Transmedia Trials (WK6)

In this blog, I discuss how transmedia storytelling applies to legal practice.

If you flicked on the television recently, you’d notice there has been a recent trend in the sort of popular prime-time TV shows being broadcast. No, I’m not talking about bad quiz shows. What I am talking about are shows that deal with courts, lawyers and the legal process – TV shows about the law. Be it witty sitcoms like Boston Legal and Judging Amy, serious dramas like Law & Order and CSI, or “reality” shows like Judge Judy and People’s Court, shows about legal practice have become a popular mainstay on the viewer’s TV diet. But why is this? Well, I think one of the main reasons this genre has grown in status is that people are now realising and appreciating that the law, ultimately, is about stories. At the heart of each court case and law suit are all the essential qualities of an interesting narrative; protagonists, antagonists, conflicts, twists, a climax and a resolution (Eskridge Jr., 1994). It is no wonder then that these stories are increasingly being told transmedially (such as through print, film or gaming media) and hence influencing legal practice; and in particular (as we will later see), legal education.



The above video does quite a good job of succinctly summing up what transmedia storytelling is. Transmedia storytelling is commonly associated with and utilised by franchises (Dena, 2004). You know, ones like Star Wars, Harry Potter and Batman; ones where different aspects of what new media theorist Henry Jenkins calls “storyworlds” are communicated through different media and channels (Dena, 2004). As Jenkins (2007) asserts, this media synergism conveys fictional stories; fictional stories which, as afore stated, include legal fiction.

So what effect does this transmedia storytelling of legal fiction have on the legal practice? Well firstly, it conveys stereotypes and legal information to its audiences which are not always true or real. For example, as Asimow (2009) humorously recounts, “My barber told me recently that he was part of a jury panel that was being questioned by the lawyers. A defense lawyer asked a juror whether one police officer would lie to protect another officer. ‘Of course,’ the juror replied, ‘I’ve seen it on television many times.’” We may laugh at this, but we all know that this is the world we live in.

Legal stories are not only played out in courts, but TV shows like Law & Order and CSI also recontextualise, appropriate and retell them through their own various media (Asimow, 2009). One only needs to remember such infamous court cases such as OJ Simpson or the more local Ivan Milat which was appropriated and recounted in the film, Wolf Creek. Because of this, lawyers and those in the legal profession need to be aware of this prime example of cultivation theory where the worldviews of audiences of a particular storytelling medium (primarily television) are shaped by the worlds and “realities” depicted through the stories conveyed (Asimow, 2009). Lawyers need to understand what information and prejudices their clients are likely to know and what media they got this information from for the legal machine to run effectively.

Secondly, and more interestingly, transmedia storytelling is being developed to train legal students and those inexperienced in legal processes such as jurors. Lettieri and Faro (2008) discuss the emergence of what they call “legal serious games”; simulated legal scenarios such as trials and negotiations, capitalising on the highly participative nature of transmedia storytelling (Flew, 2008). This transmedia interaction involves legal scenarios, cases and stories being conveyed to the user through a variety of media such as virtual games, videos and traditional text (Lettieri & Faro, 2008). These distinct media all combine, converge and interact with each other to not only teach the user theoretical legal concepts, but to allow the user to provide feedback and hence learn how to apply this knowledge through tests and errors within the safety of a simulated environment (Lettieri & Faro, 2008). As a law student, I find this an exciting new direction for legal education.

Finally, transmedia storytelling is affecting legal practice in relation to the area of intellectual property law. Not all transmedia storytelling is performed by the owners, creaters or providers of the transmedia content. In fact, an increasingly large amount of transmedia storytelling is done commonly by the users, consumers and audiences themselves. As Bolin (2007) explains, with transmedia content becoming more fluid and audiences becoming more dependent on the means of consumption, the providers of this content are finding it increasingly harder to control and copyright their content, specifically their popular character commodities like the Simpsons, Batman and Winnie the Pooh.

As a result, two things are occurring. Firstly, the laws and regulations regarding ownership, use, access and payment for transmedia content are becoming stricter (Flew, 2008). The second is that providers of content are now negotiating with, collaborating with and even owning means of consumption such as Apple with iTunes and iPods (Bolin, 2007). What this means for the legal profession is that with the rise of transmedia storytelling by the public, we are heading into unchartered territory regarding trademark law and lawyers will need to re-examine and possibly re-adjust the laws to suit this new creative and participatory age.

Whether legal stories (not always fiction) are popularly being told through TV, film and print media, or being told through serious games to train legal students, transmedia storytelling is having an effect on modern legal practice. Even the broad area of general transmedia storytelling has an influence on the law itself in regard to law reforms and new regulations. But no matter how transmedia storytelling is affecting legal practice, one thing is certain; this disclosure of the law through media to the layman will be sure to keep lawyers busy and their pockets padded.

References

Asimow, M. (2009, May 25). “The Cultural Impact of Law on Television”. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Law and Society Association, Grand Hyatt, Denver, Colorado. Retrieved 22 February, 2010, from: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p302114_index.html

Bolin, G. (2007). Media Technologies, Transmedia Storytelling and Commodification. Retrieved 22 February, 2010, from: http://www.technocult.se/files/13%20Convergence.pdf

Dena, C. (2004, October 1). Towards a Poetics of Multi-Channel Storytelling. Paper presented at ‘Critical Animals’ postgraduate conference, ‘This is Not Art’ Festival, Newcastle, NSW. Retrieved 18 February, 2010, from: http://www.christydena.com/Docs/DENA_MultichannelPoetics.pdf

Eskridge Jr., W.N. (February 1994). Gaylegal Narratives. 46 Stanford Law Review, pp.607-646.

