant plagiarism" camp.
Quote from: Knara on March 03, 2010, 05:23:11 PM
Quote from: Rob on March 03, 2010, 04:47:05 PM
My feeling on all of this sort of stuff is sort of circumspect. On the one hand I am unhappy with the person doing the copying because they are cheating to get ahead and like all people who have worked much of their life fruitlessly whilst watching cheaters get ahead and get over and get away with it, it pisses me off to no end.
I agree. Were I his mentor/teacher/editor my comment upon seeing it would be, "You're better than this, Nick. Try harder."
Just don't think I necessarily would place it into the "blatant plagiarism" camp.
Well on the off hand we're talking about two different things here I'll just throw up this definition of plagiarism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism)
To my mind with that definition I would say he is definitely guilty of a close imitation of another author's thoughts whilst representing them as his own work. But then the article does not seem to mention art and instead seems more aimed towards writing which frankly I think is a better use for the word plagiarism.
And I do think it's pretty blatant from the images I've seen. But that's just my opinion.
I was really looking at it more from a legal perspective (as that is where my education/experience lie) and the whole copyright infringement thing. The copyright for the Bleach characters no doubt belongs to Tite Kubo and/or his publishers. And if I were to hold theses images up in front of a jury and ask them to rule in Kubo's favor for copyright infringement they probably wouldn't even need more than a couple hours to deliberate. The evidence really speaks for itself.
Their only hope would be to prove that Kubo took all the images for the Bleach characters from other artists. And even then they would still have a problem because even if Kubo borrowed from many sources to create his characters Simmons has borrowed greatly from only one source. And Bleach as a single source carries weight as a copyright beyond any single character that may inhabit the storyline.
Obviously there's a lot that goes into this sort of thing and it probably wouldn't even go to trial as chances are Simmons would settle well before it got that far.
But from the legal perspective if they (Kubo and his publishers) don't care, why should I is my main thought. As far as whether or not it's plagiarism; man who really cares? It's not a legal term and unless he's worried about being expelled from art school I don't think Simmons probably cares either.
It's like arguing over whether or not your cat is naughty because he pooped on the carpet: on the internet.
I don't care if he is or isn't because it doesn't affect me.
if they sued Simmons and lost... well then we would have something to talk about. Then it would be torches and pitchforks time. Because defense of copyright law in general is important to all creators. But this just doesn't matter... to any of us really, unless we feel like arguing on the internet... which I understand is under consideration for the 2012 Olympic Games.
Quote from: Rob on March 03, 2010, 05:43:45 PM
Their only hope would be to prove that Kubo took all the images for the Bleach characters from other artists. And even then they would still have a problem because even if Kubo borrowed from many sources to create his characters Simmons has borrowed greatly from only one source. And Bleach as a single source carries weight as a copyright beyond any single character that may inhabit the storyline.
Thing is though, this isn't a case of "he took images and constructed his entire work from someone else", but rather, "Bleach fans noticed similarities and started getting butt hurt". The vast majority of his work is not in question, but, rather, individual frames that he obviously used as reference (but did not copy wholesale, unless Simmons is a horrible tracer).
Even if he isn't being sued by Kubo, Nick is suffering the slings and arrows of public opinion. Sometimes, that is enough to affect one's career.
Simmons released a statement through his
publicist(emphasis mine):
QuoteLike most artists I am inspired by work I admire. There are certain similarities between some of my work and the work of others. This was simply meant as an homage to artists I respect, and I definitely want to apologize to any Manga fans or fellow Manga artists who feel I went too far. My inspirations reflect the fact that certain fundamental imagery is common to all Manga. This is the nature of the medium.
I am a big fan of Bleach, as well as other Manga titles. And I am certainly sorry if anyone was offended or upset by what they perceive to be the similarity between my work and the work of artists that I admire and who inspire me.
Quote from: Rob on March 03, 2010, 04:47:05 PM
Why not just let it go and do something productive with your time. Like eat an apple or get a haircut or finally clean those gutters your mom's been bugging you about.
You totally just ripped off the ending of Monkey Island. I'm gonna tell Ron Gilbert on you!
Quote from: Gar on March 09, 2010, 10:49:43 AM
Quote from: Rob on March 03, 2010, 04:47:05 PM
Why not just let it go and do something productive with your time. Like eat an apple or get a haircut or finally clean those gutters your mom's been bugging you about.
