One person wrote a fic parody entitled "Stanley Cup — What it Means", and that fanfic was then turned into a podfic ; both were posted on the AO3. That doesn't make me, personally, a Hugo Award winner myself. It means I was a contributor to a magazine that won a Hugo, and I'm proud of my contribution. It would, however, be wrong of me to say that I'm a Hugo Award winner. It's not uncommon for an editor of a magazine, when they win one of the two 'zine Hugos, to give credit to all of the people who contributed to that magazine and to say something along the lines of "You all share in this, like Naomi Novik did.
About twenty different authors contributed to that book. Did they all win a Hugo Award?
The Book KeeperLaugh out loud comedy meets noir mystery and paranormal action within The Secret Files of Hugo & alofcalpitchpa.ml is a hardboiled private eye. The Secret Files of Hugo and Victoria - Kindle edition by J. E. (Buck) Buchanan. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets.
The work did, and the Worldcon gave the co-editors, Edward James and Farah Mendelsohn, trophies. They thanked all of the contributors and recognized their contributions to the work, as was only right and proper, and those authors should be justly proud in their contribution to an award-winning collection of essays, but the individual authors themselves are not themselves "Hugo Award winning authors.
Standlee also posted his perspective in a public LiveJournal post, comparing AO3 users to the Sad Puppies voting bloc scandal from the Hugo Awards:.
So why is it that a bunch of people who contributed toward a Hugo Award-winning related work have taken it into their heads that they — all of them, thousands of them — are all individually "Hugo Award winners? It's not like that at all. For an award like the Hugo Award to have any meaning, it needs to be something that not everyone can have. That means trying to enforce our service mark. We're not trying to be bad guys. It's not like anyone pays those of us doing it. We're just trying to make sure that it's being used legitimately, so that anyone who has legitimately won the Award is entitled to their legitimate honor.
Standlee also cross-posted this post to his Dreamwidth , where it attracted several more comments. So you'd be okay with that, right? You'd be okay with a bunch of people coming in and co-opting the AO3 trademark and using it improperly to promote themselves, wouldn't you? You'd be okay with them making pins that trade off of all of your hard work and use the AO3 name for their own promotion. They'd tell you, "it's just a joke, what are you getting so uptight about?
It's a joke, right?
They run your workflow instructions in a shell environment! Adam-Troy Castro said this on Facebook :. Royal Mail secures injunction to block Christmas strikes. Talking about his time on Made in Chelsea back in , Hugo explained: 'So much happened too quickly. There are 3 items available. Subject to credit approval. Especially for a contained use case like building my static site with a generator like Hugo, running it all in a shell is a no-brainer.
What's the problem? If you disagree, then please point out exactly what made his comments 'wank'. I'll be waiting. If your only response is that you didn't like his comments, therefore it's wank As for WSFS, they're apparently a tiny organization, run by volunteers.
Would you want to chase after hundreds of people on the internet when you're not getting paid to do it? They thought we'd all do a little celebratory dance and then move on. But when it became a mess through no fault of their own because they don't know AO3s audience and they don't need to , they tried to find the most efficient way to fix it. Instead of chasing after random people on the internet, they went to one of the biggest news outlets for fandom AO3 and asked them to help spread the message. That's an example of putting in the effort to handle it properly and it's also efficient for a small organization.
You do not get that the "Hugo award winning fanfic" comments are specifically and pointedly highlighting, mocking, and pushing back at the sort of gatekeeping the SFF community still participates in, is still called out for, and is still made significantly poorer by. Your failure to recognize that, given that your last four years or so has been tied up entirely in the dying paroxysms of some of the most blatant of that gatekeeping, is disappointing and out of touch. You demanding that a Hugo winner make a clarification post that basically boils down to "Dad says you have to stop having fun" is only furthering a level gatekeeping I had hoped you'd learn better than doing after the first Sad Puppies debacle.
Doing it to a community that is overwhelmingly marginalized people is worse. By the Monday after the news post was published, wank about the meaning of the award and about the AO3 news post comments section had migrated to Twitter. My comment on File seems to be getting et and not by the spam moderation, so I'll repeat it here.
I will save the WSFS trademark protection committee an expensive legal consultation and tell them exactly what their lawyer would:. Even if your mark were that famous -- it's not; case law cites brands like Barbie, Viagra, and Victoria's Secret -- there are multiple carveouts including:. Attempting to chill constitutionally protected nominative speech about a registered service mark that is insufficiently famous for dilution protection is censorious legal thuggery.
There is a nationwide network of first amendment lawyers who will explain this to you. Please note, because I am certain that statement will be misread as a legal threat: it is not. It is the advice the WSFS attorney will give the Committee if they have any level of professional responsibility at all. Chuck Tingle also defended AO3 users on Twitter.
Lawyer and AO3 user scifantasy published a work on AO3 entitled "HugO3" that summarizes their argument that "trademark rights owners, as a matter of law, must be diligent in protecting their brands from infringement or other misuse lest they risk weakening or losing certain legal rights to those marks If the Worldcon-running community doesn't police use of the phrase, someone else--someone with less humorous, less celebratory, less free-spirited intent--might be able to plausibly argue that he can call his self-published book a Hugo Award Winner just because it was fanfic, or he has an AO3 account, because the term has lost all of its significance by not being protected.
Will's invocation of his law degree and his area of practice to further this extremely common and extremely dangerous trademark myth without clarifying many of the ways in which trademark law does contain significant carveouts for noncommercial speech, parody, satire, fair use, nominative use, news reporting, and a dozen other forms of protected speech is why I objected to it on Twitter and why I object to it here.
Various anonymous users on Fail-Fandomanon wrote the following parody of the situation:.
Are they too American to understand that real collectivism is when the corporate entitry wins awards and the people involved shut their pie holes and don't devalue it by trying to claim they're a non-heirarchical community of equals? Wait, I mean Why are you still offended? Jump to: navigation , search. In allowing for the nomination of AO3, the Hugo Awards are broadening what it means to contribute to the experience of fiction. This process, they have recognized, goes beyond interacting with a work of fiction as it is — it also encompasses interacting with what the work might be.
The imaginations and creativity of fans also contribute to the story of that original story. Talking about art by working within it is not particularly different from talking about art from a remote perspective. Many, both inside and outside the sci-fi and fantasy community, deride fan fiction as mostly clumsy amateur works of sexual fantasy—critiques that, as those who have looked at them closely have pointed out, have a glaringly gendered component.
This week, the Hugo awards—a set of literary awards given to the best science fiction and fantasy works of the year—announced that Archive of Our Own Ao3 , a massive internet fanfic archive, is a finalist in the Best Related Works category for If the archive wins a Hugo this year, hundreds of thousands of user-created transformative works—much of it horny, weird, and beautiful fan-made takes on existing pop culture like the aforementioned Avengers fanfic—will join the past and current honorees.
It actually happened. The Hugo Awards, which this year includes nominees like Doctor Who and Into the Spider-Verse , just announced that one contender in the Best Related Works category is the immense online fanfiction archive Ao3. Thanks to the Puppies, actual fans mobilised to save their fandom from being taken over, we got organised and long term attempts to make it more inclusive and as a whole Worldcon fandom became more diverse.
And with that diversity, that influx of new people both and old fans re-energised, came a new view on what was Hugo worthy or not. I don't think the archive as a whole CAN be separated from its contents, though. I could see nominating, say, the AO3 tagging system as a Related Work, but the whole shebang doesn't fit easily in any of the Hugo categories. So if the question is, which of that work is the nomination recognizing?
And I am grateful for it all. This is a chance to say "fanfic is a legitimate and vital part of fandom" on our biggest stage. Fanfic is changing the face of traditionally published SFF. It just is.
AO3 winning would be a major win for fan culture, and specifically for fanfiction, which has always been a huge and active part of fandom. I guess this means we can all put that on our resumes, now, right? Now I think that the fanfiction archive Archive of Our Own is a great project and I know there has been a push to get it nominated in this category for years now. While I appreciate that other people are into fan fiction and I see the academic interest in it, it's not my thing.
The Archive of Our Own website is a fantastic achievement and hosts an academic journal. This may be a weird rationale, but it feels like a bit Maybe I'd feel better about giving it to just the journal. Big whoop. Is it going to be eligible again every year they add some new bell or whistle to the search engine? Andrew M: Thank you for that quote. The argument could be for the content as a whole my guess is that there has been a lot of content added in , but even if that made the site eligible, I would not nominate for that. Doing so dilutes the prestige of the award. It has been suggested that these claims are made in jest — though this assertion seems disingenuous to us.
If these authors are making such claims in jest, it might imply that the Hugo Award is a joke to them. Back when we had awards for Best Professional Magazine , the award was considered to be for the magazine. Individual stories published in the winning magazine were not considered to have won a fraction of a Hugo! This Hugo will be joining the traveling exhibition that goes to each Worldcon , because it belongs to all of us. I would like to ask that we raise the lights and for all of you who feel a part of our community stand up for a moment and share in this with us. Even if I listed every founder, every builder, every tireless support staff member and translator and tag wrangler, if I named every last donor, all our hard work and contributions would mean nothing without the work of the fan creators who share their work freely with other fans, and the fans who read their stories and view their art and comment and share bookmarks and give kudos to encourage them and nourish the community in their turn.