michaelcapo ([info]michaelcapo) wrote in [info]sfwa,
@ 2008-02-27 12:13:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Decision on the Nebula eligibility of "World Enough and Time"
"World Enough and Time," a script written by Marc Zicree and Michael Reaves for Star Trek: New Voyages, appeared on the Final Nebula Ballot. The eligibility of the work was immediately challenged by more than one member, on the basis of two assertions: that WEaT was a fan production and so could not be a "professional production" as required by the SFWA Award Rules; and that it was an unauthorized production that violated the trademarks and/or copyrights of the Paramount Corporation.

SFWA took these challenges seriously, even though they were made at the very last minute, and the Nebula ballot had already been delayed. The procedures described in the Nebula Rules were followed to the letter. The decision of the SFWA Awards Rules Committee (SARC) was appealed to the SFWA Board of Directors. Under a very tight deadline, the Board examined these questions and voted unanimously to keep the work on the Nebula ballot.

The decision was based on evidence that was provided from a number of sources, and we thank the parties who made statements and provided additional information to the Board. Since the term "professionally produced" is nowhere defined in the Award Rules, there is some latitude for interpretation. However, certain precedents had been set by the SARC, and they were followed by the Board insofar as they were applicable. It was noted that the spirit of the Nebulas is one of inclusiveness, and that none of the other Nebula categories include the "professionally produced" criterion.

One factor that was considered important was that Marc Zicree and Michael Reaves were paid for their script of "Worlds Enough and Time." Other factors were looked at, and, in at least one instance, it was concluded that the production only qualified under a technicality, but the technicality was in keeping with past interpretations of the Award Rules.

The status of WEaT vis-a-vis Paramount is complex, and there are a lot of misconceptions about it. It is clear from our investigation that Paramount has permitted WEaT to exist and encouraged its production and that of subsequent productions by the same company. This is not simply a fan production that was tolerated by Paramount; while it may or may not have been specifically authorized, it has had tacit authorization. Under these circumstances, the Board felt that WEaT should be given the benefit of the doubt and allowed on the ballot.



(Post a new comment)


[info]nihilistic_kid
2008-02-27 05:38 pm UTC (link)
Good decisions. Thanks.

(Reply to this)


[info]mmerriam
2008-02-27 05:54 pm UTC (link)
Well done to everyone involved.

(Reply to this)


[info]elenuial
2008-02-27 06:32 pm UTC (link)
That's awesome.

(Reply to this)


[info]newguydave
2008-02-27 07:00 pm UTC (link)
It is nice to see such a thorough approach done and an attempt to remain consistent throughout. Bravo

(Reply to this)


[info]terri_osborne
2008-02-27 07:45 pm UTC (link)
First off, thank you for the diligence in pursuing this.

It does, however, bring up a few questions. So, by the usual meaning of the words "tacit authorization," that means there is no proof in writing that there was permission in place from Paramount for the script when it was written and produced? That permission is, by point of phrase, implied, and not in a legally-binding contract? Will we now be opening the Nebula ballot to writers of fan fiction, because that same "tacit authorization" can be used to argue for the inclusion of fan fiction as well, although the forms of payment in that camp can vary widely. Just because CBS/Paramount didn't set the lawyers on them doesn't mean they've got legal approval or somehow make the product not be copyright infringement. It just means CBS/Paramount has chosen not to do something to alienate the fan base with a new and widely-hyped product about to hit the theatres.

As a SFWA member and writer of licensed tie-in fiction, I firmly and vehemently disagree with this outcome, but I will respect the decision of the board and consider the issue put to rest.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]michaelcapo
2008-02-27 09:10 pm UTC (link)
We had no indication one way or another if there is a written agreement between Paramount and the producer of WEaT, and I assume that if there is one, no one wants it made public. Even if there is no witten permission, though, it appears that Paramount has, by its actions, encouraged certain aspects of the production. This is what we mean by "tacit authorization." My sense is that this is not the situation with the majority of fan fiction, although I am by no means an expert on this subject.

Nothing in the Nebula Rules prohibits written fan fiction from being considered for a Nebula. Nor, for that matter, do they require that the fiction be professionally produced. The rules are very inclusive, and it is up to the SFWA membership to decide what is on the ballot, and what wins, with as little interference as possible.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(Anonymous)
2008-02-29 03:34 pm UTC (link)
SFWA rules should reflect my tastes and my economic advantage. I abhor non-creative fiction whether it is called "fan-fiction" or "tie-in" and of course it could never win, but it should be nominable so it can be mocked and lose. We need also ensure such works cannot qualify one for membership.

Be warned though-like black people-if you let them be nominated eventually one will win.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]kradical
2008-02-27 09:45 pm UTC (link)
Thanks for the announcement and the consideration, and my apologies for the lateness of my complaint.

(Reply to this)


(Anonymous)
2008-02-29 04:47 pm UTC (link)
1) Award is for a script, not a dramatic presentation. This distinction seems lost on nearly all.

2) Terry Bisson could publish a humourous "script" in F&SF that was not producible. Like "Coyote vs Acme" this is eligible in the fiction categories.

3) The distinction important to SF&F screenwriters is that the script be meant to function as a script, that it be "producible".

4) Some group at the masquerade will surely "produce" Bisson's script.

5) The agreed upon test as to whether a script is producible is whther it was "produced", and not just by some crazy fan group: "professionally produced". "Professionally" is used as a stand-in for "seriously".

6) The author of the script need not be paid. "Professionally produced" means that the director and actors are paid. or as with charity functions that it was produced with the expectation that audiences could be induced to part with money to view it, or that advertisers would pay to advertise during a free performance.

7) The Nebulas are inclusive, requiring only textual nature and SF&F content. The membership decides. The rules are designed to ensure (encourage that?) each work is categorized appropriately.

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…