Schedule Management: The 0-50-100 Method for Tasks

I realized I haven’t been posting much about producing and project management this year, so I’ve decided to do a series of short posts for a few weeks going over some of the concepts I cover in the project management training I do.

If you want to spend more time managing your schedule and less time staring at it, at one time or another, you’re going to hear about the 0-50-100 method for managing tasks.

In my case, I was first introduced to it by a program manager where we were working on an integrated project plan that ran over 1,700 lines. There was no way we’d spend every status meeting figuring out the exact percentage of each task – nor what we needed to monitor to make sure we’re on track.

This is where the program manager let me in on a time-saving, sanity-saving trick, especially when using a schedule management tool like Microsoft Project.

I should probably back up a bit and clarify that this schedule management tactic is for when you have created your project schedule. Hopefully, you have broken down the work into logical tasks — and you have used your acumen, other people’s acumen, and historical information to give those tasks reasonable durations.

Now, to make sure your project schedule is not merely decorative shelfware, you’re using the schedule as a living document, getting updates as to whether tasks are complete or not — and by what percentage.

When you think about asking for the percent complete of a given task, that’s where this method makes so much sense. That’s because most, if not all, tasks can be expressed as one of three states:

  • 0% – The task has not been started.
  • 50% – The task is in process. Maybe it started yesterday. Maybe it’s about to be finished tomorrow. It doesn’t matter. For reporting purposes, any “in-process” task is always 50%
  • 100% – The task has been completed (and the people who need to confirm it’s completed have said it’s completed).

There are exceptions, which I can talk about in another post, but consider this: how valuable is knowing completion percentage anyway?

Do you really need to spend a single precious meeting minute on whether something is 37% or 42%?

No.

Anyone who is obsessing about that either falsely believes those abstract numbers will help OR is trying to evade the real question you or any other project manager wants to know:

Can we make our schedule?

It’s rare that I’ve been at an organization where schedule is not, ultimately, king. The 0-50-100 method allows you to zero in on risks and impacts to your schedule.

Here’s how those three simple statuses above help you do that:

0%, the Task hasn’t started.
Is it past the start date?

No? Good. Is there any reason to expect why this task won’t start on time? If the start date is within two weeks, does the task owner know they’re expected to start soon?

Yes, it is past the start date? Okay, how do we get started? What date should it start now — and how does that affect the project being completed on time? (aka, the critical path).

50%, the Task is in-progress
Cool. Did it start on time or did it start late?

If it started late, is there anything we’re doing to make sure it still completes on time? Are those efforts working? Do you need any help to make sure it gets completed on time? At all?

If it started on time, is it going to be completed when we scheduled? How confident are you? Are there any risks popping up that would stop you? Do you need any help to make sure it gets completed?

100%, the Task has been completed
Wonderful. Does everyone agree (who needs to agree) that task has been completed? Are the subsequent tasks starting on time? Does anything need to be communicated?

Is this task like any other tasks still being worked in this project? Were there any risks or lessons learned we should communicate right now about how this task went down?

###

In other words, as a project manager, you’re using the 0-50-100 method to focus on solutions and support. The more time you spend debating and delineating exactly what the status of a task is during project status meetings, the less time you have to try and make sure things are on track or get back on track.

In other words, it saves time — and it focuses what management really wants to know: will the project be completed on time?

Real Vikings Don’t Wear Horns

Being proud of our Norwegian heritage and an above-average amateur historian, our dad made sure we knew from an early age that real Vikings didn’t wear horned helmets.

But why do so many people think so? An article in Vox gets to the root cause. Dang costume designers.

Growing up, we didn’t have a wealth of Viking drama, so it was inevitable that the family would seek out what they could. That inevitably led to that 1958 saga, The Vikings, directed by Richard Fleischer… before 1985’s Red Sonja was a gleam in his eye.

Thrill to its 50s Epic Majesty!

Thrill to its 50s Epic Majesty!

Let’s face it, it’s a Hollywood epic from a certain era when the historical accuracy was inconsistent. On the one hand, get a load of them longships! On the other hand, Tony Curtis.

Sorry Tony, we like you better in "Some Like it Hot"

Sorry Tony, we like you better in “Some Like it Hot”

Indeed, the care and attention paid to the longships made for this film was so meticulous, that the longships went on to star in another picture. Okay, the company was probably just trying to amortize their costs, but they’re still wondrous.

