So internet archive lost their lower court case. They're appealing, and have a good chance with the 2nd circuit, but they need help. Here's a link directly from one of their librarians for how you can help.
i’m so fucking sick of people (say, the people currently winning the lawsuit) claiming that the internet archive infringes their precious darling copyrights—if they want individual books taken down, why should the trial not only be about those?—why must they punish the entire catalogue? i use the archive primarily for old historical books, academic books, many books that are niche or 100+ years old which no one can buy anywhere, nearly no one would buy even if they could, and which the vast majority of real libraries do not even carry. i use the internet archive practically every single day for research and studying and it is my #1 resource by far. why do people value profits over knowledge? why do people value profits over accessibility? this is a library and the publishing companies are mad because it allows people to read their works for free. IT’S A FUCKING LIBRARY! poor people deserve to read and access archives. poor people make up the majority of the human race. all this trial is accomplishing is making thousands of great books inaccessible to poor people because publishing companies want to save a few bucks. sure, you can borrow books from other libraries via interlibrary loaning, but doing so takes WEEKS due to shipping. the internet archive saves people an enormous amount of time and money. this is a major case of book burning being put into action and practically no one outside of academia gives a fuck or even knows about this issue because journalists know this story won’t sell well and thus aren’t bringing attention to it. i am disgusted and my hope for humanity is in the gutter.
The Lady and the Unicorn is the modern title given to a series of six tapestries created woven in Flanders from wool and silk, from designs drawn in Paris around 1500. The set, on display in the Musée de Cluny in Paris, considered one of the greatest works of art of the Middle Ages in Europe.
'Behind the Scenes': an 1838 print by Paul Gavarni, showing an actress playing a male role telling her assistants to hurry up (Rijksmuseum). I enjoy the look at her neckwear being tied (and the shirt frill, although this is the twilight of frilled shirts in menswear).
Aside from fancy dress balls, which seemed to be full of women wearing male costumes and Turkish trousers, the stage was where a Romantic-era woman could be found in masculine attire. Many popular actresses were male impersonators.
Madame Vestris (Lucia Elizabeth Vestris) as Little Pickle in The Spoiled Child, ca. 1830 (V&A)
Mary Anne Keeley as Jack Sheppard the notorious highwayman, 1838 (British Museum).
Maria Foote as 'The Little Jockey', 1831 print of leading ladies (detail). (V&A) This particular character seems to have a lot of merchandise and prints.
Madame Vestris again (V&A), in a circa 1830 print, reminding us that there was also a contemporary song about her legs.
Finally—if you remember the uh, very creative play about the arctic adventures of Sir John Ross and his nephew, which appeared in a toy theatre kit in the mid-1830s (hat tip to @handfuloftime), the role of "Clara Truemore", love interest of the captain's nephew James Clark Edward Ross, is a breeches role, and Clara spends most of the play disguised as "Harry Halyard."
I feel like there is something inherently queer about this, despite the long tradition of "Sweet Polly Olivers" in male drag pursuing their lovers in ballads and broadsides. I wonder how the audience perceived these characters.