Flew, T. (2008). New Media: An Introduction (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press: UK.

Jenkins, H. (2007, March 22). Transmedia Storytelling 101. Retrieved 22 February, 2010, from: http://www.henryjenkins.org/2007/03/transmedia_storytelling_101.html

Lettieri, N. & Faro, S. (2008, June 23-24). Seeking models of interaction for legal serious games: the transmedia paradigm. Paper presented at ‘Serious Games on the Move 08’, Cambridge, UK. Retrieved 18 February, 2010, from: http://test.isfol.it/DocEditor/test/File/Lettieri_Faro_Seeking_models_of_interaction_for_legal_serious_games_.pdf

"I Object!" (WK4)

In this blog, I consider the concept of "convergence" and think ten years in the future. How will the legal field be different and what role will convergence play, if any, in this work?

Let’s face it; we humans are pretty lazy when it comes to doing anything. We will always choose the option which requires the least amount of effort, time and brain cell stimulation. This applies doubly when it comes to our technologies. With the increasing demand that we humans have for our technological equipment to be efficient, cheap and compact, is it any wonder that the current trend in the development of technology is toward convergence (Zetie, 2004).



As the above video shows, contemporary convergence tends to lean toward the small and compact. But just what is convergence? Put simply, convergence is where different types of information technologies, communication channels and media are fused expediently together into one device (Flew, 2008; Wind & Mahajan, 2002). In response to the common desire of consumers to have one single platform which can perform a variety of functions that separate multiple devices can do, technology driven by success is inclined to convenience in size, price and use.

As Sinrod (2010) humorously explains, “When I first started writing on tech issues, in the late-1990s, I was much like ‘Inspector Gadget’ – I had a different device for every conceivable function, because I wanted it all...I dreamed of the day when all of this technology would come together, and it has beyond expectation. Now, our PDAs do it all.”


But what implications does this have on lawyers around the world? Well, as an interesting article by Richard Granat from 1998 explained, lawyers tend to be slow in adapting and adopting new technology trends. It is arguable whether much has changed in over 10 years. Why this article is so interesting is because it was written before the Internet had yet taken off for common use in legal practice. In 1998, extensive databases for legal cases and articles were something of the future, yet Granat predicted their huge implications on the practice of lawyers; even on the value of lawyers themselves.

The law has traditionally been based in print media, and as such, lawyers had the exclusive role of being highly skilled navigators of this large storage of information. This kept the average person on the street from being able to access this legal information. In other words, it contributed to the need for lawyers. But in the current age where all this information is converged with digital media, this legal information is readily available digitally (and for FREE!) to anyone with a computer and Internet access. What this means is that with one easy search and click, lawyers, Granat predicted, will need to adapt to this breakdown of professional barriers otherwise they may become something of the past.

Granat (1998) further predicted that if lawyers do not adapt, they may very well become a victim of disintermediation within the next 10 years. This basically means that the involvement of lawyers, who have been the mediators so to speak between the laity and the law, will no longer be needed in this transaction due to the digitalisation of the law. Whilst this will remove legal services that are replaceable, conversely and potentially beneficial, it will give those legal services which are irreplaceable more consumers (Granat, 1998).

In respect to the convergence of other technologies, Granat (1998) makes a rather intriguing prediction about its effect on legal practice. I say intriguing because, as a law student, I have not yet seen, read or heard about this sort of convergence of technologies being used currently in the field of law. But its probable future use within the next 10 years excites me. Granat (1998) explains that with the convergence of video, Internet, text and audio, legal documents have the potential to become fully interactive multimedia documents. These “smart” documents would be able to customise themselves to the reader, generating different forms and documents based on the user’s decisions. It will also incorporate multimedia files such as audio and video to teach the user about the law and record their scenarios as potential evidence, generating appropriate forms in response. Granat (1998) notes the small-scale use in small kiosks back then, and one can only anticipate the growth.

That said, part of the reason why this convergence has not caught on yet may be explained by users themselves. As Wind and Mahajan (2002) argue, convergence can mean much more than merely the synthesis of different technologies; it also has very much to do with the consumer themselves. As they argue from quite a volunteeristic paradigm, consumers and users of technologies shape the ways that technologies converge, finding and learning new ways to use the combined technologies which can now interact with each other (Wind & Mahajan, 2002). As Zetie (2004) observes, “Despite the rush to write obituaries for one format or another, I remain convinced that the market still needs diversity, not homogeneity. I believe that different variants will appeal to different people according to their needs.” The success of a convergence of technologies depends largely on the needs of consumers, thus one of the reasons these multimedia legal documents have been slow to catch on is that the legal clientele do not need them or are satisfied with the status quo. Nonetheless, I think it is only a matter of time before this changes.


Granat (1998) concludes by encouraging lawyers, who are in the business of communication, to learn new skills in converging electronic communication. As a law student, I can say that at least at my law school, this is fortunately being implemented for future lawyers. We as students are constantly encouraged, taught and instructed to use electronic legal resources. This will no doubt come in very handy later on.

References

Flew, T. (2008). New Media: An Introduction (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press: UK.

Granat, R.S. (1998). Re-Training Lawyers for A Digital Age. Retrieved 7 February, 2010, from:

Sinrod, E. (2010). The Decade of Technology Convergence. Retrieved 7 February, 2010, from:

Wind, Y. & Mahajan, V. (Spring 2002). Convergence Marketing. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 6(2), pp.64-79.

Zetie, C. (2004). Convergence or Divergence: What’s Next for Mobile Devices? Retrieved 8 February, 2010, from: