Pixel Scroll 9/14/19 We Are All In The Pixel, But Some Of Us Are Looking At The Scrolls

(1) ONE STOP SHOPPING. [Item by Jonathan Cowie.] SF2 Concatenation’s Autumn 2019 edition is up. Voluminous seasonal news and reviews page of both SF and science which includes the major UK SF/fantasy imprint book releases between now and New Year.  (Many of these will be available as imports in N. America and elsewhere.)

(2) LEM V. DICK. [Editor’s note: I apologize for what amounts to misspelling, but characters that WordPress would display as question marks have been changed to a letter of the alphabet without marks.]

[Item by Jan Vanek Jr.] Yesterday the English-language website of the Polish magazine Przekrój published (and started promoting on Facebook, hence my knowledge) the translation of a 2,700-word excerpt (not a self-contained “chapter” as they claim) from Wojciech Orlinski’s 2017 biography of Stanislaw Lem detailing what led to “the famous Lem-Dick imbroglio” with PKD’s “famous Lem report to the FBI”: “access to previously unpublished letters […] resulted in what is likely the first accurate description of the incident, as well as the ultimate explanation as to how the concept of ‘foreign royalties under communism’ is almost as much of a mess as ‘fine dining under communism’ (but not quite as fine a mess)”:

…It all began with Lem’s depiction of Dick – in the third of his great essay collections, Science Fiction and Futurology as little more than a talentless hack. Lem had a poor opinion of almost all American authors, and never thought much of the literary genre of which he himself was an exponent (think of his equally critical view of Pirx the Pilot, for example, or Return from the Stars)….

I found it a quite informative and interesting read, although “Lem’s unfortunate expulsion from the SFWA” that ensued is mentioned only briefly and I think misleadingly (I have checked the Polish book and there is nothing more about it, but it has been described in American sources, many of them online).

(3) ABOUT AO3’S HUGO AWARD. The Organization for Transformative Works has clarified to Archive of Our Own participants — “Hugo Award – What it Means”.

We’re as excited as you are about the AO3’s Hugo win, and we are shouting it to the rafters! We are grateful to the World Science Fiction Society for recognizing the AO3 with the award, as well as to the many OTW volunteers who build and maintain the site, and all of the amazing fans who post and enjoy works on it.

The World Science Fiction Society has asked us to help them get the word out about what the award represented—specifically, they want to make sure people know that the Hugo was awarded to the AO3, and not to any particular work(s) hosted on it. Therefore, while we can all be proud of the AO3’s Hugo win and we can all be proud of what we contributed to making it possible, the award does not make any individual fanwork or creator “Hugo winners”—the WSFS awarded that distinction to the AO3 as a whole. In particular, the WSFS asked us to convey this reminder so that no one mistakenly describes themselves as having personally won a Hugo Award.

Thanks for sharing our enthusiasm, and consider yourselves reminded! We appreciate every one of your contributions.

So far there are 80 comments, any number by Kevin Standlee making Absolutely Clear Everybody Must Understand Things Exactly The Way He Does. One reply says, “You aren’t doing a particularly good job of reading the room here.”

(4) ARISIA PERSISTED. Arisia 2020 has issued its first online Progress Report. Key points: (1) It’s happening! (2) It’s (back) at the Westin Boston Waterfront. (3) The headliners are Cadwell Turnbull, Author Guest of Honor, Kristina Carroll, Artist Guest of Honor, and Arthur Chu, Fan Guest of Honor.

(5) BOO!  LAist primes fans for Universal Studios’ Halloween mazes: “Halloween Horror Nights: A Photo Tour Of The New ‘Ghostbusters’ & ‘Us’ Mazes At Universal Studios”.

Halloween’s almost here… well, OK, it’s more than a month away, but that means it’s time for Halloween haunts — aka Halloween mazes, aka scary Halloween things at theme parks and the like, to start.

Halloween Horror Nights has been taking over Universal Studios Hollywood for 21 years, and we got the chance to take a behind-the-scenes tour of two of the brand new mazes, Ghostbusters and Us. We were guided through by Creative Director John Murdy, the man in charge of creating the stories and the scares inside all of the mazes.

He works with an art director to design every moment, writing treatments for each attraction than can run up to 100 pages.

“It’s a narrative from the guest’s POV — everything I see, hear, smell, etcetera, as if I’m going through the maze,” Murdy said. “But it also has a very elaborate technical breakdown by scene, by discipline, down to the timecode of the audio cues.”

(6) DUBLIN 2019. Cora Buhlert’s report begins with — “WorldCon 77 in Dublin, Part 1: The Good…”. There’s also a shorter version for the Speculative Fiction Showcase: “Cora’s Adventures at Worldcon 77 in Dublin, Ireland”. Each has lots of photos.

…On Wednesday, the day before WorldCon officially started, I helped with move in and set-up at Point Square. This involved carrying boxes, assembling shelves for the staff lounge and crafting area, taping down table cloths and helping to set up the Raksura Colony Tree model. This was my first time volunteering at a WorldCon and it was a great experience. Not only do you get to help to make a great project like WorldCon happen, no, you also get to meet a lot of lovely people while volunteering. Especially if you’re new to WorldCon and don’t know anybody yet, I recommend volunteering as a way to meet people and make friends. What is more, I also got a handful of groats (which I used to buy a very pretty necklace in the dealers room) and a cool t-shirt.