You totally just ripped off the ending of Monkey Island. I'm gonna tell Ron Gilbert on you!
Seriously? Great minds ... I guess. I've heard good things but I've never actually played it. So my rip off was unintentional I assure you.
And I'm not afraid of Ron Gilbert anyway.
Remember in 5th grade when that kid came to class with his "original" drawing of Mario that was obviously traced from Nintendo Power. That = Simmons. What a d-bag move.
p.s. http://dummcomics.com/index?sid=628#c5t_form
bump.
Lest we forget.
Actually, I think this topic is best sneered at and forgotten. Nick Simmons is not important.
I'm pretty much with Gibson here.
If we get some new news on the issue then we can bump this thing back into life, but if we kept every thread like this going then eventually Rod would have to make a whole new forum just for all the threads about the Todd Goldmans of the world.
Edit: And yes I do realise that I just bumped this thread further in order to say that.
I'd prefer to keep this kind of mess all stirred up. Here's a Facebook page dedicated to giving updates on the story:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Calling-for-legal-action-against-Nick-Simmons-for-plagiarism-of-other-works/10150099569020063
Obviously there haven't been any updates for a little while, but, if you're like me, you'll want to know as soon as there is. This whole story makes me want to rage-vomit and Nick's public statements to date have only worsened the matter. I'm very anxious to know what, if any, legal ramifications this incident will have. Until they occur though I will cut back on the bumps for this thread.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't need updates about this. I was pretty apathetic about this when it happened, someone I don't care about copied someone else I don't care about, and people lost their minds because he was a celebrity (sort of). Artists get ripped off much worse than this all the time and no one ever shed a tear until it was someone famous doing the copying. This is nothing more than celebrity crucifixion.
Some t-shirt salesman was selling our very own Yamino's Lady Gaga poster as a shirt without her permission last week and although I saw quite a bit about it from her and on Twitter I didn't see anything about it here.
Apparently the artist (I'm afraid I'm not up on Lady Gaga... is artist the right term? Singer? She doesn't actually play music right?) saw Yamino's poster and that acknowledgement was enough to get a lot of people clamoring to Yamino for posters and T-Shirts with the art on it. She has of course been quite busy but it is telling that before she could even set up a shirt sale herself the leaches were already offering her work for sale.
This thing with Bleach and Simmons just seems like a big deal because the people involved are quasi famous already. It does happen all the time. Hot Topic has made a fortune ripping off webcomics artists. I don't see any reason to beat the dead horse.
That said, there is no censoring here and the horses are on display should you desire to beat them. it's up to you.
Celebrity or not, Nick has a major contract, a comic deal most of us will struggle our entire careers without achieving. I guess I didn't stop to think that apathy might be the best reaction to the news.
So which Hot Topics items are being ripped off without reprisal? We could contact the original artist and maybe help them through copyright laws, help them better protect their creative property moving forward if they left themselves open. If Hot Topic was soliciting art I had copyrighted I wouldn't need to make webcomics, I'd have sued myself into early retirement!
QuoteCelebrity or not, Nick has a major contract, a comic deal most of us will struggle our entire careers without achieving.
Perhaps but he has to live with the very real idea that perhaps his success was born out of his connection to his much more successful and famous father rather than any unique talent or hard work of his own. I don't know about you but I wouldn't want to carry that baggage around. I may be in the minority but if you grow up as the child of a guy who spits blood, stomps on baby chicks on stage, has proclaimed to have screwed hundreds and hundreds of women publicly and married a softcore porn star (he also made some awesome music that I still enjoy to this day... but I didn't have to call him daddy) I'm willing to cut you some slack on the quality of your career; nepotism or no. As long as you aren't robbing the convenience store whilst I'm shopping in it I'm willing to leave you alone.
As for the Hot Topic Stuff I think Fleen covers most of those incidents fairly well. A search of the terms Hot + Topic garner a litany of tragedies.
http://www.fleen.com/?s=Hot+Topic&submit=GO
Also, Sister Claire (Yamino) has apparently been invited to join Topatoco.
http://www.fleen.com/archives/2010/03/22/changes-in-the-air-also-rain/
Congrats Yamino. I am more jealous than ever. ;D
Way to go Yamino! You get to go mad with power now!