The Hugo Awards official website has made a fresh attempt to interpret the meaning of Archive of Our Own’s 2019 Hugo Award for Best Related Work and how individual participants ought to identify with it. However, the December 18 statement “2019 Hugo Awards Clarification” does not explain what need it’s supposed to meet or why it was issued at this time. In response, a number of fans have filled in the blanks with the worst motives they can conceive.
The “2019 Hugo Awards Clarification” post says —
We would like to clarify that the winner of the 2019 Hugo Award for Best Related Work is Archive Of Our Own, a project of the Organization for Transformative Works.
This category of the Hugo Awards is one which recognizes works that are non-fiction or which are notable primarily for aspects other than fiction. Thus, the 2019 Hugo Award for Best Related Work recognizes AO3 as a project and a platform; the fiction hosted on that site is not the award recipient, nor are the authors of fiction hosted on that site the award recipients.
Further, the only officially recognized 2019 Hugo Award Winner for Best Related Work is Archive Of Our Own, a project of the Organization for Transformative Works. No natural persons can claim to be a Hugo Award Winner, Finalist, or Nominee for this award on behalf of AO3.
Individual works of fiction on AO3 are eligible for the Hugo Awards in the fiction categories of the corresponding length, for the award year in which they are first published. In addition, the Hugo Awards have Fan Writer, Fan Artist, Fanzine, and Fancast categories which recognize contributions that fans give freely to fandom.
Members of AO3 are welcome and encouraged to promote themselves as “participant in the Hugo Award-Winning project Archive Of Our Own” or “contributor to the Hugo Award-Winning AO3 website”.
The Hugo Awards site is created and managed by the Hugo Awards Marketing Subcommittee of the World Science Fiction Society Mark Protection Committee, who are responsible for the statement.
Renay, of this year’s Hugo-winning fanzine Lady Business, characterized the statement as an anonymous attack calculated to discourage AO3 participants from joining CoNZealand and becoming eligible to vote in the 2020 Hugos.
Many dissenting tweets have been appended to The Hugo Awards’ own tweeted link to the statement.
And here is a a sampling of related comments.
Also, Forestofglory, who wrote a post “Why I Like Taking Part in the Hugo Awards” a few weeks ago, tweeted the link again as part of the latest discussion. It begins —
Since Archive of Our Own (AO3) recently won a Hugo, and Lady Business the fanzine I write for also won its second Hugo I wanted to talk a bit about the Hugos and why I like taking part in them. I’ve been nominating and voting for the Hugo Awards for a while now and have had a really positive experience, of the Hugos as a fun communal event where a lot of people I like talk about media they like. I also enjoy the way the awards process lets me and others share and receive recs, and celebrate the SFF community….
The Hugo Awards are trademarked by the World Science Fiction Society (“WSFS”). A mark must be enforced against violators who come within notice of the holder in order to remain effective. The Mark Protection Committee’s report to the Dublin 2019 business meeting contended that they already had to take action against someone selling a pin on Etsy:
Also in June, we were notified of a violation of our rocket trademark by a group marketing a pin to content creators on the website, Archive of Our Own. While the website itself was a finalist for a Hugo Award this year, the individual content creators are not finalists in the same way that authors edited by Best Editor are not considered finalists. The main issue, however, was that the seller used our marks and created a derivative work of our rocket shape without our permission. The right to control derivative works is one of the rights and responsibilities of a mark holder, and the seller transformed our rocket ship mark without permission. We informed the Dublin 2019 Worldcon committee of this issue because even issuing a cease-and-desist order might create a ruckus for the Worldcon among fans who are legitimately excited and happy to celebrate that AO3 is a Hugo finalist for the first time. Dublin 2019 declined to issue any guidance. If the creator withdrew this merchandise and created other material, we would then react to that based on the new merchandise. The MPC determined that it was important enough to protect our mark that it sent a cease-and-desist letter asking them to withdraw the design. We also pointed out that Worldcons issue their own pins to legitimate Hugo finalists. Toward the end of June, after getting no response from the seller, we filed an intellectual property infringement claim with Etsy, citing both the U.S. and EU registrations. Within days, Etsy had removed the item from their site.
The members of the Mark Protection Committee (“MPC”) at the time of the business meeting were Judy Bemis, Stephen Boucher, John Coxon, Joni Dashoff, Linda Deneroff, Paul Dormer, Donald E. Eastlake III, Michael Lee, Tim Illingworth, Dave McCarty, Randall Shepherd, Kevin Standlee, Mike Willmoth, and Ben Yalow. Three seats came up for election and two of the incumbents were returned, with Tim Illingworth being superseded by Jo Van Ekeren. So with one exception the membership remains the same as it was in Dublin.
Although the new statement appears gratuitous to some and pedantic to others, a likelier motive is to lay a foundation for WSFS to do something about trademark violations without going straight to court, which it lacks the budget to do. Consider what Kevin Standlee, who chaired the Mark Protection Committee until Dublin 2019, wrote on his blog on November 4:
If you are someone who insisted that nobody would ever make commercial or professional use of the Hugo Award registered service mark to claim that they were individually and personally Hugo Award winners on account of having contributed to An Archive of Our Own, you are flat-our wrong. It’s happening, and I’m not talking about “jokes” or “one-two-millionth of a Hugo Award winner” statements. The WSFS Mark Protection Committee is doing what it can about such things. Despite what some people seem to think, the first step in such cases is almost never LAWYER UP and FILE A LAWSUIT. But it uses up resources that are rather limited. I wish we didn’t have to do so. I wish that I hadn’t been right about people doing what I predicted they would do.
However, waving the threat of litigation at a group of fans collectively, almost none of whom started out with any desire to violate the trademarks, will not only offend many of them, it runs the risk of inciting people who feel unjustly persecuted to act out in precisely that way.
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
Oh good. I enjoyed this particular drama so much the first time around. Not like some Filers haven’t been back since or anything. Definitely a wonderful time to stir things up again.
(Not aimed at you, Mike, I know you’re just covering it. Just miffed that it has started up again in general.)
When a disagreement has died down into a grumpy stalemate, why bring it back up again?
I had pretty much forgotten the whole thing. Don’t see the point in opening old wounds.
“Damnit, you are the wrong kind of fandom” is never a good look.
While it may be “old wounds” to some of us, for the MPC it is an ongoing problem. Not helped by Renay spitting venom and hate at them.
But I do think it was a mistake to write this text without examples of wrongdoings that really continue to happen. That should have been learned since last time. People shouldn’t be expected to have read Kevin’s blog for getting the context.
And while bureaucratic language has its place, if feelings are still hurt since last time, please think of adding a few sentences to show that you respect people and their community and that you understand what the win meant to them. Think of it as a stamp that if lacking will cause the message to never reach its recipients.
The sad thing about this is that it’s two communities that value the same things that are at loggerheads due to being unable to understand each other.
Hampus Eckerman: I do think it was a mistake to write this text without examples of wrongdoings that really continue to happen. That should have been learned since last time. People shouldn’t be expected to have read Kevin’s blog for getting the context.
You mean that WSFS should do to the people who are promoting and marketing themselves as Hugo Award Winners what Lou Antonelli did to Carrie Cuinn? No, I don’t think that very publicly pointing to those people as being a problem is the way to go. It’s not as if it’s difficult to find examples with Google.
Hampus Eckerman: if feelings are still hurt since last time, please think of adding a few sentences to show that you respect people and their community and that you understand what the win meant to them. Think of it as a stamp that if lacking will cause the message to never reach its recipients.
Let’s be honest; there is nothing that WSFS could say which would make AO3 members happy, other than telling them they can call themselves Hugo Award Winners.
Karl-Johan Norén: The sad thing about this is that it’s two communities that value the same things that are at loggerheads due to being unable to understand each other.
The problem isn’t that WSFS doesn’t understand where AO3 members are coming from. The problem is that AO3 members expect WSFS to change how the Hugo Awards work in such a way as to make them happy.
The majority of AO3 members who commented here when it was discussed back in September seemed to agree that it was okay for WSFS to act to protect its marks against attempts by people to use them commercially. And yet here are a bunch of AO3 members now screaming at WSFS for doing just that. 😐
Some of those AO3 people must really be psychotic.
I’m no sort of a lawyer, but my understanding is that trademarks, once granted, have to be actively defended by their holders. Which, in the case of the Hugos, is the WSFS, acting through the MPC – the WSFS is the legal entity holding the mark, so statements have to come from the WSFS, not any particular individual. Not cowardice, just legal necessity. “The WSFS has issued a statement” carries weight, “Kevin Standlee said please don’t do that” doesn’t.
So, unfortunately, it looks like this sort of thing is going to keep happening… because the MPC of the WSFS is actually obliged to defend the trademark, so every time it becomes aware that someone’s calling themselves a Hugo winner when they’re not, it has to say they’re not.