(7) MEMORIAL. Jim C. Hines tweeted the link to his post about the Memorial held for his wife, Amy, on September 8, a touching and highly personal tribute.

(8) TODAY IN HISTORY.

  • September 14, 2008The Hunger Games novel hit bookstores. (For some reason, the bookstores did not hit back.)

(9) TODAY’S BIRTHDAYS.

[Compiled by Cat Eldridge.]

  • Born September 14, 1915 Douglas Kennedy. No major SFF roles that I see but he’s been in a number of films of a genre nature: The Way of All Flesh, The Ghost Breakers, The Mars InvadersThe Land UnknownThe Lone Ranger and the Lost City of GoldThe Alligator People and The Amazing Transparent Man. Series wise, he had one-offs on Alcoa PresentsScience Fiction TheatreAlfred Hitchcock Presents and The Outer Limits. (Died 1973.)
  • Born September 14, 1919 Claire P. Beck. Editor of the Science Fiction Critic, a fanzine which published in four issues Hammer and Tongs, the first work of criticism devoted to American SF. It was written by his brother Clyde F. Beck. Science Fiction Critic was published from 1935 to 1938. (Died 1999.)
  • Born September 14, 1927 Martin Caidin. His best-known novel is Cyborg which was the basis for The Six Million Dollar Man franchise. He wrote two novels in the Indiana Jones franchise and one in the Buck Rogers one as well. He wrote myriad other sf novels as well. (Died 1997.)
  • Born September 14, 1932 Joyce Taylor, 87. She first shows as Princess Antillia in Atlantis, the Lost Continent. Later genre appearances were The Man from U.N.C.L.E., the first English language Beauty and the Beast film, the horror film Twice-Told Tales and the Men into Space SF series. 
  • Born September 14, 1936 Walter Koenig, 83. Best-known for his roles as Pavel Chekov in the original Trek franchise and Alfred Bester on Babylon 5Moontrap, a SF film with him and Bruce Campbell, would garner a 28% rating at Rotten Tomatoes, and InAlienable which he executive produced, wrote and acts in has no rating there. 
  • Born September 14, 1941 Bruce Hyde. Patterns emerge in doing these Birthdays. One of these patterns is that original Trek had a lot of secondary performers who had really short acting careers. He certainly did. He portrayed Lt. Kevin Riley in two episodes, “The Naked Time” and “The Conscience of the King” and the rest of his acting career consisted of eight appearances, four of them as Dr. Jeff Brenner.  He acted for less than two years in ‘65 and ‘66, before returning to acting thirty-four years later to be in The Confession of Lee Harvey Oswald which is his final role. (Died 2015.)
  • Born September 14, 1947 Sam Neill, 72. Best known for role of Dr. Alan Grant in Jurassic Park which he reprised in Jurassic Park III. He was also in Omen III: The Final Conflict, Possession, Memoirs of an Invisible ManSnow White: A Tale of TerrorBicentennial ManLegend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga’HooleThe Adventurer: The Curse of the Midas BoxThor: Ragnarok and Peter Rabbit. 
  • Born September 14, 1961 Justin Richards, 58. Clute at ESF says “Richards is fast and competent.” Well I can certain say he’s fast as he’s turned out thirty-five Doctor Who novels which Clute thinks are for the YA market between 1994 and 2016. And he has other series going as well! Another nineteen novels written, and then there’s the Doctor Who non-fiction which runs to over a half dozen works.  

(10) COMICS SECTION.

  • Frank and Ernest ask deep questions about Pokémon.
  • A Tom Gauld cartoon about The Testaments launch in The Guardian.

(11) LUCAS MUSEUM. George Lucas, his wife Mellody Hobson, and the mayor dropped by the site yesterday to see how things are going: “Force Is With Them! Construction Of George Lucas Museum In Full Swing”.

Construction of the George Lucas Museum of Narrative Art is in full swing.

On Friday, Lucas — along with his wife and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti — watched as construction crews helped bring his vision to life.

And he thanked them for the tireless effort.

“You’re doing the impossible — thank you so much,” Lucas said.

“Millions of people will be inspired by this building. We were just in our board meeting for the museum and George said you are the artists so you’re the artists of this art museum,” says Mellody Hobson, Co-CEO of Ariel Investments and the museum’s co-founder.

(12) LISTEN TO LIEN. Henry Lien is the Special Guest Star on this week’s episode of  The Write Process podcast, hosted by the UCLA Extension Writers’ Program — “Henry Lien on Worldbuilding, Puzzle Stories, Middle Grade, & Peasprout Chen: Battle of Champions”

Henry Lien teaches law and creative writing at UCLA Extension. A private art dealer, he is the author of the Peasprout Chen middle grade fantasy series, which received New York Times acclaim and starred reviews from Publishers Weekly, Kirkus, and Booklist.

