Hugo Nominations & Awards: 2021 and Onward

[Kalbear]

32 minutes ago, Ran said:

The Worldcon committee was something like 70% Chinese nationals. It has value to them to not fall afoul of the Chinese government.

Right, I was talking about what needs to be done later or if the WSFS has any problem telling China in the future to go pound sand and invalidating this worldcon's results. 

Because I think if they don't, what you'll see is the Hugos being dominated by countries that will use it as a way to promote that country's culture and ideology at the expense of the authors and the Hugo brand. I don't think anyone wants the Hugos to be just state propaganda. And honestly, it's super cheap for a country to dominate the nominations and site selection for the amount of value they might get. 

 

[Ran]

24 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It WSFS doesn’t take direct control of the Hugos… this will continue to happen.

I don't agree. The WSFS just has to put some additional barrier(s) to who can bid.  While this particular thing is something that has never happened before -- which suggests  that the rules are pretty robust already -- it can now be mitigated against.

Remember. when the Puppies showed up, it took some deliberation, but EPH basically turned what they did into a pointless exercise, and the integrity of the awards were restored without anyone needing to "take over" the awards. The same can be done with bad faith from Worldcon committees. 

 

 

24 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Because I think if they don't, what you'll see is the Hugos being dominated by countries that will use it as a way to promote that country's culture and ideology at the expense of the authors and the Hugo brand. I don't think anyone wants the Hugos to be just state propaganda. And honestly, it's super cheap for a country to dominate the nominations and site selection for the amount of value they might get. 

Think there's very few countries outside of China that would want to try and do something like that. The Jeddah bid died a very strong death, and sure, if the Saudi government had backed it and told people to sign up as members and bid, they could have won it... it would have been just as bad as this debacle. But, again, things can be done.

The next two Worldcons are in the UK and the US. The only Worldcon bid for 2026 is also in the US. So you have through 2026 to work out measures. 2027 will of course be interesting, because presently the only announced bid is Tel Aviv, and I'm sure there'll be real fans of that one. I don't know if a single freedom/democracy index would be sufficient, or a blend of several. Academic freedom, freedom of expression, maybe corruption perception...

Someone made the point on a blog or File 770, that obviously when the Worldcon was founded and for much of its history, no one ever envisioned it'd end up taking place in anywhere but the "free world" -- it wasn't ever going to be behind the Iron Curtain, etc. But times have changed, and we have countries like China and Saudi Arabia and, I guess, Russia, making certain pretenses and having a certain cachet while chasing more, and it's not necessarily so obvious any longer which countries are really a good place to host the convention and which aren't.

Edited January 26 by Ran

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Ran said:

Think there's very few countries outside of China that would want to try and do something like that. The Jeddah bid died a very strong death, and sure, if the Saudi government had backed it and told people to sign up as members and bid, they could have won it... it would have been just as bad as this debacle. But, again, things can be done.

I think China, Russia, Saudi Arabia are all good possibilities in the very near future. 

Mostly I think that 'what can be done' is something that needs to be talked about now before it does actually happen. I don't think how the puppies were dealt with is at all going to be sufficient to deal with a government explicitly having people buy memberships and having them vote as a block at the scale that a government can do it. I mean what, you'd need like $50k to get 500+ votes for anything? $300k for 3000 votes? If you got 3000 voters voting for anything both in the nominations and in the general, wouldn't that essentially dominate every single category easily? 

Similarly, the site selection is based on worldcon membership - it would have been trivial to get it through, right?

And there's absolutely nothing currently stopping a country from just perma-hosting Worldcon based on this behavior. 

I don't know that Worldcon or the Hugos should care that deeply about it because I think that there is likely not a huge value perceived by those nation-states in hijacking it, but it should be considered. In addition, figuring out what to do about this bullshit now is pretty important.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, Ran said:

I don't agree. The WSFS just has to put some additional barrier(s) to who can bid.  While this particular thing is something that has never happened before -- which suggests  that the rules are pretty robust already -- it can now be mitigated against.

Remember. when the Puppies showed up, it took some deliberation, but EPH basically turned what they did into a pointless exercise, and the integrity of the awards were restored without anyone needing to "take over" the awards. The same can be done with bad faith from Worldcon committees. 

 

 

Think there's very few countries outside of China that would want to try and do something like that. The Jeddah bid died a very strong death, and sure, if the Saudi government had backed it and told people to sign up as members and bid, they could have won it... it would have been just as bad as this debacle. But, again, things can be done.

The next two Worldcons are in the UK and the US. The only Worldcon bid for 2026 is also in the US. So you have through 2026 to work out measures. 2027 will of course be interesting, because presently the only announced bid is Tel Aviv, and I'm sure there'll be real fans of that one. I don't know if a single freedom/democracy index would be sufficient, or a blend of several. Academic freedom, freedom of expression, maybe corruption perception...

Kampala Uganda is bidding for Worldcon… where people can be put to death by the State for Homosexuality.

[Ran]

38 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Kampala Uganda is bidding for Worldcon… where people can be put to death by the State for Homosexuality.

Same thing as Jeddah. It's not going to happen. And that's 2028, again, plenty of time to take measures through the Business Meeting.

I think requiring bids to meet some bar using some internationally-recognized indices of human rights/freedom should be pretty straightforward. That would fix it. None of the likely suspect countries would meet that bar. Orban's Hungary? Depends on which indices and cut-ofs you use, I guess. Israel, same.

ETA: Okay, technically too late to bar Tel Aviv based on Business Meetings, since the bid is being decided in 2025, the same year any amendment could pass, and I don't think the amendment could pass before site selection.

But Uganda shouldn't be an issue. That said, someone should be starting to organize a bid for 2028. They should have started last year, really, but still.

 

Edited January 26 by Ran

[mormont]

45 minutes ago, Ran said:

That said, someone should be starting to organize a bid for 2028. They should have started last year, really, but still.

This might be the key weakness, though: there aren't that many someones around.

Running a WorldCon these days is an expensive, risky, difficult, thankless task. If we had healthier contests and more interest in hosting, I don't think the notion of bids from Tel Aviv or Uganda would be a threat. Chengdu probably couldn't have been stopped, mind you.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I finally finished listening to the discussion I linked and it sounds like there is no real value in stealing the Hugo Trademark because a Hugo Trademark only has value in the context in which it currently exists.  

However, because Kevin Standlee has said he is unable, as CEO of WSFS, IP, Inc. to defend the quality and integrity of the Hugo award (because he will not act in violation of the WSFS Constitution despite the fact that WSFS the unincorporated association no longer owns the Hugo Award (etc.) Trademark… it is owned by WSFS, IP, Inc.) the Trademark, which is the value of the “goodwill” associated with “the Hugo Award (etc.)” may have been abandoned because Kevin believes he lacks the authority to defend the quality and integrity of “the Hugo Award (etc.)”.  And defending the integrity and quality of the idea subject to Trademark is a bigger deal that protecting it from theft.

It’s a tad convoluted.  Are there people who would seek to have the Trademark declared invalid… for shits and giggles?  Because it doesn’t sound like there is any value in making such an attempt.

Edited January 27 by Ser Scot A Ellison

[mormont]

9 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Are there people who would seek to have the Trademark declared invalid… for shits and giggles?

To put that another way, are there people out there with a grudge against the WSFS and/or the Hugo awards?

But it probably would be too much bother for most of them.

I expect to see some sort of motion about all this at the business meeting, and the Chengdu awards will forever have a mental asterisk in the memories of those who care, but that's about as far as any of this will go IMO.

[Ran]

9 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It’s a tad convoluted.  Are there people who would seek to have the Trademark declared invalid… for shits and giggles?  Because it doesn’t sound like there is any value in making such an attempt.

