Archive through September 10, 2002
TV ClubHouse: Archive: ARCHIVE THREE:
Any Entertainment Lawyers out there?:
Archive through September 10, 2002
Tobor7 | Monday, September 09, 2002 - 06:05 pm     If so.... You may be able to find out for us... I thought that there were rules/laws concerning TV shows that awarded cash prizes. These laws were created to stop game shows from being fixed. I though that the rules of the show, format and other details had to be filed with the FCC or another gov't agency. If so, wouldn't this be a matter of public record? I really doubt that ASP has the right to change around the rules so that it favors one person or another. From a legal, corporate level, CBS would not want such exposure (not to mention bad press) just to make the show a little better. The elements of BB are so ripe with legal problems. It would seem to me that when Christa filed her lawsuit, that her ASP contract had to be made part of papers that were filed. Isn't this public record. (This could be fun if we could figure out how to get all this info and post it!) C'mon guys--- I know you are out there! |
Duncan | Monday, September 09, 2002 - 07:03 pm     I remember seeing Dani ( I think it was her ) reading the rule book one day, and before they cut to FOTH, she read something along the lines of BB reserving the right to change the rules of the game as it progressed. |
Tobor7 | Monday, September 09, 2002 - 07:15 pm     They can "reserve" any rights they want in some rule book given to Hg's. That does not change the law or FCC rules. Just like when a garage posts "they are not responsible for items left in car". Well guess what? They ARE responsible if they are negligent. Just saying they are not does not make it so. I'm hoping someone knows something about this. |
Draheid | Monday, September 09, 2002 - 07:19 pm     Tobor7: She was in fact reading from it last night, the portion dealing with what the friend/family member that comes to meet them on evicition night should bring with them. The list included clothes, money, etc. that they would need for a couple of days I think she said. Should be in the LF's, look for Alegria's post at 8:45PM last night. FWIW |
Jaysgal | Monday, September 09, 2002 - 07:22 pm     What Tobor7 said. My sis, who's an attorney, said just that. They can reserve whatever they want in writing but it is all going to depend on fairness and the laws or statutes applicable. Basically, every company whose legal notice you read always states that it reserves the right to change its terms of service without notice even. I expect some kind of class action lawsuit for the return of an evicted houseguest, without opportunity given to the rest. Or maybe I'm just dreaming. I would sue, for one, if that were I. I know that they've done that at other countries, but this is the U.S.A where different laws regulate shows/games here. |
Tobor7 | Monday, September 09, 2002 - 07:28 pm     There we go. In the right direction! I'm sure the game-show FCC rules & regs are out there somewhere. Where did Christa file her lawsuit?? I mean if we can see what deals Jack Welsch (ex-CEO of GE) had with his exit contract because it was part of his wife's divorce lawsuit we can certainly find out what the game-show regs are and what the ASP contract actually says. WE CAN DO THIS! |
Kennyb | Monday, September 09, 2002 - 07:38 pm     I don't believe BB and other reality shows are governed by the same rules and regs as true "GAME SHOWS" i.e. Wheel of Fortune/Family Fued. |
Jimmer | Monday, September 09, 2002 - 07:50 pm     If the producers make it up as they go along, it easily could be fixed (as I suspect it is). What I mean by that is that the producers design the contests and the DR sessions to encourage a certain outcome. For example, last week’s POV competition was obviously designed to favor an Amy win. |
Tobor7 | Monday, September 09, 2002 - 07:57 pm     I'm sure the producers could manipulate things a lot. I think the game show regs are the same for anything that has a cash prize for the winner. An entertainment lawyer would know. Or even an advanced law student would have access to the info. I would bet that Christa's lawsuit has her ASP contract attached to it. |
Groucho | Monday, September 09, 2002 - 10:23 pm     Jaysgal -- Really? You'd sue if you were any other contestant than Amy or the ultimate winner? What would be your basis for suing? What damages would you claim? Just curious. |
Sanfranjoshfan | Monday, September 09, 2002 - 11:09 pm     Tobor - I thought Krista's lawsuit had to do with claiming that BB was negligent for putting a guy in there who threatened her with a knife....but nothing to do with the rules of the game. Actually, I'm under the impression that when Krista's fame and stardom didn't pan out, this was her last grab for money and noteriety. (Right after she was evicted she defended Justin every single time it was brought up....but almost a year later the suit was filed) Is BB actually defined as a "game show" or a "reality show"? Are the "game show" laws possibly governed under a very narrow definition of exactly what constitutes a "game show"? |
Sanfranjoshfan | Monday, September 09, 2002 - 11:13 pm     This reminds me....whatever happened to Stacey Stillman's lawsuit against CBS/Burnett claiming her eviction was orchestrated? She was the 3rd evictee in Survivor 1....and unfortunately for CBS, she was a LAWYER! (no offense intended Goddessatlaw....besides, I'm not marriage material anyhow! LOL) A friend of mine worked with her at the time...but both have long since moved on to other places....he has no idea what happened with her. |
Goddess146 | Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 01:53 am     You can find most the dirt about Survivor controversies at: http://www.thestingray.net/home.htm |
Tobor7 | Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 02:07 am     There are 2 things to want to get here. (1) The ASP contract. (2) The legal rules for BB that are filed with the FCC. Christa's lawsuit must make reference to her contract... that ASP was negligent... the contract would be an attachment. (I don't really care if she has a good case or not... I just thought it would be interesting to see these documents.) Still waiting for a lawyer out there who can help out. |