(13) COSPLAY ID’S. SYFY Wire has collected all the tweeted photos — “Detroit high school encourages students to dress as pop culture icons for ID photos”.

High school can be a turbulent time for any budding teenager, but when you’re allowed to dress up as your favorite movie or television character, facing picture day isn’t the daunting challenge it once was. Per a report from The Huffington Post, North Farmington High School in the suburbs of Detroit allowed its senior pupils to assume the persona of their favorite pop culture icon for the sake of ID photographs. What followed was a parade of Woodys (Toy Story), Shuris (Black Panther) Fionas (Shrek), creepy twins (The Shining), and so many more!

(14) GUTS. In the Washington Post, Michael Cavna profiles YA graphic novelist Raina Telgemeier, whose autobiographical graphic novels have sold 13.5 million copies and  who attracted an audience of 4,000 to her talk at the National Book Festival. “Raina Telgemeier became a hero to millions of readers by showing how uncomfortable growing up can be”.

…Now, because her fans kept asking, she is getting more personal than ever. The Eisner Award-winning author who launched her publishing empire with 2010?s “Smile,” about her years-long dental adventures as a kid, is prepared to bare new parts of her interior world with “Guts,” available Tuesday, which centers on how fear affected her body.

 “This is the reality of my life,” Telgemeier told her fans. She quickly got to the heart and GI tract of the matter: “I was subject to panic attacks and [was] worrying that something was really wrong with me.”…

(15) SIGNAL BOOST. Naomi Kritzer offers an incentive for supporting a cause that needs a cash infusion.

(16) MARATHON SITTINGS. The Hollywood Reporter considers “The Long Game: Super-Sized Movies Are Testing the Patience of Audiences”.

And there may be a financial cost. Over the Sept. 6-8 weekend, New Line and director Andy Muschietti’s It: Chapter Two opened to $91 million domestically, a 26 percent decline from the first It, which debuted to $123.4 million on the same weekend in 2017. The sequel ran a hefty 169 minutes, 34 minutes longer than its predecessor.

“Andy had a lot of story to tell in concluding his adaptation of Stephen King’s book, which is more than 1,100 pages,” says Jeff Goldstein, chief of distribution for Warner Bros., New Line’s parent. “We strategically added more shows and locations to counterbalance losing a show on each screen.”

Adds a rival studio executive regarding It: Chapter Two, “look, $91 million is a great number. But anytime the second film in a hoped-for franchise goes down — and not up — that’s not what you wish for. And I do think the fact that it was so long didn’t help.”

(17) COLBERT. Stephen Colbert’s “Meanwhile…” news roundup includes a furry joke related to the movie Cats, and a bit on “The 5D Porn Cinema No One Asked For.” These items start at 2.02 — here on YouTube.

(18) VIDEO OF THE DAY. Cinema verite of author Liz Hand on Vimeo. A 5-minute video of Hand at work and play

[Thanks to John King Tarpinian, Cat Eldridge, Daniel Dern, Chip Hitchcock, JJ, Mike Kennedy, Martin Morse Wooster, and Andrew Porter for some of these stories. Title credit goes to File 770 contributing editor of the day Matthew Johnson.]

747 thoughts on “Pixel Scroll 9/14/19 We Are All In The Pixel, But Some Of Us Are Looking At The Scrolls

  1. the individual AO3 members are not listed on the official Hugo Award results, and “the AO3 members” is not even listed on the official Hugo Award results,

    It’s this bit here that I think they don’t have a strong leg to stand on, or even a leg at all. I thought individual people aren’t named as award recipients even in other categories, so why would it be required for this award and not any of the others?

  2. @JJ Thanks for the links, though I had looked through already. Other WSFS members who know the rules better than me have still asked the same question, here, and I don’t see a reason why it should go unanswered because I was the one who asked it. I didn’t ask because I haven’t fully looked through the rules yet, I asked because I’ve seen other members who also know the rules ask the question, too, so to me that says there must be interpretation within the rules.

  3. LectionaryStan, I’m happy to answer, I just figured it was obvious. As you can see on that page, there are a whole lot of individuals specifically named on it, and those people do actually get to refer to themselves as Hugo Award Winners.

  4. @JJ

    bill, I’m distinguishing between WSFS and WSFS members because to me, they are two different things. WSFS is an organization which exists and has rules. WSFS members (or Worldcon members) actually do things like nominate and vote for the Hugo Awards according to those rules.

    I can’t see any way that the WSFS Constitution distinguishes subtantively between the WSFS and its members. Sometimes it refers to the WSFS doing something (4.1.1, 1.2), sometimes it refers to Worldcon members doing something (3.7.1), and sometimes to WSFS members (3.11.1). But in every case where WSFS does something, it’s really WSFS members who do it.

