[arg_discuss] TOW: Have you ever consulted a lawyer before you didsomething ARG-related?

[Brian Clark]

Most of the legal entanglements we've had have actually been on non-physical
stagings. A couple of examples from the extended reality for the film
"Nothing So Strange" (www.nothingsostrange.com) which purposefully worked
the controversy angle:

1) The "villain" of the story was Gil Garcetti, who truly was the District
Attorney of Los Angeles. One of the websites in the campaign was "his
investigation" into the assassination of Bill Gates (www.garcettireport.org)
which was originally delivered in template that included links to other
parts of the real DA website in a navigation bar similar to their site at
the time. They called and were unhappy, saying we were "jeopardizing their
credibility and ability to secure convictions" -- our counter argument was,
"No, our film is about how your office's misconduct has eroded trust in your
department." We agreed to cease and desist in the design elements but not
the content, and they never pressed the issue further (most likely because
we had a strong position to claim "satire" and Garcetti was a public elected
political figure.)

2) More challenging, we had a page that looked like archive of CNN's
coverage of the Gates assassination hours after it happened in a completely
realistic skin of their design, but housed on a totally different site.
Again, it was both clearly parody of CNN's "breaking news" coverage when
they had no facts, and also clearly presented as "something that happened
two years ago." A fan, however, made a copy of it, republished it elsewhere,
changed the date on the page to a Javascript that made it published "today"
(whenever today was) and many newscasts in Asia began reporting it as real
news and Microsoft's stock had to be suspended in trading (see
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2916135.stm for BBC's coverage). That
generated a call from the Secret Service, who speculated that it might be a
currency devaluation scam: Special Agent Anonymous had a hard time figuring
out where reality actually picked up and began again, but no action was
taken. I imagine I got a "most harmless" entry in my security file.

Point being, two areas of impact legally are always going to be "unhappy
people colored badly" (even if fair use protects you) and the activities of
fan media creation (that you don't have direct control over) and those are
far more likely to happen online than in the real world.

-----Original Message-----
From: arg_discuss-bounces at igda.org [mailto:arg_discuss-bounces at igda.org] On
Behalf Of Markus Montola
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 4:30 PM
To: arg_discuss at igda.org
Subject: Re: [arg_discuss] TOW: Have you ever consulted a lawyer before you
didsomething ARG-related?

As a follow-up to Adam's question, has anyone ever gotten into legal  
trouble with an ARG element that was not physically staged somewhere?  
For emails, television features, websites, video clips or stuff like  
that?

To me it would appear that the physical installations are where the  
most legal risks are, unfortunately. If you keep libel, slander and  
naked flesh out, it's unlikely to get sued over something that happens  
in the Internet. Correct me if I'm wrong.

(Let's assume that credible legal threats done through lawyers is  
where "legal trouble" starts. :-)

  - M


> Yes, the question seems very broad. Here's my advice for dealing  

> with a lawyer:

>

> If you have any ability to choose the lawyer you consult (probably  

> not if you are doing something for a brand) then go with an  

> entertainment lawyer. Good entertainment lawyers will work to help  

> you accomplish what you want to do while minimizing legal risk as  

> best as possible. Corporate lawyers, on the other hand, are only  

> focused on protecting clients, so they tend to just say "No" to  

> anything that sounds risky or untested, and they generally will not  

> work with you or offer solutions.

>

> You need to work with a creative lawyer whose focus is on minimizing  

> risk rather than eliminating all risk. I'm assuming if you are  

> completely risk adverse, then you wouldn't be thinking about doing  

> something ARG related in the first place!

>

> Best,

>

> Mike

>

>

> On 2/24/09 9:13 AM, "Brian Clark" <bclark at gmdstudios.com> wrote:

>

> Such a big nebulous question, Adam, but the answer is almost always "yes".

> In commercial campaigns, I would replace "consulted" with "sparred with"

as

> it takes quite a bit of education to get them to understand the unique

> situations here (and frequently that battle starts with whether content or

> advertising law is the appropriate framework for risk evaluation.) In the

ad

> agency tradition, the agency is contractually obligated to deliver ZERO

> legal risk to their client, so they require the same from their venders --

> the uncertain legal framework of ARG-related activities make that a

constant

> challenge.

>

> On non-agency work, "consulted" is far more appropriate -- there, the test

> is more about risk management not risk elimination, so understanding what

> kinds of claims could be made against you (and how you would defend

against

> them in a way that made you a less attractive target) becomes the key.

>

> Did the person who posed that question have anything more specific in

mind?

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: arg_discuss-bounces at igda.org [mailto:arg_discuss-bounces at igda.org]

On

> Behalf Of Adam Martin

> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 11:35 AM

> To: Discussion list of the IGDA ARG SIG

> Subject: [arg_discuss] TOW: Have you ever consulted a lawyer before you

> didsomething ARG-related?

>

> (Topic of the Week - some open-ended interesting question. Suggestions

> on a postcard (or just email me) welcome for future topics...)

>

> Adam

> _______________________________________________

> ARG_Discuss mailing list

> ARG_Discuss at igda.org

> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/arg_discuss

>

> _______________________________________________

> ARG_Discuss mailing list

> ARG_Discuss at igda.org

> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/arg_discuss

>

>

>

> ---

> Mike Monello

> Partner, Campfire

> 62 White Street, 3E

> New York, NY 10013

> 212-612-9600

> http://www.campfirenyc.com

>

>

>

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> ARG_Discuss mailing list

> ARG_Discuss at igda.org

> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/arg_discuss

>




  - Markus
_______________________________________________
ARG_Discuss mailing list
ARG_Discuss at igda.org
http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/arg_discuss