I’m no expert in the demographics of Ao3 members either, but I think it’s very likely they’re like any other large group of people: most of them are just fine, some are absolutely lovely, but a few are complete twerps who spoil things for everyone else. And I suspect that, as usual, it’s the complete twerps in the community that are causing the problems here.
So I think the MPC are performing a legal chore that they’re actively required to do… and any bile and ire going around could most appropriately be directed at either:-
the intellectual property laws that make this chore necessary, or
the minority of twerps in the Ao3 community that make this chore necessary.
As a longtime member of WSFS through my memberships in each year’s Worldcon, I’m curious about how the unsigned authors of this clarification have the authority to make this statement and whether they deliberated or voted on it.
My presumption is that the authority for Hugo Awards matters has passed to CoNZealand 2020. But would the current con be in a position to clarify the meaning of a Hugo Award given out by the last con?
Because the statement lacks any information on what prompted its issuance, it makes me question why we’re kicking this hornet’s nest. I salute the fanfic community on Archive of Our Own for their role in the award-winning project and hope that they continue to support Worldcon and vote in the Hugos.
JJ:
No. I mean giving examples and context. Not naming people.
I don’t think anything will appease all. But I do think giving context and showing care is the right thing to do and at least be something some are greatful for.
I’m so tired.
Would outlining specific examples of copyright infringement in a statement really be so redundant? Or harmful? Is the WSFS just flat-out not allowed to? Maybe stick in a “while we appreciate the combined efforts of the AO3 community” or a “we hope they continue to participate in the Hugos” in there too.
Honestly. I’m sick of the enraged rhetoric being tossed around on Twitter too – anyone can see that this isn’t malicious, just filled with questionable omissions. I defended the AO3 community as a whole the last time this flared up but its clearer now that this is all a big, bureaucratic mess.
A joint statement from Nicholas Whyte and James Bacon (2019 Hugo administrator and Worldcon chair), respectively.
(Sadly, all I have is the twitter image of their full statement.)
@JJ: I’m not Hampus and can’t speak for him, but I think it would have helped if the announcement quoted here had included some of the context that Mike found and included, which isn’t part of the “clarification.” That could have been “we have to defend our trademark even from errors by enthusiastic people, or we could lose the right to defend it from Engulf and Devour” or a mention of the person selling rocketship pins on Etsy back in June.
Assume goodwill, and realize that saying “here’s why we’re doing this” has a better chance of being effective when it’s part of the original statement than “no, really, here’s the explanation we didn’t bother to give before you got upset about what we did say.” That’s not specific to fandom: we are humans, not abstractions, and it can be harder and more draining to get angry and calm down again than to not get angry in the first place.
@Vicki Rosenzeig:
Sadly, some of the early communication from the MPC was so tone-deaf I’m afraid it put a lot of hackles up at some AO3 people. Will Frank did a valiant attempt to bridge things, but it didn’t really seem to help matters.
Karl-Johan Norén: A joint statement from Nicholas Whyte and James Bacon (2019 Hugo administrator and Worldcon chair), respectively.
Whatever that statement was, it appears to have been deleted, and I don’t see that it has been replaced with a different statement.
We’ve gotten the Serling Award and two Hugo Noms for Best Fanzine…
But it’s our AO3 Hugo win that really warms our cardiocockular regions!
NO ONE CAN TAKE IT FROM US!!!
@JJ: Huh. Not sure what’s going on here.
Not that I think anyone’s been covering themselves with glory in this kerfuffle.
Pretty sure the timing of the statement can be chalked up to the Mark Protection Committee having a meeting at SMOFCon earlier this month and the need to be seen as defending their marks (as others have said). Nothing to do with discouraging sign ups for Worldcon. Besides everyone who was a member this year is already eligible for nominating.
While I questioned AO3’s eligibility as a 2018 work, I was happy for the people who had wanted to see it on the ballot for many years. Then I was happy for them when it won because it was unlikely to be eligible again. I don’t envy Hugo Admin if that theory is tested.
(Ugh. Forgot to tick the box.)
The joint statement from Dublincon Hugo administrator Nicholas Whyte and chair James Bacon shared by Whyte on Twitter said that they did not agree with the statement on the Hugo Awards site about Archive Of Our Own. They noted that it was issued anonymously and seemed to question whether it was authorized. They also praised AO3 for donating their trophy to a traveling exhibit of Hugo Awards.
[click]
What’s wild to me is that the MPC keeps issuing these clarifications that make no progress at all in clarifying that their actual problem is unlicensed commercial use of the registered service mark. By repeatedly issuing the clarification “you’re not a real Hugo winner,” the MPC makes it clear to the AO3 folks within WSFS (you know, the ones with some stake in helping protect the service mark) that we’re not welcome, while completely alienating the non-WSFS AO3 folks (you know, the ones with no stake in helping protect the service mark because it’s not their clubhouse and you’ve now spent FIVE MONTHS telling them they can’t come into your clubhouse) — yet somehow all of this without identifying the actual problem they claim to be trying to address.
This type of statement creates and sustains the impression that WSFS’s problem is “jokey Twitter bios” rather than the actual problem of “people making commercial use of the name and logo in a manner unsanctioned by license.” If the MPC wants to remind the internet not to make commercial use of the Hugo name and logo in a manner unsanctioned by license, perhaps that is the clarification and request they ought to make.
It might be that there are legitimate MPC reasons to think that the Hi name is being dishonored. But without seeing them out, this comes over as a general “get back in your box” to the AO3 crowd
And honestly, some twonk is selling a pin on esty? It’s going to happen. Not a damn thing you, me or Kevin can do about that.
One has to note that Time magazine has not lost its trademark on “Man/Person of the Year”
My personal reaction is that instances couldn’t have hurt, and might have helped, and that leading with the mark-protection issue might have helped. As someone who lived through the mess following the Boskone from Hell and the subsequent downscaling, I’ve thought for most of the time since that starting the letter with ~”We’ve lost the two biggest hotels in New England due to a few extraordinarily bad apples and are stuck with finding a way to fit into a space that will have us” could have saved us a lot of tsuris. (Not all — there will always be extreme fuggheads, such as some of the ones who caused the appending of “from Hell” to the convention — but a lot.) OTOH, I’m not the best guesser of other people’s reactions, so take that with whatever-size grain of salt suits you. I have also wondered through the years whether sitting on the statement for the month between NESFA business meetings might have come up with that opening, or with something else to divert some of the distress; it’s not clear to me that this statement had to happen immediately — or that it would have been improved by further consideration (e.g., asking some people outside the MPC to look at it).
I doubt anything can be done about the reactions from AO3 participants now that the statement is out. The sense of grievance of some of them strikes me as similar to the whole proud-and-lonely-thing-to-be-a-fan atmosphere that’s been mostly obsoleted by the massive popularity of our genre; maybe some day ]fanfic[ will be sufficiently respected that such grievances will be similarly sidelined.
@jeff Jones
That was really not needed.
Here’s to fans, people of good will and logic. Oy.
I’m really not looking forward to the inevitable Hugo acceptance speech from someone AO3-affiliated dredging this whole thing back up in New Zealand.
And then in 2021, I expect that speech will end up on the ballot for a Best Related Work Hugo Award.
This debate is never going to go away.
Ah, yes. Well, I thought the people who pioneered that idea the first time around knew better than to create the precedent. I was wrong. It was a “cool idea” and had to be done. Now — to paraphrase the late Dr. Robert Forward — the rest is “just engineering” the next time.
What this shows once again, in the way it was done, is a fundamental misunderstanding of how internet fandom works…period. I know people who have a foot in both worlds have tried to explain the cultural connotations to the people doing this. AO3 and the OTW were founded because the gatekeepers, the powers that be didn’t let people DO fandom the way they wanted to and hell the PTB even tried to make money from it. There is a way to get the point across (a point that most online fen agree with BTW) without it looking like gatekeeping, insulting people’s intelligence or just being a jerk.
Fail Fandom Anon, a traditional online fandom space almost immediately commented “Ok Boomer” to this. You know, it fits and I’m not someone that particularly likes that meme.
PERCEPTION IS REALITY. It doesn’t matter who is factually right and wrong right now, it really doesn’t. The WSFS is perceived as Gatekeepers, as out of touch, as old and irrelevant because of the way this was done… and continues to be done.
Ya’ll, do you really want to be the “OK Boomer” of fandom? The people everyone else not in the club rolls their eyes at? It looks like not only are you out of touch but when someone tries to explain a different fandom culture you cover your ears and go “LALALALALALA.”
This is the fandom of tomorrow. A fandom people of all colors and creeds value and have found life-giving, hell, lifesaving community in. Until you can engage without coming across as “Old Man Yelling at Clouds” I’d back off and let those fluent in online fandom translate for you. PLEASE.