    But even if there is a difference between the two, it doesn’t affect the point I was trying to make. Replace “WSFS” with “Worldcon members” in my initial post — I’m okay with that. The award was given by (people associated with Worldcon/WSFS norms and customs) to (people not associated with Worldcon/WSFS norms and customs), which is not what has historically happened. There’s no reason to expect AO3 to know or abide by what you are calling “the rules”, because AO3 didn’t write the rules, and now (elements of AO3) don’t accept them. And if the best reason that anyone can give for AO3 people to observe these “rules” is because “this is how the Hugos work”, that’s kind of petulant.
    Used to, the AMPAAS gave out Oscars, and the recipients honored them as being the pinnacle of achievement in movies. Everyone was happy. Then someone inherited one, and sold it. The AMPAAS didn’t like the Oscars being objects of commerce, but realized they couldn’t have kept it from happening. So they made receiving an Oscar from then on contingent on promising not to sell it to a third party, and have enforced those agreements in the courts. But Oscars awarded before then can still be sold.
    That’s how an awarding group enforces norms on a receiving group — not by saying “you’re doing it wrong” (particularly to a group whose group identity is formed around overcoming “you’re doing it wrong”).

  5. more @JJ
    It looked to me that LectionaryStan wasn’t asking about the list of Hugo winners, he was asking about the constitution (“rules”, he said), and (by implication) any provision in them that says who get to call himself a Hugo winner and who doesn’t.

    Which, as I’ve said, the rules doesn’t address.

  6. LectionaryStan, I’m happy to answer, I just figured it was obvious. As you can see on that page, there are a whole lot of individuals specifically named on it, and those people do actually get to refer to themselves as Hugo Award Winners.

    I mean, yeah, but I’m part of AO3.

    @bill Thanks, that’s useful to know!

  7. JJ on September 19, 2019 at 4:53 pm said:

    The application for mark protection in the U.S. is before my time, but I saw the application for mark protection in the EU (it’s probably available for viewing online)….

    In case anyone is interested, the entire record, including the application and all of the oppositions and expensive back-and-forth is on the European Intellectual Property Organization’s website.

    WSFS’s major marks are currently registered in 29 countries including the USA. (What happens to registration in the UK if Brexit happens, according to the lawyers the MPC engaged for the EU mark registration, amounts to “Nobody knows.”)

    Australia and Canada are on the MPC’s radar, now that there is a legal entity that those countries understand. How fast the MPC moves is based on both money and people points. (And, if I may speculate, how soon before another Worldcon bid comes from either of those countries.)

    The MPC’s policy has been to not consider registration in countries that have held fewer than two Worldcons, with the EU counting as a single entity for this purpose.

    Sorry for the infodump, which is apparently unwelcome from me from certain quarters, but it seemed like people were speculating on things that I know about and that aren’t actually hidden, but that require you to read the mind-numbing reports included in the WSFS minutes or to attend meetings where this sort of nit-picking is what has to be done to keep the service marks protected.

  8. bill: And if the best reason that anyone can give for AO3 people to observe these “rules” is because “this is how the Hugos work”, that’s kind of petulant.

    Not at all. If I win a Pulitzer Prize, and they tell me that I am allowed to refer to myself with relation to their award in some ways and not others, that’s perfectly within their purview. Why would the Hugo Awards be any different?

    Hugo finalists, when they get notified of their finalist status and asked if they wish to accept or decline the nomination, are also asked to observe an embargo on telling anyone about their finalist status until a certain date and time (the date/time of the announcement) — because “that is how the Hugos work”. Now they can break that embargo, just as several Puppies did back in 2015, but it makes them look like major shitheads if they do, and if they do it really egregiously, the Hugo Awards Admin could issue a statement censuring them publicly for that if they wished. That wouldn’t be “petulant”, that would be making it clear that finalists and winners are expected to follow the rules.

    If you accept an honor from an organization, they’re entitled to specify the terms of it.

  9. @Olav Rokne:

    Ah. See, I wanted to make a joke. Part of the joke was pretending that the extensive discussion of this Pixel Scroll wasn’t just a one-topic thread. This involved implying that a different item on the scroll was controversial. Would the joke have worked better if I’d linked to a more factual museum, and pretended that some real historical event was fictional?

    Sometimes, the failure mode of humour is being too confusing.

    Oops. I’m afraid that went right over my head.

    I was SO GLAD to see someone talking about one of the other pointe in the OP. But then it looked like criticism, and unfortunately thanks to Poe’s Law I couldn’t tell it was supposed to be a joke.

    Thanks for trying, anyway.

  10. @JJ

    If I win a Pulitzer Prize, and they tell me that I am allowed to refer to myself with relation to their award in some ways and not others, that’s perfectly within their purview.

    The are allowed to tell you, but they aren’t allowed to compel you unless you agree to be compelled, or a law enforces it (usually through a contract, as the Oscars I mentioned above).

    Hugo finalists . . . are asked

    I notice that you specifically aren’t saying that they are asked to enforce limitations on the members of any groups which receive the award about who gets to claim it, which is the point under discussion here. (and if your earlier point was applicable, that the “Hugo Rules” apply, they wouldn’t even need to ask, would they?)

    Now they can [do something other than what they were asked] but it makes them look like major shitheads if they do,

    And that’s about as far as anyone associated with the Hugos can go WRT to AO3 — say bad things about them.

    and if they do it really egregiously, the Hugo Awards Admin could issue a statement censuring them publicly for that if they wished.