My dad always said these were the real stars of the picture.

My dad always said these were the real stars of the picture. Well, both pictures really.

Both films served to be launching points for many conversations with my dad about historical Vikings, who did much more than simply raid ill-prepared monasteries. We talked of the Danelaw, the Normans, and, Leif Erikson: far more popular in our house than that Columbus guy.

Now, of course, we can seriously scratch that Viking itch with the Vikings TV series. It’s incredibly entertaining, as Michael Hirst’s work tends to be, despite some niggling historical inaccuracies. I am sad my dad is no longer with us to see the show, because although he would surely be the one noting those inaccuracies, there’d be a lot in the show for him to enjoy.

For one thing, these Vikings don’t have time for horned helmets.

vikings_sejati

Automation and American Growth: Robert Gordon Edition

I’ve been reading and commenting a decent amount about automation this year, enough to make it seem inevitable. A popular topic with journalists and feature writers has been the impending automation of transportation which I noted back in May. Just recently, Vox ran another article about self-driving trucks and pending unemployment.

As the topic appears to be developing into a “future trend trope,” I was very intrigued to learn about the work of Robert Gordon, which Vox also did a piece on. Of course, I first learned about Robert Gordon when I got caught up listening to the Freakanomics podcast as they did an episode about American economic growth this Spring which prominently featured Robert Gordon. There’s also a transcript of a similar segment on Marketplace from 2012.

It certainly makes me consider what the economy might and can transform into.

Crisis of Infinite Star Treks: The Guidelines After the Gobsmack

This is the 25th entry in a surprisingly long series of posts about Star Trek’s future and its fandom called Crisis of Infinite Star Treks.

So, after June 23rd’s astounding reveal by CBS/Paramount about their fan film guidelines, I took in a lot of the reactions (reactions you can see back on that post, btw).

But even though it’s now decades later in Internet time, I wanted to comment on the guidelines, in part because, in one of my earlier posts, I mentioned that I, as an indie filmmaker who specifically likes working on sci-fi and fantasy projects, have shied away from doing fan films in part because of a lack of guidelines. I like the framework established by the SAG-AFTRA low budget agreements, for example, that allow me to legally work with professional union actors at low or deferred rates (if they’re willing). I would love for those SAG-AFTRA agreements to be even more flexible, but I’ll take what they have for now. Being able to work with willing union actors without risk –so long as I follow the union’s rules– is better than having all the blood, sweat, and tears inherent in any film production being at the whim of unofficial “understandings.”

So based on that experience, I absolutely wanted guidelines. Alec Peters of Axanar Productions has publicly stated he really wanted guidelines for Star Trek fan productions too. Anecdotally, he had asked CBS/Paramount for guidelines before the lawsuit hit and CBS/Paramount demurred.

Between my agreement with Peters on this point –someone many consider persona non trekka– and the fact that, as Axamonitor has noted, the current Star Trek fan film landscape has been rendered a desert of non-production, you might ask, “Are you happy now?” In fact, some of you might be thinking something along the lines of this:

ST_FanFilmGuidelines_Meme

Fair enough.

I’m not pleased nor happy, as it happens. However, after picking myself off the virtual floor upon my first reading of the guidelines, I went through them again. And I realized something.

They might be fair enough.

So I’ll list all of the guidelines verbatim and comment on them all to let you know how I came to that conclusion. (Note: if you want to skip my musings, you’re welcome to jump to the end to thoughts and reactions from other people including recovering lawyers).

The Guidelines

1) The fan production must be less than 15 minutes for a single self-contained story, or no more than 2 segments, episodes or parts, not to exceed 30 minutes total, with no additional seasons, episodes, parts, sequels or remakes.

It’s little wonder that so many Star Trek fans, specifically fans of Star Trek fan films were shocked on June 23rd. This first guideline fundamentally changes the landscape of current fan productions. In fact, one wonders how ongoing series can possibly boldly go now.

Coming as the very first guideline, it’s little wonder a lot of us metaphorically tripped and tumbled down the rest of the guideline stairs. How will Star Trek Continues continue? What new voyages can New Voyages have?

But stop and ask yourself some questions. Can you do a story about Kirk, Spock, and the rest of the original series characters? Yes. Can you do some alternate Trek history where Riker commands the Enterprise after Picard’s death on the Borg cube? Yes. Can you do a follow-up to any existing canon work or simply make up your own tale in any era of Trek or your own heretofore unknown era of Trek? Yes, yes, and yes.

We’re shocked because this disrupts what some have already called the “Golden Age of Star Trek fan films.” In fact, it might bring much of those ongoing missions to an end.

But you know what’s better than fan productions? Actual Star Trek productions! And we have a big screen version coming out tomorrow that reportedly doesn’t suck along with a TV series coming in January with many a Star Trek vet on the production team.

I suspect this is where Axanar and I differ. They think the new guidelines are draconian, whereas when someone says “Draconian,” I think this:

DraconianTwoShot

Yes, I know a lot of you, when you hear “Draconian,” probably think this:

princess_ardala

The galaxy is big enough for both of us… assuming The Doctor and Buck foil their respective Draconians’ plans.

Okay, we’re getting a bit off topic. Back to the guidelines.

This is the one that makes me distinctly displeased and glum. But if there’s enough quality official Trek, I think I’ll be okay. And I have a feeling I’ll be in good company when people count ticket sales of Star Trek Beyond as well as views on CBS All Access.

2) The title of the fan production or any parts cannot include the name “Star Trek.” However, the title must contain a subtitle with the phrase: “A STAR TREK FAN PRODUCTION” in plain typeface. The fan production cannot use the term “official” in either its title or subtitle or in any marketing, promotions or social media for the fan production.

Okay, this is a change from current fan productions, but quite understandable. CBS/Paramount wants these non-licensed productions to both clearly identify themselves as such and clearly delineate themselves from any official Trek.

I have no problem with this. Starship Reallycoolship: A Star Trek Fan Production works for me and I can’t imagine any of the existing fan productions kvetching about this. The only reason you would kvetch? You didn’t want to be considered a fan production, but both I and licensing departments for any IP the world over don’t know what to tell ya then.

3) The content in the fan production must be original, not reproductions, recreations or clips from any Star Trek production. If non-Star Trek third party content is used, all necessary permissions for any third party content should be obtained in writing.

So, they’re not looking for people to re-mix and package their IP and they don’t want people to, say, think they’re entitled to playing music in their Star Trek fan productions like Jerry Goldsmith’s epic Star Trek tracks that are not, in fact, owned by CBS/Paramount. Sensible.

Mind you, if you’re doing truly transformative work of parodies or commentary, Fair Use has your back. Comment on pop culture all you want, citizens.

4) If the fan production uses commercially-available Star Trek uniforms, accessories, toys and props, these items must be official merchandise and not bootleg items or imitations of such commercially available products.

Unless I’m mistaken, the main thrust of this is to make sure they’re doing right by the companies officially licensing Trek.

The operative phrase appears to be “If the fan production uses commercially-available Star Trek [stuff].” What if no really good commercially available tricorder exists for close-up shots? Can I not construct one myself?

Another example: The Star Trek movie uniforms from Wrath of Khan through Undiscovered Country are awesome, but the commercial versions are pretty pricey on places like Anovos (e.g. over $1,000 per costume). I seem to recall commercially available patterns for those costumes were available. What if an enterprising fan costumer found the right fabric and made a lot of the costumes? Does that violate this point?

From the Engage podcast, it sounds like the answer to this question is “no, it does not violate the guideline.” Enterprising fan prop creators or costumers may do their cool work… but they don’t want said enterprising prop or costume people to start a cottage industry renting said props and costumes to other productions.

I think there might be a further way to deal with any created fan costumes and props as I’ll delve into further down under Guideline # 6.

5) The fan production must be a real “fan” production, i.e., creators, actors and all other participants must be amateurs, cannot be compensated for their services, and cannot be currently or previously employed on any Star Trek series, films, production of DVDs or with any of CBS or Paramount Pictures’ licensees.

This guideline is another one that I know creates tremendous heartburn among the Star Trek fan film community (both creators and audiences). Combined with Guideline #1, this is the one that makes me most vexed (in an Austen way) or want to Kirk out (in a Star Trek way). Part of the fun of so many of the fan series has been the creative people behind and in front of the camera who’ve previously worked on Trek and other similarly fannish places.

Again, the appearance of original, new Trek may soothe this vexation. I reserve the right to do a flying leg kick at a later date, though.

6) The fan production must be non-commercial:

Absolutely no problem with that — and that was the premise of the unofficial guidelines, wasn’t it?

But wait, this one has a bunch of sub-guidelines, let’s look at those.

CBS and Paramount Pictures do not object to limited fundraising for the creation of a fan production, whether 1 or 2 segments and consistent with these guidelines, so long as the total amount does not exceed $50,000, including all platform fees, and when the $50,000 goal is reached, all fundraising must cease.

Oookay. Not so good at all for any of the continuing fan series, but they’ve theoretically been hamstrung or eliminated by Guideline # 1. The Engage podcast also clarified that private donations (e.g. rich uncles, etc.) are permissible.

The fan production must only be exhibited or distributed on a no-charge basis and/or shared via streaming services without generating revenue.

No problem with this whatsoever.

The fan production cannot be distributed in a physical format such as DVD or Blu-ray.

I’m used to dealing with SAG-AFTRA low budget agreements that make similar restrictions. No problem.

I understand how this is a blow to those who used the DVD/Blu-ray perk in their crowdfunding campaigns, but frankly, Guideline #1 has already meant you’re not in this for an ongoing series.

The fan production cannot be used to derive advertising revenue including, but not limited to, through for example, the use of pre or post-roll advertising, click-through advertising banners, that is associated with the fan production.

No problem with that.

No unlicensed Star Trek-related or fan production-related merchandise or services can be offered for sale or given away as premiums, perks or rewards or in connection with the fan production fundraising.

Again, a big blow for crowd-funders, but since Guideline # 1 means these aren’t ongoing series, that seems to have taken care of.

The fan production cannot derive revenue by selling or licensing fan-created production sets, props or costumes.

See Guideline #4 above. Again, this seems to be to protect actual companies that license Star Trek, but it could be a sticky wicket for even conscientious fan film creators.

I’m especially concerned with places such as Starbase Studios that are not looking to profit from set rentals, but are looking for donations from productions to cover the cost of their existence. And I think outfits like Starbase Studios could be cool as a resources where one can produce one’s one-off Star Trek fan adventures.

In the Engage podcast, CBS clarifies they’re fine with enterprising costumers and prop-makers building costumes and sets for their productions, but if productions are looking to buy costumes or props, they should be licensed goods.

Perhaps entities such as Starbase Studios could continue to operate as a non-profit, something official and ongoing that CBS/Paramount could grant a limited, non-commercial license that can provide resources for fan productions.  This group or groups could also be a place to donate sets, props, and costumes to after your fan production is done. I could see several fan productions paying it forward in this manner. That would reward the crafty fans and the thrifty fan producers.

7) The fan production must be family friendly and suitable for public presentation. Videos must not include profanity, nudity, obscenity, pornography, depictions of drugs, alcohol, tobacco, or any harmful or illegal activity, or any material that is offensive, fraudulent, defamatory, libelous, disparaging, sexually explicit, threatening, hateful, or any other inappropriate content. The content of the fan production cannot violate any individual’s right of privacy.

Okay, this is another guideline that is completely understandable, but then potentially problematic for some fan productions. And fans may well point out that more adult behavior and illegal activity occurs in official Star Trek. So they’re basically saying it’s official Trek’s call to include this or not and fans shouldn’t try this at home.

This is a bit problematic as there seem to be more shades of gray (maybe not as bad as a second-season clipshow, but you know…). Sure you could still show Scotty’s love of scotch, right? Right? What about the most recent Star Trek Continues that touches on the subject of child abuse? Star Trek is often about philosophical and moral issues — and the famous interracial kiss from the original series was probably not deemed “family friendly” in some households at the time.

I would imagine the appropriately transformative work is still protected by fair use, but don’t be surprised if CBS/Paramount’s lawyers hail you on all frequencies.

8) The fan production must display the following disclaimer in the on-screen credits of the fan productions and on any marketing material including the fan production website or page hosting the fan production:

“Star Trek and all related marks, logos and characters are solely owned by CBS Studios Inc. This fan production is not endorsed by, sponsored by, nor affiliated with CBS, Paramount Pictures, or any other Star Trek franchise, and is a non-commercial fan-made film intended for recreational use.  No commercial exhibition or distribution is permitted. No alleged independent rights will be asserted against CBS or Paramount Pictures.”

No problem here.

9) Creators of fan productions must not seek to register their works, nor any elements of the works, under copyright or trademark law.

Oh, how some people on forums fumed about this one, but come on. CBS/Paramount is basically saying how you can make non-fair use derivative works in a way that they probably won’t come after you. You’re playing in their sandbox in their yard. Yes, you might come up with a cool new alien. Something that’s clever and represents your creativity, so naturally you want to protect that intellectual property.

You know what the solution to that is? Make your own damn science fiction show and put the brand new alien in that.

Also, do you know how many alien races there are in Star Trek? For crying out loud, use some of them. I, for one, would love to see more tales about the Vaadwaur for one.

10) Fan productions cannot create or imply any association or endorsement by CBS or Paramount Pictures.

See also Guideline # 7 above. CBS/Paramount wants to protect its IP brand. No surprise there. Yes, you could wish for CBS/Paramount to give you permission more akin to a license, but they’re not. You might as well wish for them to give you a pony with warp nacelles while you’re at it.

CBS and Paramount Pictures reserve the right to revise, revoke and/or withdraw these guidelines at any time in their own discretion. These guidelines are not a license and do not constitute approval or authorization of any fan productions or a waiver of any rights that CBS or Paramount Pictures may have with respect to fan fiction created outside of these guidelines.

Look closely at just about any terms and conditions on any website and you’ll see that they too want the terms entirely at their discretion. You could complain, or again, you could make your own dang science fiction show. No crime in being influenced by Star Trek.

Okay, so there are my thoughts. If we break out the Guideline 6 and include that little “Oh, we can change things at any time, nyah” bit, there’s 17 different points CBS/Paramount wants you to adhere to. I have reservations about two of them (1 and 5) and partial reservations about one (7) because of how it could be overzealously enforced.

That’s not bad. The bad part is how it shakes up the fan production status quo, so I don’t blame anyone working on an ongoing series still feeling gobsmacked.

The Wednesday after the guidelines were released, in episode 5 of a new official Star Trek podcast, John Van Citters, an executive with CBS answers a lot of questions about the guidelines (I’ve cited it above, but you might want to give it a listen now).

So, what about other takes on the guidelines? As you might imagine, recovering lawyer Janet Gershen-Siegel takes a look at them at the G&T show. I especially like how she hypothesizes about what specifically might be allowed or not. Teresa Jusino also reacts to the guidelines over at the Mary Sue with feelings and thoughts that make sense to me overall — as well as some ire and snark for Axanar Productions. I’m afraid that the pro and anti Axanar forces will be in a Movellan/Dalek standoff for some time — neither are willing to turn off their battle computers (and the Movellans are still unwilling to admit they’re a completely lame alien race — please make no Doctor Who fan films with the Movellans).

But back to Star Trek. I do feel for the ongoing fan producers. The vast majority appear to have issued statements thanking CBS/Paramount for the ability to play in the Star Trek sandbox for so long without guidelines until now. I hope if they’re not continuing, they find a satisfactory way to wrap up.

And I hope they get to enjoy being a Star Trek fan with the rest of us.


Note: I’ve enjoyed writing this mini-series, but frankly, I’m sick of the “crisis” and more looking forward to just enjoying Trek. I’m not saying this my last entry in the series, but I’m hoping any subsequent entries amount to more of a denouement.

World of Filmcraft -er- Film Distribution

An article by K. M. McFarland in Wired about Warcraft the other week got me thinking about how the global marketplace for films has been changing.

Simply put, Warcraft has done dismally in the U.S. box office. Just $46 million as of last Friday. Against its $160 million production budget, that’s awful — all the more so when you realize that $160 million doesn’t account for “prints and advertising,” an ever-growing expense that can often equal the production budget.

But guess what? The U.S. box office accounts for a little less than 11% of Warcraft’s take. It’s made over $422 million worldwide so far, so its sequel is probably there if the studio wants it.

We’ve known for some time that Hollywood has been looking overseas to make a good chunk of its money. I think I first realized this focus with the 2004 film Troy. Its performance in the U.S. was unremarkable, even disappointing. It didn’t make its production budget of $175 million. But combined with its international haul, it made nearly $500 million theatrically.