Cmore | Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 02:15 am     I am fairly sure the legal team of CBS will have a fairly tight lid on the legalities of the show.....But.... If anywhere in their statements, disclosures or contracts they state or imply equal opportunity for all HG's to win the grand prize, then they may be screwed with the second chance thing that the first four people evicted recieved. It could be argued that these people were still "in the game" until they were released by CBS, but I think in terms of equal opportunity, all HG's evicted since the first four have been treated unfairly. |
Costacat | Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 05:38 am     BTW, I don't know if it actually applies here, but the little twists in Survivor (you know, like where they swapped team members?) were "well planned in advance." Meaning that they had planned that, and probably documented it, just in case someone who ultimately lost attempted to sue. So I'm pretty sure that BB has done something similar. It's likely that they planned all the comps *after* all the contestants signed on, but I'd bet they were all planned before they all entered the house. I think that any HG would have a problem winning a lawsuit against CBS/ASP. There were several clauses alluding to the fact that the rules may change midgame; they knew that, they just didn't know what would change. I mean, I'm sure no one is truly up 'n arms about the POV, and that was a new "twist" this year, yes? Just a thought from the other side of the rim... |
Crazydog | Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 06:39 am     I agree with Costacat. I don't see anybody winning a lawsuit against CBS or Arnold Shapiro. I am sure that in the contract AS there are provisions regarding changes to the game that allow for modifications as he sees fit. Likewise, there are probably clauses in there that talk about how the HGs have to follow the instructions of the game as given to them by BB. Lastly, there is almost certainly a boilerplate clause that states the HGs will not sue over any injury, etc. whether physical or mental caused by BB, another HG or otherwise. Essentially they put themselves at their own risk. Krista's lawsuit is undoubtedly the result of her trying to gain attention and money. I am sure she is suing based on some theory of emotional distress or negligence. I doubt the public will ever see a copy of the Arnold Shapiro contract. There are probably restrictions on former HGs distributing it, under threat of lawsuit. If it were to be attached to the lawsuit, it would probably be sealed. I don't see why she would want to attach it, since there is probably a waiver of liability clause expressly contained within it which destroys her case. RE the FCC and rigging, I don't know if the rules have to be filed with the FCC or not. In any event, I still fail to see how people believe the game was rigged to bring Amy back. I am quite sure the decision to bring back an evictee after the fourth eviction was made long before the game started. The bottom line is that I believe contestants in a reality show like this are entirely subject to the whim of the producers. Unless the producers actively fix things (e.g., everyone votes to evict Roddy but they decide that Amy is going to walk instead), then the houseguests have absolutely no case. As far as whether it's fair or not fair, the entire game has an inherent amount of unfairness in it, and that's how it is. So sad too bad. BTW I am a lawyer although I don't do anything with entertainment or labor, so take it for what it's worth. |
Lola | Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 08:44 am     I have a friend who is an ent lawyer. I put in a call to him and when I hear back I'll report |
Kador | Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 08:48 am     The FCC gameshow rules are a JOKE. They have ZERO enforcement. Look at Survivor 1 and Stacy Stillman's lawsuit, currently going nowhere... |
Bohawkins | Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 09:30 am     For your information: [DOCID:usc47-189] From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [Laws in effect as of January 16, 1996] [Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between January 16, 1996 and February 24, 1998] [CITE: 47USC509] TITLE 47--TELEGRAPHS, TELEPHONES, AND RADIOTELEGRAPHS CHAPTER 5--WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION SUBCHAPTER V--PENAL PROVISIONS; FORFEITURES Sec. 509. Prohibited practices in contests of knowledge, skill, or chance (a) Influencing, prearranging, or predetermining outcome It shall be unlawful for any person, with intent to deceive the listening or viewing public-- (1) To supply to any contestant in a purportedly bona fide contest of intellectual knowledge or intellectual skill any special and secret assistance whereby the outcome of such contest will be in whole or in part prearranged or predetermined. (2) By means of persuasion, bribery, intimidation, or otherwise, to induce or cause any contestant in a purportedly bona fide contest of intellectual knowledge or intellectual skill to refrain in any manner from using or displaying his knowledge or skill in such contest, whereby the outcome thereof will be in whole or in part prearranged or predetermined. (3) To engage in any artifice or scheme for the purpose of prearranging or predetermining in whole or in part the outcome of a purportedly bona fide contest of intellectual knowledge, intellectual skill, or chance. (4) To produce or participate in the production for broadcasting of, to broadcast or participate in the broadcasting of, to offer to a licensee for broadcasting, or to sponsor, any radio program, knowing or having reasonable ground for believing that, in connection with a purportedly bona fide contest of intellectual knowledge, intellectual skill, or chance constituting any part of such program, any person has done or is going to do any act or thing referred to in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this