    See above; extend and revise to “strongly-worded bad things.”

  11. bill: I notice that you specifically aren’t saying that they are asked to enforce limitations on the members of any groups which receive the award about who gets to claim it, which is the point under discussion here.

    I know that they are asked by the Hugo Admin who is to be credited by individual name, but that the Hugo Admin limits how many names they can specify (which the Hugo Admin is entitled to do as part of their role as defined in the Constitution). In other words, a fanzine that wants to specify 20 people is almost certainly going to be told “no”. Is that specific enough for you?

  12. (My pronouns are they/them, as I stated upthread.)

    @JJ:

    Can we please have a stop to all of the claims that “None of the AO3 authors actually believes that they’re a Hugo Award Winner” now?

    To be honest, I didn’t believe I was until I started reading and pondering arguments for and against, and all of this discussion has convinced me there’s quite a good argument for saying I am. Even the most contentious internet debate can lead to people thoughtfully considering and changing their positions. Isn’t that lovely? (And I see @LectionaryStan has said the same.)

    @Lys ap Adin:

    I’m going to argue that, aside from the issue of whether AO3 deserved a Hugo or the Hugo awarded was in the most appropriate category for whatever AO3 actually is, the real argument is this emotional conflict.

    Yes, precisely.

    @Lenora Rose:

    Is there a reason the oft-suggested phrasings “Contributed to a Hugo-winning project”/”Participant in the Hugo-Winning AO3” does NOT scratch the collectivist itch? To ME, and maybe I’m just not enough into the collective mindset, it feels like it fits my own contribution to AO3 better than calling myself a flat Hugo winner does.

    I think it’s a totally valid thing to say! But no one’s been debating that. What’s under debate is whether some people may, if they choose, say “I’m a Hugo winner!” or “I won a Hugo!”.

  13. bill: And that’s about as far as anyone associated with the Hugos can go WRT to AO3 — say bad things about them.

    I know that you’re enjoying splitting hairs, but no, it’s not. The MPC has the authority to decide if their marks are being infringed by someone claiming to be a Hugo Award Winner, and it doesn’t require them to have a signed statement from that person that they agree not to call themselves a Hugo Award Winner in order for the MPC to take enforcement action.

  14. Peace Is My Middle Name on September 20, 2019 at 11:53 am said:

    thanks to Poe’s Law I couldn’t tell it was supposed to be a joke.

    Of the failure modes for humour, I’ll always pick “confusing” over the one Scalzi identified.

  15. @JJ:

    As you can see on that page, there are a whole lot of individuals specifically named on it, and those people do actually get to refer to themselves as Hugo Award Winners.

    Where in the WSFS constitution does it say that this is the case?

  16. Rose Fox: Where in the WSFS constitution does it say that this is the case?

    I don’t think it does. (Though it’s probably going to have to, now. <sigh>)

    Up to now, at least in recent history, the infringements I’m aware of have all been people claiming to be Hugo nominees who weren’t even finalist-adjacent. But that doesn’t mean that there haven’t been any; I just don’t know. Kevin Standlee or Mike Glyer might.

    I suspect that the reason I’m not aware of any is because up to now, no one wanted to be “that guy”, and if they were finalist-adjacent, they knew it would reflect badly on them to try saying something like “Hugo nominee” (because I’ve got an article in this Hugo-nominated fanzine).

  17. Rivine: You know the brief discussion we had quite a ways back now, about who’s an AO3 user? It’s pretty noticeable to me that you still haven’t been including yourself in that group when you talk about AO3 users in general.

    Rivine, I’ve tried to be really diligent and careful about qualifying what I’ve said as “the AO3 members who are doing this” or “the AO3 members who have said that”. Since I’m not doing or saying those things, it wouldn’t be appropriate to include myself in those groups. It’s possible that I’ve slipped up, and if so, I apologize. I’m not sure how else you think I should say it — “The AO3 members who are saying this, of which I am not one, even though I am a member of AO3”?

  18. @JJ

    The MPC has the authority to decide if their marks are being infringed by someone claiming to be a Hugo Award Winner

    The MPC doesn’t have this authority. It belongs to the courts. The MPC has the authority to take action to protect their mark from behavior that they feel infringes upon it, but not to decide what is actually infringing.

    Some people are alleging that this usage is infringing upon or diluting the mark, and other people are alleging that it is fair use.

    Like it or not, the only body that can decide definitively either way is the court.

  19. RSV: the only body that can decide definitively either way is the court

    You are correct. My apologies for the imprecision. What I should have said is
    “The MPC has the authority to decide if they feel that their marks are being infringed”

  20. Some of this seems adjacent to the discussion about recognizing translators that occurred at this year’s Business Meeting. Specifically the part where the relevant resolution was rejected in large part because it referred to the translator and the author being “awarded a Hugo” when the Hugo is in fact given to the work. There’s more discussion of that resolution here.

    Martin

  21. @JJ

    The MPC has the authority to decide if their marks are being infringed by someone claiming to be a Hugo Award Winner, and it doesn’t require them to have a signed statement from that person that they agree not to call themselves a Hugo Award Winner in order for the MPC to take enforcement action.

    Yes, they can decide that they are being infringed upon, but they can’t do anything about it (except say bad things –“you’re doing it wrong”, “shithead”, C&D) unless they get a court to agree with them. And given the circumstances (Hugo/WSFS is too small and not generally well known enough to dilute; randos saying “I’m a Hugo winner” is either fair use/parodic/de minimis dilution, so a court won’t agree; there is enough truth in a person who is a member of AO3 saying “I’m a Hugo winner” when AO3 actually won a Hugo for the statement not to be an infringement), it is not at all clear that a court would agree.

    AO3 people have said, and will continue to say, “I’m a Hugo winner” for reasons. WSFS can stop this
    – by persuasion. And no one who is speaking out on the side of “stop” seems to have any particular gifts for that skill-set
    – by law: it’s expensive, and not at all guaranteed to be successful
    Telling people YOU can’t do this because it is against OUR rules is not going to work.
    So the best WSFS can do at this point is to hunker down publicly and wait for it to pass, while privately (direct DMs, emails, letters where the address is known) continuing to ask people to stop (if only to document for the future that, yes, the MPC is trying to police the use). This will fade, but Ms Streisand is fanning the flames right now, so it isn’t fading yet.
    If it doesn’t fade, someone will have to make a hard decision. That decision shouldn’t be made publicly; it should be made privately by the duly-appointed members of the MPC in consultation with an attorney (and preferably, a person who is good at PR — because the reputation of WSFS will take a hit if it goes this far).

    If they go to court, they may get a losing verdict, which will set a precedent that will hurt WSFS for a very long time.

    And remember, that this would happen — people would claim to be a Hugo winner — was predicted back in the nomination and voting periods. It’s too bad that nominators and voters didn’t take more notice of that, and bear it in mind.

  22. bill: Yes, they can decide that they are being infringed upon, but they can’t do anything about it (except say bad things –“you’re doing it wrong”, “shithead”, C&D) unless they get a court to agree with them.

    That’s not the case. In some cases, the MPC sending a politely-worded e-mail has been sufficient to get an infringer to stop. In the case of the Belgian TV station, it took a few exchanges, but the MPC presented their registrations, stood their ground and the other party eventually agreed to change the name of their new award to the Hugo Claus Prize. In the case of the Etsy pin, they sent an e-mail to the infringer, and when no response was received in x amount of time, they sent proof of their e-mail to Etsy, who took the product page down. In the case of the gaming app, they had their attorney send a letter. The game bombed, the site went defunct, and that was the end of it.

    There are lots of things the MPC can do before resorting to the courts. Saying that they “can’t do anything but a C&D” trivializes the fact that a C&D is oftimes effective, and no further action is needed.

  23. bill: And remember, that this would happen — people would claim to be a Hugo winner — was predicted back in the nomination and voting periods. It’s too bad that nominators and voters didn’t take more notice of that, and bear it in mind.

    Yes, there were people who said that. And you know what? I still didn’t think it was an excuse for trying to invalidate AO3’s nomination, which I thought was legitimate and deserved. That a bunch of AO3 members have subsequently behaved very badly was not a certainty at the time, and I’m not ethically okay with trying to get a Hugo finalist voided from the ballot because of something that some people might do.

    Do I really, really regret that some people decided that they wanted to be “that guy”? Yes, yes I do. But I still wouldn’t have felt any different about AO3 deserving to be on the ballot.

  24. @JJ

    That’s not what I’m talking about (although I do appreciate it that you’ve been trying to be clear when you’re talking about a subset). I mean when you’re talking about all 2 million AO3 users as “them,” which, yeah, you’ve been doing in the past couple pages. Like I said, I don’t feel you have any obligation to stop just because I find it off-putting, but originally you seemed open to the idea of being part of that “us” so I thought I’d mention it.

  25. I think the first two were examples of persuasion. The TV Station and Etsy both voluntarily complied.
    The third — where the offender died — wasn’t resolved by the MPC, so I can’t see that they get credit here.

    There are lots of things the MPC can do before resorting to the courts.

    But with respect to AO3 people saying “I’m a Hugo winner,” they aren’t proving to be effective, are they?

  26. bill: But with respect to AO3 people saying “I’m a Hugo winner,” they aren’t proving to be effective, are they?

    Apart from asking OTW to post a statement, what else have they done? Do you know? Because it’s not as if we’re going to see them doing it publicly. The most likely indication is someone who’s been approached having a big rant about it online — but that may not happen; there may not be any public indication at all.

  27. Rivine, I’ve got to leave for a while, but I’ll have a look when I get back. I really am trying, even if I’m not always successful.

  28. @Rose Fox

    Agreed with the consideration shift. Before the wank, I would have said it was metaphorical, but now… Whelp, the members who didnt want this certainly dug themselves a hole.