We’ve known too that Hollywood, in its quest to finance ever-growing blockbuster budgets, has been getting funds from overseas. We can rattle off a host of tentpole films with scenes in China from The Dark Knight onward. And as of this year, tentpole financier Legendary Entertainment is a subsidiary of a Chinese conglomerate. While Hollywood is an undeniable center of gravity in the film world, it now launches its projects with an eye to escape the orbit of the United States.

With Warcraft, we’re now seeing how some of these films might not only have interest in the global market, but how these films might be of interest in the global market excluding the United States. As a cultural/entertainment hegemon, this is a rather shocking development. As someone who grew up with the films of John Ford and Akira Kurosawa (aka films from outside of current time and space), I don’t find this necessarily bad… but I’d be lying if I didn’t say I sometimes enjoy being part of the cultural/entertainment hegemony.

Hegemonic feelings aside, I am somewhat concerned though that this trend will exacerbate the overall trend towards eliminating “mid-budget films.” Nowadays, I suppose that means films in the $40 million to $70 million range. Spielberg’s Lincoln would fit this model ($65 million), as would his more recent Bridge of Spies ($40 million). But besides ‘Oscar contender’ films, a whole host of solid, grown-up films used to be released with regularity by the studios. I suppose much of that content and its budgets have been transposed to TV, but I’m sure some potential film projects have been lost in the process.

And that’s a shame. Because there’s a place for those mid range movies among the dirt-cheap indies and the blockbuster features. And there’s a place for the people who make them. It reminds me of publishers and the “mid range authors,” a variety of writer that seems to have been on the way out for over a decade (you can read more about the decrease of mid-list authors both here and here).

I guess we’ll see. We’re also experiencing a huge uptick in scripted series, so it could be film projects haven’t really been lost so much as transformed into mini-series. In any case, I’ll be interested to see what Warcraft’s final numbers are, if there will be a sequel, and if this means there will be a whole new crop of Hollywood franchises that aren’t looking to make it big in the U.S. if they can make it big elsewhere.

So Long and Thanks for all the Lutefisk

This past weekend, while I was dealing with schoolkids and stormtroopers at Escape Velocity, Garrison Keillor hosted his last episode of A Prairie Home Companion, as described here and here (and countless other places on the web).

As mentioned in Chris Barton’s piece for the LA Times, the approach on one hand was that of simply another show. But so many of us would like that option for yet another show. After 40 years, you can be assured some people find you to be a “mainstay.”

“Nothing gold can stay,” notes Robert Frost… and Garrison Keillor will note him and many other poets on the Writer’s Almanac, the daily podcast which I believe he’ll voice for a while longer. He’ll also be working on some more writing… probably for the rest of his life frankly.

Between thoroughly Midwestern parents and a steady diet of folk music growing up, it’s hardly a surprise I enjoyed Garrison Keillor and A Prairie Home Companion (which, let’s just abbreviate to APHC for the rest of this). I came to appreciate APHC more as I got older, because by then I had traveled around and lived in a few more places than “home.” That’s when the small-town Americana and wry storytelling inherent within the Lake Wobegon tales came into greater focus. As Scott Simon notes in his remembrance/appreciation at NPR, having his final performance being on Independence Day weekend, a time of intense Americana, is entirely appropriate.

The fact that APHC was old-fashioned when it first debuted may explain some people’s ambivalence about it, which Robert Lloyd explores in the LA Times here (though this is the first I’ve ever heard the word “polarizing” applied to it). I’m curious how the new, younger host and the presumed new focus on music will affect APHC’s demographics. At the same time, I’m not sure how often I’ll tune in myself.

There’s one other element to APHC that theoretically could continue even with a music-centric version. For the past few years, my family has been able to see APHC when they come to Wolf Trap and be some of the “wolves on the lawn” that Keillor would always reference in the broadcast (which invariably elicited wolf howls from the lawn denizens). Keillor would warm up the audience before the broadcast started by walking around the audience –including up and through the lawn– leading everyone in song. Not a unique show tactic to be sure, but the particular 70-something in suit and red sneakers owned it. Lord only knows if my kids will remember any of this when they’re older, but I will.

And that’s one thing I’ll miss.

APHC_2016-05

Garrison Keillor at Wolf Trap, 2016

Fan Entitlement, IP Theft, and Wrath at Cons

So between the bombshell that was CBS/Paramount releasing their fan film guidelines yesterday and the upcoming Escape Velocity science-meets-science-fiction convention, this seems like an appropriate topic.

Lawyer (and film producer) Seth Polansky gives an overview of common misconceptions and arguments for IP infringement at pop culture conventions… and what we might do about it.

I meant to post this earlier (and apparently it’s already caused a modest stir around the Interwebs), but y’know, getting Escape Velocity ready for launch and all…

Crisis of Infinite Star Treks: The Guidelines Hit The Fan

This is the 24th entry in a surprisingly long series of posts about Star Trek’s future and its fandom called Crisis of Infinite Star Treks.

Well, I was going to make sure I updated my last post about CBS/Paramount’s response to Axanar’s counterclaim in everyone’s favorite intellectual property (IP) lawsuit, but then CBS/Paramount had another surprise today.

They released the fan film guidelines. The announcement is here and the guidelines are here.

In terms of timeline, I didn’t think they’d do this until after Star Trek Beyond was released.

In terms of content: wow, just wow. Holy flurking schnit, is that a hammer or what?

If I’m not mistaken, this effectively kills all the longstanding ongoing fan series and productions which off the top of my head includes:

  • Star Trek: New Voyages (aka Star Trek: Phase II)
  • Star Trek Continues
  • Star Trek: Renegades
  • Star Trek: Intrepid
  • Starship Farragut/Farragut Forward
  • Potentially anything produced at Starbase Studios

And, of course, Axanar.

As you might imagine, the fannish community is a-flutter. Debates abound about who is more worthy of damnation: CBS/Paramount or Alec Peters/Axanar. Many a comment thread will be filled on Facebook pages and elsewhere, I’m sure.

Once again, I completely understand corporate lawyers behaving like corporate lawyers and protecting their company’s IP vigorously. Make no mistake: they own Star Trek. However, I lament the lost opportunity to especially use these longstanding fan productions as a way to engage with fans in a way other IPs simply won’t be able to.

Earlier this month, I noted that we were all awaiting orders from Starfleet Command (CBS/Paramount). I hoped that the order given would be some form of “warp speed.” Instead, they’ve come in with something close to full phasers. I don’t think it’ll start a war with fandom –I’m sure some bellicose fans are convinced it has– but it sure doesn’t seem like the best way to keep the peace.

I’ll have to think more about this… and more importantly, pause for some pie.

UPDATE: as comes as no surprise, there’s many reactions:

There are, of course, many, many more reactions, but these should keep you all busy for now.

Swiss Miss: No UBI for Switzerland Just Yet

So, I’ve been really busy working on this convention coming up next week, which means I haven’t been able to blog as much.

One of the things I wanted to do was follow up on my occasional posts about basic income. Switzerland voted on whether to give all its citizens universal basic income earlier this month. The vote failed, but as Dylan Matthews mentions in Vox, it might set the stage for progress on basic income in Switzerland and other countries.

Axanar on the Road to Discovery

This is the 23rd entry in a surprisingly long series of posts about Star Trek’s future and its fandom called Crisis of Infinite Star Treks.

So, remember an event now way back in May where the Axanar lawsuit was “going away” in a few weeks and some people thought that meant it was being “dropped?”

Well, as I indicated when covering Axanar’s response to CBS/Paramount’s complaint and Axanar’s counterclaim, the court of law will tend to move forward whatever the court of public opinion may think.

So it should come as no surprise that in today’s Hollywood Reporter, they report that CBS/Paramount has responded to Axanar’s counterclaim.

Many of us who are now following this case more closely have been waiting for that response since Monday, and you can read both the response and the original counterclaim at Axamonitor’s page on the subject.

By not moving to dismiss the counterclaim, but addressing it, I understand CBS/Paramount is trying to move things along. Indeed, the reading of the response seems to be “admit public knowledge, don’t know enough to comment, deny Axanar’s allegation, deny Axanar’s allegation, deny Axanar’s allegation, also, let’s move on with things.”

“Things” in this case would be discovery and other fun matters — except we might not have public visibility into this until much later in the year.

As in previous times, I’m going to look for the G & T Show’s Janet Gershen-Siegel for a breakdown of the response — and I’ll update this post.