As I said, Dunford is overly cynical and ungenerous. None of this stuff is going to happen, it's the usual peanut gallery bomb-throwing for lack of anything better to do. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 hours ago, Ran said:

As I said, Dunford is overly cynical and ungenerous. None of this stuff is going to happen, it's the usual peanut gallery bomb-throwing for lack of anything better to do. 

I’m not sure.  I think Kevin is absolutely acting in good faith when he refuses to act in contravention of the WSFS Constitution.  But it is also a fact that WSFS the unincorporated association no longer owns “the Hugo Award (etc.)” Trademark. 

Kevin doesn’t seem to recognize he’s wearing two hats with conflicting duties and responsibilities.  WSFS, IP, Inc. the current owner of “the Hugo Award (etc.) Trademark isn’t bound by the Constitution of WSFS the unincorporated association unless the Articles of incorporation/Bylaws of WSFS, IP, Inc. says it is, regardless of Kevin’s personal beliefs about WSFS the unincorporated association.

That’s the whole problem corporations only have the duties, rights, and responsibilities imposed on them by their creation or statute and most people do not understand this.  Transferring the Trademark changed the duties and responsibilities regarding the Trademark.  

The problems stem from this legal issue… not from a lack of personal generosity.  That’s relatively easy to fix… the Inc.’s articles can be fixed to be bound by Constitution of WSFS the Unincorporated Association… but it raises the question of the purpose of the transfer without that provision in the first place.

Edited January 27 by Ser Scot A Ellison

[Ran]

36 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

 I think Kevin is absolutely acting in good faith when he refuses to act in contravention of the WSFS Constitution.

As Kevin has noted, the WIP has acted plenty of times to defend the mark, which shows a history of non-abandoment. So then you need to argue that in this _one_ case out of however many dozens, they have suddenly abandoned the whole thing. Many brands just throw up their hands and don't bother chasing after counterfeits in China because it's just not something worth doing, but their trademarks are not in question. So why, suddenly, is the WSFS trademark in question? It's nonsense. Is Nike in danger of abandonment of its trademark because it doesn't pursue counterfeiting in China? No, of course not.

The entire purpose of the transfer was simply to make sure that the people who wanted to use the trademark (e.g. publishers) did so appropriately, and those who wanted to use them inappropriately could be told off, including with legal action. There's nothing about Chengdu that suggests they used the mark improperly, even if  they made a mess of the Hugo Awards. They were selected to run it by the WSFS, they botched it, let the WSFS learn the lesson.... but threatening the mark is just the most absolutley asinine way to go about it.

 

 

Edited January 27 by Ran

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

23 minutes ago, Ran said:

There's nothing about Chengdu that suggests they used the mark improperly, even if  they made a mess of the Hugo Awards. They were selected to run it by the WSFS, they botched it

But allowing someone to botch the “quality and uniqueness” of the product tradmarked (like Chengdu) and saying “there is nothing that can be done to stop them”… when the owner isn’t limited by a controlling document like the WSFS Unicorporated Association Constitution, according to these two IP attorneys could constitute “abandonment” of the Trademark specifically because WSFS, IP, Inc. has no limitations placed upon its control of “the Hugo Awards (etc.)”… because WSFS the Unincorporated Association transferred the Trademark and all goodwill to WSFS, IP, Inc.

These guys could absolutely be wrong.  But I think dismissing their point out of hand as lacking generosity… is a mistake.  Particularly if people will attack the Trademark for shits and giggles.

[Ran]

22 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

But allowing someone to botch the “quality and uniqueness” of the product tradmarked (like Chengdu)

Botched products happen all the time. Industries do recalls, but there's no recalling an award. The WSFS may act to invalidate the result, eventually, maybe -- or not. This isn't a life-or-death thing like toys with pieces that can choke children. 

 

22 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

and saying “there is nothing that can be done to stop them”…

The role of WIP is to protect the use of the mark outside of the WSFS, not by the WSFS itself. WSFS has unlimited rights to use its own mark, just as Coca-Cola has unlimited rights to use its own mark ... and if they botch its use, well, they're very well not going to punish themselves for it.