    @bill

    I think it would be worthwile to think about getting to an agreement with the kickstarter. They noted that they want to donate 25% of profits to the ao3. (and in general kickstarters for art etc. usually cover the making and shipping costs and not much on top) I would try to approach about working on a phrase that satisfies the MPC for the design, give their legal blessing that this is happening together with the WSFS and get half of the donation secured for the WSFS. People could get their pin, the WSFS could get money for the use of their trademark and noone has to pay a lawyer.

    But, the longer and more entrenched the positions become, the less likely that sort of agreement is.

    @Kevin Standlee

    Hey, thanks. I do think in the Ao3 thread you didn’t come off well, but I have over the years also unwittingly been the overly pedantic and/or honest person or joykiller in social situations. So I can emphasize. You can, however, work on it and get better. I think it’s not a bad thing if communication keeps backfiring in your direction

    @JJ

    I’m unsure if you missed my first comment adressed to you or if you would rather not respond. I would like to be at least acknowledged.

  29. @JJ

    Don’t worry about it—respond whenever you are able and want to. I really am trying to assume good faith, here.

    (And sorry about the italics fail, I meant to close it after “all 2 million AO3 users”)

  30. Klio on September 19, 2019 at 2:52 pm said:
    I don’t know any prior issues with his communication style, but from what I’ve seen on AO3 there was no malice or aggression or even sarcasm in his posts, so there can’t be a defendable basis for attacking him. If this is how supposedly enlightened, progressive people treat an overly earnest, perhaps not very subtle person, how would they treat for example someone from the autism spectrum who might have more pronounced social difficulties, or someone with a different culture and language background who just doesn’t get the problem?

    Unknown on September 20, 2019 at 9:50 am said:

    Klio: As an autistic woman, there’s really nothing I love better than someone making excuses for a cishet white man’s bad behavior because he might be autistic. Especially since girls and women are woefully underdiagnosed, and we never, ever get that benefit of the doubt — we’re the ones who are “supposed to” smooth over all social disturbances, and how dare we not fulfill that role! Has it occurred to you that just because AO3 isn’t dominated by cishet white guys, that doesn’t mean a lot of its users aren’t on the spectrum?

    I fail to see how your comment relates to mine. I didn’t say he might be autistic, nor did I make any claims or imply any assumptions about the prevalence of autism among AO3 users.

  31. It has been brought to my attention that my above comment about museums could be interpreted as anti-Christian. I sincerely apologize for that, I was trying to lighten up the mood by discussing something (anything) other than AO3, and that was the dumb joke that sprang to mind.

    It was not my intention to disrespect people of faith who are in this thread.

    I unreservedly apologize for my comment.

  32. @ Rob Thornton:

    Sometimes changing a phrase can have legal and even moral consequences. I don’t buy your charge that “there is no difference,” not when one undermines trademark and the other doesn’t.

    LectionaryStan:

    @Rob But it’s not a fact that this undermines trademark. That is an unconfirmed belief that some, not all, WSFS members may have.

    Rob Thornton

    Ah, but my points are backed by the WSFS Mark Protection Committee (i.e. Kevin Standlee). Regardless of what you think about him, he knows what he is talking about. Do you have any sources?

    Neither Keven nor (as far as I know) the other members of the MPS are lawyers. There is disagreement among some of the experts on the question of whether or not twitter jokes and statements (as opposed to selling merchandise) does in fact dilute trademark.
    Sources:

    Lawyer #1:
    Yes it does (dilute)! Go Keven and MPC!

    Except he refuses to say anything definite about twitter jokes/bios/etc, number of people, noting the complexity and necessity of a court to decide these sort of things. He’s only talking about the merchandise issue which everybody seems to agree on.

    Not a lawyer but according to discussion at Admin post, one of the A03 people who works on copyright, trademark, etc. who is quoting sources and questioning #1:

    Not so fast!

    I won’t try to summarize because the legal issues which are mostly not the direct topic of this thread are complex and I don’t know enough. This poster apparently tried to post over here but her post my be among those Mike mentioned as having trouble confirming?

  33. I am deeply sorry that my comments caused so much distress. I honestly say that I never intended to be offensive. If what I said was taken as insulting or rude, I promise that it was not at all intentional.

  34. robinareid: Add to that Denise from Dreamwidth, who while not a lawyer, points out in the (expanded since it was first linked here) twitter thread that she is quoting directly from actual legal cases and laws on the books, not merely citing her own opinion.

    Arioch: Thanks! That’s exactly the kind of fodder for thought I was looking for.

    As a Christian, I feel I am not being the tiniest bit unChristian to say that, in my personal opinion — and unrelated to Olav’s comment except by general topic — the Creation Museum is complete and umitigated bunkum and an embarrassment to those Christians who insist on Biblical Literalism to that degree in the face of thousands of years of further learning about God’s World and God’s chosen methods of Creation.

  35. robinareid: This poster apparently tried to post over here but her post my be among those Mike mentioned as having trouble confirming?

    It was a bit more than that — I reached out because I wanted some additional supporting information added to the comment before posting it. The person actually sent me supporting information. Then when I moved on to discuss how it would be added, they declined to have the original comment edited.