@rcade: My presumption is that the authority for Hugo Awards matters has passed to CoNZealand 2020. But would the current con be in a position to clarify the meaning of a Hugo Award given out by the last con?
This would be Section 3.2.12 of the WSFS Constitution:
There is an amendment pending ratification to clarify that this section means that each Worldcon has oversight of its particular awards by replacing “the” with “their”.
I welcome correction but it is my understanding that under 3.2.12 the only group with authority to clarify matters related to a specific Hugo awarded in 2019 is the Dublin Worldcon committee. If Dublin wanted to give trophies to every single person who stood up during the AO3 acceptance speech, there is nothing in the WSFS Constitution stopping them except for maybe the budgetary provisions in section 2.9.
Martin
A Very Tired AO3er sez
There is a way to get the point across (a point that most online fen agree with BTW) without it looking like gatekeeping, insulting people’s intelligence or just being a jerk.
When I have been involved in this contretemps on File 770, I did not see a single bit of evidence that anyone I recognized from this site acted improperly. Everybody that I recognized were polite when they made their case. What I did see was multiple AO3ers basically say (politely or not so politely) “so what about trademark, I want what I want!” From what I understand, that stance works directly against a group who wants to hold on to a trademark.
The statement won’t help anything and will only further bad blood.
It will engender more people claiming personal wins not fewer and won’t aid enforcement of the mark protection.
Very unwise.
A Tired AO3er:
Ok, boomer.
@P J Evans: Yes, it was. There are people who really need to get help. They are reading things that aren’t there.
A Tired AO3er:
Might want to figure how to do that yourself there.
Calling people ‘psychotic’ in this circumstance is just adding fuel to fire. There are no happy outcomes in this conflict but even unhappier ones if people use rhetorical verbal shotgun blasts in vague directions.
@Camestros Felapton: It’s not rhetorical. Some things are more important than the debate. There would be a happy outcome if everybody was bit more sane.
What you’re missing here, is the overall cultural “talking past each other”. AO3 knew what it was doing when it made that quiet post to please stop. Online people do NOT like being talked down to, or “mansplained” to. Agree with the term or not but the perception was there. “Oh you don’t know anything, here’s how the world really works.” You know who kicked that up? Mr. Standlee himself when he came into that post, on someone else’s turf and attempted to do the job better than them.
To top this all off, the whole thing had pretty much died down. If online fandom is anything it is quick to move on to the next shiny drama. It’s perceived to have come out of the blue, with no explanation. Why now?
Whether some of you meant it or not several File 770 people came across as condescending, obnoxious, dismissive and all in all “Holier than Thou” last go-round of this. I don’t know what comment you were reading but it was just barely polite… or polite in that “You know nothing you silly girl” way. Not understanding THAT aspect of what’s going on here? Is just going to land you in the same kerfuffle time and time and time again.
Ha, way too young to be one of those but ok. What I was getting at, that you seem to have missed, is that who is right and who is wrong here legit doesn’t matter right now. At least, not as much as some of you seem to feel like it does. Taking care of the perception of being fun stealing/gatekeeping/old men is something that is far more important.
So you all are allowed to get passionate but we’re not? Double standards? Here I thought I was being polite if a bit passionate/strong in my language.
None of the ‘clarification’ issued yesterday is about protecting the terms ‘hugo awards’, ‘hugo award winner’ and the hugo symbol from being devalued as trademarks. The clarification doesn’t even mention people making items featuring those marks to sell for profit, nor what the MPC is doing about it.
The clarification only focuses on what people call themselves. And let’s be clear, it may be inaccurate, technically, for people to call themselves Hugo winners in their twitter bios, but it is absolutely not a breach of the protected mark, because it’s not being used for profit. Ao3 fans know this, because it’s the bread and butter of the Organisation for Transformative Works.
One of the issues at play is that folks working on the MPC, Hugo website and Hugo twitter do not realise they are coming across as extraordinarily condescending and rtude, because they are just bad at internat communication/using social media to achieve their aims. There are so many more productive ways that WSFS division could be speaking to the Ao3 and Worldcon membership, starting with including some people who are both Ao3 and WSFS members in the whatever group it is that approves these declarations ‘on behalf of the awards’.
@Rob Thornton
Do you think so? Because I distinctly remember, as a transformative works fan and a regular here, who is fond of many of the people who were posting, having to walk away from the keyboard several times to avoid responding with something along the lines of “you know what, fuck this, we’ll all Hugo winners now, y’all can go step on a lego” – which wasn’t because I felt people were being polite. And I like everyone I was extremely annoyed with, I know the reasoning behind why we aren’t Hugo winners, and I know Worldcon and WSFS better than most transformative works fen, so I’m guessing it looked a whole lot worse to most of the people visiting, who were already upset and frustrated and had no particular reason to extend benefit of the doubt.
If it’s not rhetorical then attempting to diagnose mental illness over the internet based on words used in a comment section is even more unwise that using hyperbolic rhetoric. I would even more strongly advise against it AND my earlier points remain – there are no happy outcomes in this conflict but even unhappier ones if people use what will be perceived to be rhetorical verbal shotgun blasts in vague directions. If your comment arose from a genuine hope that people seek psychiatric care then, guess what, your comment doesn’t help that either.
Here’s what you could have said:
“Some of those AO3 people are reading things that aren’t there.”
No need to drag psychosis into it and it gets to the gist of a point quicker and more succinctly. Plenty of people without any kind of psychosis do that.
@ Meredith
Do you think so? Because I distinctly remember, as a transformative works fan and a regular here, who is fond of many of the people who were posting, having to walk away from the keyboard several times to avoid responding with something along the lines of “you know what, fuck this, we’ll all Hugo winners now, y’all can go step on a lego” – which wasn’t because I felt people were being polite.
I was trying to be polite. What precisely was offensive? All I could do is repeat the argument I had and try to emphasize that I’m not dissing fanfic or AO3 when making the argument. It is my impression that fanfic writers feel like they do not get respect from fandom in general and thus they generally feel aggrieved towards fandom by default. I have grown to respect fanfic for a lot of good reasons. Anyone who is willing to get out there and write should receive a lot of respect.
@A Tired AO3er
Passionate is understandable. But a line like “back off and let those fluent in online fandom translate for you” definitely comes across as insulting people’s intelligence.
A Tired AO3er:
.
I hear what you are saying, boomer.
Claire Rousseau:
I’d say you are very clearly wrong there, even if I agree that the post did a clear mistake in not giving examples and context. If you read Kevins post, you will note that people have reported to the MPC cases where people use the status of Hugo winner on their professional pages they use to solicit sponsors. This is absolutely an issue.
The mistake was in not mentioning this in the clarification, assuming it was common knowledge.
Can we please refrain from the finger pointing at File 770 or the AO3 community? As far as I’m concerned, the burden of doubt should be on WSFS for not outlining specific examples/explaining why these examples were omitted.
@Rob Thornton
I didn’t consider someone saying that they’d be suspicious of any AO3 member from then on particularly polite. Which was one of the earlier comments in last time’s discussion, and is just one example.
There are Filers with ties to transformative works fandom who haven’t come back since that discussion, to the best of my recollection. No, not every regular was polite. (Not all visitors were, either. It wasn’t a discussion thread that left many covered in glory.) You weren’t offensive, but I disagree with your assertion.
@Hampus
Well, if it wasn’t in the clarification, as you acknowledge, it… wasn’t in the clarification. Which is what Claire was criticising, and is what is mentioned in the bit you quoted, so I don’t think you disagree with her?
Meredith:
For me, it is a question of wording. From my perspective, a clarification can be about the underlying reason of protecting the term, even if it isn’t explicitly stated. So I find it misleading to state that it isn’t about mark protection. It is, but not obviously so for those who have missed the run-up.
Hampus Eckerman:
You can’t have it both ways, though. You can’t say I’m in the wrong and also agree that the anon post was missing crucial info that would change it’s meaning. This is why several people are pointing out it’s partly a communication issue. Kevin has been very mansplainy and rule-lawery in the past, including when the Ao3 posted a message asking people not to create merch or call themselves Hugo winner, going into the comments for days. Adding on top of that a statement missing crucial information, that was apparently not run by anybody? It is bad writing, bad communication and a bad look.
If they’re working on specific cases that infringe the mark, they should have mentioned that, or at least said “we can’t discuss specifics because it’s a legal matter, but we’ve recently had to send five C&Ds / we’re working on three current cases”
If they don’t want the overall message to sound like a huge downer, they could have taken time to focus on the traveling hugo exhibit, or the fact that people can sign-up until the 31st to be able to nominate. They could have said “after a meeting of the MPC at SmofCon” if that’s the reason for the timing.
I am personally very sceptical of the idea that Kevin/whoever wrote this thought all this is common knowledge, because I’ve been in fandom for years now and Kevin will still assume he needs to explain basic BM rules to me every time I have a Hugo-related opinion on twitter.