subsection. (5) To conspire with any other person or persons to do any act or thing prohibited by paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) of this subsection, if one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of such conspiracy. (b) ``Contest'' and ``the listening or viewing public'' defined For the purposes of this section-- (1) The term ``contest'' means any contest broadcast by a radio station in connection with which any money or any other thing of value is offered as a prize or prizes to be paid or presented by the program sponsor or by any other person or persons, as announced in the course of the broadcast. (2) The term ``the listening or viewing public'' means those members of the public who, with the aid of radio receiving sets, listen to or view programs broadcast by radio stations. (c) Penalties Whoever violates subsection (a) of this section shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. (June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title V, Sec. 508, formerly Sec. 509, as added Sept. 13, 1960, Pub. L. 96-752, Sec. 9, 74 Stat. 897; renumbered Sec. 508, Dec. 8, 1980, Pub. L. 96-507, Sec. 1, 94 Stat. 2747.) Section Referred to in Other Sections This section is referred to in section 503 of this title. |
Mystery | Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 10:09 am     That goes a long way toward explaining to me why most of the BB3 "contestants" were chosen to be on the show. ASP was lining up its "this is not a contest of intellectual knowledge or intellectual skill (after all, look who we picked)" defense! |
Tobor7 | Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 02:29 pm     Lola - Now we are getting somewhere! Can't wait to hear. All good info everyone else. And again, I am not saying anything about any lawsuits having validity or not. The lawsuit may be a way of getting around the disclosure of the contract. My goal here is to reveal these 2 documents that everyone might find VERY interesting - NOT IF any of the HG's will sue CBS or ASP. This is a fact finding mission for inquiring minds. |
Cba79 | Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 03:20 pm     I saw this thread yesterday and asked for some thoughts from my media law professor... She stated that the laws for "rule changing" are very strict for more traditional shows such as trivia game shows like Jeopardy and Millionaire, etc., where there is not a "reasonable expectation" for the rules to be changed. However, she said that on a show like Survivor and Big Brother where the surprise elements are a major part of gameplay the contestants should expect some variations of rules in gameplay. Now, she says that because the contestants, here the houseguests, know that there is a potential for the rules to be changed that their claims would, most likely, be null. She added that because there is an "expectation of rule changes" the "we reserve the right..." legalise in the rulebook would most likely favor the network/producers, because the contestants were told in their contracts/rulebook that they "reserved the right" to do whatever they wanted. My two cents... I try to look at this from both sides and I see that both have a good arguement. Tough call, but I doubt that the "unfair" argument would stick (especially with CBS's lawyers)! Well, that is it from me. Just wanted to add my and another's opinion in here! |
Tobor7 | Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 04:02 pm     Thanks for that info CBA. What the producers TELL the HG's I could care less about. I don't think the producers are making it up as they go along. Also, I don't think they have choices like, "If we want the female to win then we will use this competition, and if we want the male to win we will use the other one." They do have choices like, "If it rains we will use these props inside, and if it is sunny we will use others outside." All these choices of events, rule changes etc. have been determined in advance. They had to budget the week-long trips of the 1st evictees, schedule the people to go with them, etc. These things are described and written down somewhere. The questions they ask during comps are nice and safe--- (legally) But what if one of the HG's was alergic to peanuts? They would have to have an alternate food that all ppl would have to eat. I'm sure this is all pre-determined. But let me try to keep to the point. We are looking for the method of enforcement for fair play. Are the rules filed anywhere? |
Bohawkins | Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 05:06 pm     The US code which I cited previously (the law governing Gameshow fixing) is interesting because it speaks of an obligation to the viewing public. "It shall be unlawful for any person, with intent to deceive the listening or viewing public-- " Arrangements with the participants specifically cannot be made which will fool the public into believing that the contest was not pre-arranged if indeed it was. If the producers caused certain competitions to be slanted to pre-arrange the outcome, then they would run the risk of being in violation of this part of the code. My guess is that any arrangements they have with participants regarding what changes can be made are very well thought out, and the document of agreement is, most likely, very skillfully crafted, so that the producers can probably do whatever they wish with impunity in regards to the participants. Sure, any contract is disputable, but making claims against a well written one, which was understood and agreed to by all parties, would most likely be a spurious attempt. However, the risk the show most likely runs is that of deceiving the viewing public, because the show seems to fit the definition of being a contest of skill or chance. Their only protection here would have been a well publicized disclaimer stating that this was not a contest, but a play or performance. My impression is that it has always been tauted as a contest or a competition. Perhaps, there might be grounds for a class action suit (we might each get a dollar or two), if such evidence of "fixing" the outcome was forthcoming. |
|