  36. Unbekannt:
    .

    “As for Hampus’s comparisons of AO3 people disagreeing with him, and refusing to grovel to the WSFS’s authority, to Puppies and 4channers: we weren’t the ones who harassed and brigaded a queer woman off Twitter.”

    Interesting to see you to spread lies. What I said was that the twitter persona’s work in trying to make WSFS lose the Hugo trademark would be finishing the job the puppies and well-known white supremacist Theodore Beale started.

    I have no idea whatsoever who the person brigaded off twitter is and has not been involved in any brigading whatsoever. I have in fact tried to stay away from twitter conversations the last day because of their toxicity. Which you are adding to.

    Also, there is no WSFS authority anyone could grovel to.

  37. @bill

    And remember, that this would happen — people would claim to be a Hugo winner — was predicted back in the nomination and voting periods. It’s too bad that nominators and voters didn’t take more notice of that, and bear it in mind.

    As I said, the knives were out for them from the day of the nomination. Do you think that is perhaps coloring their feelings now?

  38. I strongly disagree with your characterization of that interaction, Mike. You asked for citations and for me to address something I had already included and cited in the original comment, I politely pointed this out and questioned what level of citation you would find acceptable, and your reply indicated that you wanted to engage in a substantial editorial revision process and implied you wanted to review my caselaw citations and approve of the argument. I told you that I was unwilling to engage in that editorial process given that you have not only allowed without correction the unsubstantiated legal arguments made about trademark law by nonlawyers in the comments, you extensively quoted Will Frank’s unsubstantiated, uncited, and quite frankly incorrect argument-by-authority. As a courtesy for your own knowledge I provided the argument and citations that I would include if I were briefing this case. Your reply indicated that allowing you to edit my comment to include that courtesy information I provided was a condition for approval.

    I recognize that WordPress allows blog owners to edit their commenters’ comments for moderation and spam prevention, but requiring someone to allow a third party to substantively edit the text of their comment that will appear under their name and purportedly said by them, as a condition of posting, is skin-crawlingly horrifying. Your site, your rules, but please don’t pretend that’s me being unreasonable.

  39. synedochic: I offered to save you typing. You didn’t want the material you provided added to the comment at all — at which point I understood that you hadn’t sent it for that purpose. I didn’t say that was unreasonable, or make any other judgment about it. We parted with a clear understanding of what each wanted, although unfortunately it didn’t lead to your full thoughts being presented here.

  40. synedochic: Or maybe not clear, so perhaps I should say at the end my idea was to take the three paragraphs you sent and drop them into your original comment, wherever you thought they belonged. Yes, that would constitute revision, but the whole would have been composed only of arguments you had already written.

  41. Ingvar: Oh, Mike, while I remember, I think the first 1 or 2 Trigger stories aren’t actually tagged with the Trigger tag.

    I underestimated the potential for a series! Will go and fix that.

  42. Even if someone editing a comment posted under my name and purporting to be by me weren’t skin-crawling horror, it’s pointless for you to now post a comment of mine that was held for spam moderation 36 hours and approximately 10 pages of comments ago, Mike. And even if that weren’t the case, you are still attempting to impose a considerably higher editorial standard than that you are expecting of anyone else.

    Which, again, that’s fine for you to do! It’s your blog and I’ll continue to respect that by not engaging in the actual argument being had! But I find it ridiculous and hypocritical and I continue to object to your mischaracterizations of my position here.

  43. synecdochic: Your comment had already been held for 24 hours when you answered my first email. If it was too stale, why did you waste our time by corresponding with me?

    And that stuff about editing your comment and purporting to be by you — that’s more defensive bullshit.

    Lastly, I don’t have a binary editorial standard. People rarely write comments that are mainly extracts from the US Code — I can’t remember getting one before. My career experience showed me that presenting black letter law without the support of more — be it caselaw, regulations, a scholarly article, etc. — is not nearly as informative as it superficially appears. Without the extra interpretive dimensions, people go away with whatever Rohrschach impression they received. I thought that would be very damaging here.

    Of course, that was 36 hours ago. I couldn’t see into the future that far worse damage would accrue to the comments section, making my earlier caution laughable.

  44. @rochrist
    Predicting (accurately, I might add) that AO3 members would claim Hugos for writing if AO3 infrastructure won a non-writing Hugo award is “knives out for them?”
    You and I sure do see it differently.

  45. @bill Well, I have no particular dog in this fight, so I consider myself pretty unbiased and it seemed to me (at the time) that there was an awful lot bitching about their nomination and the terrible things that would come of it. And I’m pretty sure if I HAD been a member of that community, I wouldn’t fancy people pissing all over the celebration of their nomination. I was not what I would consider a friendly and welcoming atmosphere.

  46. @Rivine
    Difficult as it may be for some to understand, there really are people who don’t use AO3. Now I can’t speak for JJ, but I don’t think I’ve ever visited AO3 before I looked around the site a bit during the Hugo voting period. The next time I visited was when I followed the link to the discussion liked above. So I would not refer to AO3 users as we/us, because two short visits do not make me an AO3 user.

Comments are closed.