This is all really much ado about nothing.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

Botched products happen all the time. Industries do recalls, but there's no recalling an award. The WSFS may act to invalidate the result, eventually, maybe -- or not. This isn't a life-or-death thing like toys with pieces that can choke children. 

 

The role of WIP is to protect the use of the mark outside of the WSFS, not by the WSFS itself. WSFS has unlimited rights to use its own mark, just as Coca-Cola has unlimited rights to use its own mark ... and if they botch its use, well, they're very well not going to punish themselves for it.

This is all really much ado about nothing.

 

Ran… the Mark no longer belongs to WSFS the unincorporated association… WSFS transferred the Mark to WSFS, IP, Inc.  That transfer changes analysis…

[Ran]

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Ran… the Mark no longer belongs to WSFS the unincorporated association… WSFS transferred the Mark to WSFS, IP, Inc.  That transfer changes analysis…

The WIP provides a perpetual, non-rescindable license to WSFS, while it uses more measured protections elsewhere. Why does the analysis change? Where is the alleged abandonment? If Disney runs its brand into the ground, the executives in Disney Brand Licensing inc. may be pissed off about it, but it's not like they can tell Disney it can no longer use its own brand.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Ran said:

The WIP provides a perpetual, non-rescindable license to WSFS, while it uses more measured protections elsewhere. Why does the analysis change? Where is the alleged abandonment? If Disney runs its brand into the ground, the executives in Disney Brand Licensing inc. may be pissed off about it, but it's not like they can tell Disney it can no longer use its own brand.

The potential abandonment is the CEO  of the Trademark owner saying it lacks the capacity to protect the quality and integrity of the product the Trademark represents.

[Ran]

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The potential abandonment is the CEO  of the Trademark owner saying it lacks the capacity to protect the quality and integrity of the product the Trademark represents.

In the specific case of one licensee (WSFS) it cannot, but they can and do in other cases. It's not abandonment.

If Disney signs a terrible deal with some licensee that does not permit them to enforce quality control on how the licensee uses the mark, do you think Disney will abandon the mark? Do you think someone else will argue they've abandoned the mark, because of a single other licensee, while Disney goes around vigorously defending its mark against everyone else?

I just don't get it. It's a belligerent view of the situation.

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, Ran said:

there's no recalling an award

Not sure this is true, at least in other organizations.  Nominations have certainly been rescinded, particularly lately. 

Award Ceremony for Palestinian Author at Frankfurt Book Fair Is Canceled

The prize’s organizers cited the Israel-Hamas war as the reason for stepping back from an event honoring a novel about the 1949 murder of a Palestinian girl by Israeli soldiers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/13/books/frankfurt-book-fair-cancels-award-adania-shibli.html

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

8 minutes ago, Ran said:

In the specific case of one licensee (WSFS) it cannot, but they can and do in other cases. It's not abandonment.

If Disney signs a terrible deal with some licensee that does not permit them to enforce quality control on how the licensee uses the mark, do you think Disney will abandon the mark? Do you think someone else will argue they've abandoned the mark, because of a single other licensee, while Disney goes around vigorously defending its mark against everyone else?

I just don't get it. It's a belligerent view of the situation.

Maybe.  Regardless if the shits and giggles suit comes… it will cost WSFS money it doesn’t have to defend.

Edited January 27 by Ser Scot A Ellison

[Ran]

13 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Not sure this is true, at least in other organizations.  Nominations have certainly been rescinded, particularly lately

RTFO and they have postponed the ceremony. So far as I can tell, the award has not actually been rescinded. That aside, there is no mechanism for rescinding the award within the rules of the WSFS. It will take two consecutive business meetings to pass such a resolution, if WSFS feels like it.

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Regardless if the shits and giggles suit comes… it will cost WSFS money it doesn’t have to defend.

There are some deep-pocketed fans and pros out there who might be stirred to lift a finger, and the fandom itself might rally.

Shits and giggles suits are always a possibility, of course, and always have been. 

Edited January 27 by Ran