Legal Bytes : Advertising & Media Lawyer & Attorney : Reed Smith Law Firm : Marketing & Intellectual Property : Legal Bytes Law Blog

When NBC Universal broadcasts “Deal or No Deal,” viewers are invited to play a “Lucky Case Game.” The game allows viewers to pick one of six cases and submit their entry via premium text message ($.99) or online. If you pick the right case, you are entered in a random drawing for a prize of up to $100,000. Well, wouldn’t you know. Someone lost and sued NBC under Georgia’s gambling laws, which make gambling contracts void and states that any “money paid…upon a gambling consideration may be recovered from the winner by the loser” (Hardin v. NBC Universal). There are also actions pending before the California courts. Just a few weeks ago, the Georgia Supreme Court held that the $.99 was not a bet or wager, and there was no “gambling contract” between the plaintiffs and NBC. For now, and at least in Georgia, a premium text message game is permissible.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Web-based videos, through links, feeds or user uploads, are generating significant legal and commercial interest these days. Advertisers are also quick to recognize the potential “buzz” marketing opportunities enabled by the use of the Internet and digital audiovisual technology. User-generated content draws consumers to websites, powerful magnets for advertising messages targeted to those consumers. But beware: Simply because a consumer creates the content, doesn’t mean it is immune from standard legal tests for advertising, endorsements, publicity and product liability.

A lawsuit has recently been filed against one online video-sharing network—Veoh—alleging it allowed video works owned by an adult entertainment company to be viewed through Veoh’s website without authorization. The claims of copyright infringement could be an important test of how the courts view sites that enable sharing or feeds of audiovisual works. Although there are a growing number of popular user-generated content sites such as IFILM, YouTube, Guba, Yahoo! and Google, these sites often have very different policies and some, but not all, of them review user-generated content before it is posted—either to ensure it meets guidelines or to confirm that the user’s tags are accurate.

Earlier this month, the New York State Consumer Protection Board published an official warning about content available on Google Video, the new Google site for user-generated content. Because videos are uploaded by users, Google Video relies on tags (labels which describe the content) which are input and generated by the users. Since the content is not indexed or catalogued by Google, a search will turn up whatever the user submits—and that is what has irritated the New York authorities. As with many websites that allow user-generated content to be uploaded for viewing, Google warns users about uploading obscene or illegal material or items protected by copyright, but currently has no mechanism for filtering it out.

In a move widely viewed as adding an air of legitimacy to these sites, Warner Bros. agreed to allow Guba to distribute some of its television shows and motion pictures, online. NBC is allegedly planning to make clips of some of its most popular programs available to YouTube to promote its fall programming lineup. NBC’s decision is reportedly coupled with advertising commitments for both companies in broadcast television medium and the Internet. That should come as no surprise since advertising is what is usually at the root of all of these revenue models—a fact that has not escaped broadcast network executives.

Also this month, a number of leading television production and motion picture companies joined forces in filing suit against Cablevision, one of the largest cable television companies in the United States. The action asks the U.S. District Court in New York to declare the time-shifting service Cablevision has announced, but not yet offered, in violation of U.S. copyright law. Cablevision has countered that time-shifting of programming by consumers is legal. Unlike an “on-demand” service which would record everything and replay programs when selected by the consumer, Cablevision intends to offer subscribers a specific amount of allocated storage space on the network. Analogous to an outsourced set-top box or digital video recording device that a consumer might purchase, Cablevision will offer consumers an opportunity to buy storage space and use it to record and play back programs and then erase them to free space for new programs—no different than if the storage medium was sitting in their living rooms. Stay tuned.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Product placement is an advertising activity which has grown for decades in the motion picture industry, going virtually unnoticed by legislators. When television began aggressively using product placement for advertising, concerns (and regulation) began increasing. Unlike motion pictures, television is legally required to distinguish between advertising and programming.

First, “infomercials” that looked and felt like programming were targeted by regulators, because they believed the infomercials were deceiving. After a number of cases, the industry developed and implemented disclosures to allay fears of regulators at the FCC and the FTC. Enter reality TV. Suddenly programs were using affiliations with sponsors as part of the content or story line, prompting fresh concerns. As cable television, pay-per-view and video-on-demand services, time-shifting and digital recording devices, and fast-forward buttons have become commonplace, advertisers have struggled to capture viewers’ attention with product placement. In 2004, product placement advertising rose to about $4.25 billion.

Why the fuss? Because product placement is advertising, subject to the same laws and regulations that govern commercials. On television, both the FTC and the FCC can regulate advertising, mandate disclosures and determine if something is deceptive or misleading. Where the line between harmless product placement and deceptive practices is drawn is increasingly blurred.

Whether a product placement is deceptive or misleading—sufficient to make it actionable under Section 5 of the FTC Act—depends on whether there is some representation or omission likely to mislead the consumer. The depiction of the product must be viewed from the perspective of a reasonable consumer in the situation and the representation or omission must be “material.” In other words, if the consumer knew or was told the truth, the consumer’s behavior would likely be affected in connection with the product.

The FCC also regulates deceptive product placements: viewers may not realize they are advertisements, hence the FCC requires disclosure. Failure to properly disclose the commercial nature of a product placement could amount to “payola” and would be illegal. Again, where the line is drawn between harmless inclusion of products in programming versus commercialization which misleads consumers is hardly clear.

The FTC and FCC regulations puts advertisers between a rock and a hard place. The FCC requires disclosure for a paid placement—which makes the product placement commercial speech. If it is commercial speech, is the placement then also subject to FTC disclosure rules? What if the advertiser has no control over the creative content and no approval over scripts or editing or even the extent of the product placement itself? Under those circumstances, how could the advertiser be responsible for the depiction of its product; the director, producer, actors, even the editorial staff, have ultimate creative control of what shows up on the screen. The advertiser could pay a substantial sum of money to watch its product wind up on the cutting room floor in post-production. Ouch.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Literally as this issue headed to press, the Supreme Court released its unanimous decision in the case of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster—a decision that is likely to have monumental consequences for years to come. To summarize the basic issues, for many years peer-to-peer file-sharing networks have relied on the 1984 Sony v. Universal Studios decision (“Betamax case”) which held the distribution of a commercial product capable of substantial noninfringing use could NOT give rise to contributory liability unless the distributor had actual knowledge of specific instances of infringement and failed to act. With peer-to-peer file-sharing, the network software architecture is decentralized, making it unlikely that the provider of the file-sharing software (in this case Grokster and StreamCast) could actually know of any specific instances. Even the theories of vicarious infringement were thrown out by the lower courts because neither Grokster nor StreamCast monitored, controlled or supervised the use of the software (nor did they have an independent duty to police against infringement).

Enter the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case on appeal from the 9th Circuit, which held that Grokster and StreamCast could not be liable for contributory infringement because there was no ability to prove actual knowledge and the software was capable of substantial non-infringing use. To give readers context, evidence was introduced indicating that on the FastTrack and Gnutella networks, more than 100 million copies of file-sharing software had been downloaded and billions of files are shared across those networks each month! The court noted “the probable scope of copyright infringement is staggering.”

So the Supreme Court overturned the 9th Circuit decision—but not for the reasons you might think. In my view, the Supreme Court did not overturn or even modify the Betamax case. Distributors of peer-to-peer file-sharing software using a decentralized indexing system to share copyrighted songs and movies, and which is capable of substantial non-infringing use, cannot be held liable for contributory infringement absent showing the distributors had specific knowledge and made a material contribution to direct infringement. The court also confirmed that software distributors cannot be held liable for vicarious infringement without showing the ability to block direct infringement by users.

The Supreme Court went to great pains in overturning the 9th Circuit to note “this case is significantly different from Sony and reliance on that case to rule in favor of StreamCast and Grokster was error.” The Sony case applied to distribution of a product that had both lawful and unlawful uses and sought to impose liability because Sony knew some users might use the product unlawfully. That case held it is inequitable to impute fault and corresponding secondary liability based on the unlawful acts of others, where the product has substantial lawful utility.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Whatzup with interactive, web-based digital video games? Plenty, if you believe what we read…coming up in the next issue, with struggling advertising revenues on TV and moviegoers’ increasing annoyance with the resurgence of advertising (which now seems to be replacing the 20 minutes of “coming attraction” trailers), advertisers are looking beyond product placement in reality TV shows and wondering if those captive eyeballs and fanatic game players can turn an interactive gaming industry into the next frontier of advertising. Not to mention those new chipsets and handhelds that are making video game graphics look almost like the real thing. Will virtual reality supplant reality and will promotional and advertising take us there? Stay tuned. [P.S.: This is called a “teaser.”]

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In an attempt to lure film and television production back to New York from cheaper or more tax-advantaged locations such as Canada and Europe where they have been headed in recent years, New York has passed a bill offering tax cuts to benefit films and television shows produced in New York, although the bill does not extend to commercial productions. The Empire State Film Production Credit Program, signed into law on September 28, provides a tax credit for 10 percent of the production costs of feature films and episodic television programs produced by companies that spend 75 percent or more of their facility-related production costs at a qualifying production facility within New York. The law also allows New York City to offer additional incentives, including a 5 percent tax credit on projects, credits for outdoor media marketing, and assistance with story development, scouting, vendor discounts and consulting.

In a related development, the UK has enacted new permanent and more generous tax relief for small British films to replace the old Section 48 relief, which is scheduled to expire in July 2005. The new tax relief applies to 100 percent of a film’s UK production and raises the “small” film budget for qualifying purposes from £15m to £20m. Qualifying films will be entitled to government subsidies worth up to £4m per film under the new law, and film productions with budgets of up to £20m will receive a tax waiver on their production costs, including overseas costs—subject to the condition that the film actually makes a profit. The government subsidies, worth up to 20 percent of the film’s budget, will be paid directly to the producers on completion of the film. Under current Section 48 regulations, subsidies went to third parties who funded the films. Now they will be paid directly to the film makers.

The British tax relief announcement comes on the heels of a recent (February 10, 2004) clamp-down on some of the UK’s largest tax equity film funds. Set up as sale-and-leaseback deals, these funds allowed British investors to acquire marketing rights to studio films in Britain, the United States and Canada, and enabled investors to write off the cost as an upfront tax loss and lease the films back to the studios for periodic payments over 15 or 20 years. The deals often provided an option for a studio buy-out after a shorter period of time, but those exit strategies were banned by the UK’s Inland Revenue in what has come to be referred to in the film industry as “Black Tuesday.” On that day, the Inland Revenue issued a tax rule change closing a loophole that allowed these funds to operate outside the existing Section 48 film tax break and permitted claiming production costs as tax losses. As if intent on delivering a one-two punch, in March the UK followed this with a prohibition against print and advertising funds that were bankrolling distribution of features from some of the major motion picture studios.

Critics point out that the consequences of these bans could be a dramatic decrease in films produced and shot in the UK, already reeling from a strong pound sterling and increased competition for film financing. We can only assume the newly announced Section 48 incentives, with its direct production credits and other attributes, scheduled to take effect in July 2005 when the current scheme expires, are intended to attempt to repair some of the tax damage done. Combining our poor sense of humor, film and legal expertise, we can only say, “The jury is still out; stay tuned: film at 11:00”!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link