This document discusses four perspectives on intellectual property (IP) in interactive television production and proposes a new "programmes as platforms" model. It summarizes the four traditional IP models as legal, entrepreneurial, accounting, and communitarian. These models define IP differently based on one's role in a company. It then introduces a new model where interactive TV shows are viewed as platforms that curate consumer inputs, like websites. This platform model provides different perspectives on ownership and monetization of consumer contributions under each of the four IP frameworks. The conclusion recommends TV executives conceptualize interactive shows as platforms rather than traditional television.

1. For those playing
along at home:
Four perspectives
on shared
intellectual
property in
TV production
Todd Green, King / Kris Erickson, Bournemouth University

2. Interactivity is BIG
Green / Erickson – EMMA 2013

3. Interactivity is BIG
Green / Erickson – EMMA 2013

4. Interactivity is BIG
Green / Erickson – EMMA 2013
2010
1. The X Factor
2. Eastenders
3. Coronation St
4. Britain’s Got Talent
5. I’m A Celebrity
6. Strictly Come Dancing
7. Doctor Who
2011
1. The X Factor
2. The Royal Wedding
3. Strictly Come Dancing
4. Britain’s Got Talent
5. I’m A Celebrity
6. Coronation St
7. Downton Abbey
2012
1. Diamond Jubilee
2. Britain’s Got Talent
3. Coronation Street
4. Downton Abbey
5. The Voice
6. I’m A Celebrity
7. The X Factor

5. Interactivity is BIG
Green / Erickson – EMMA 2013
2010
1. The X Factor
2. Eastenders
3. Coronation St
4. Britain’s Got Talent
5. I’m A Celebrity
6. Strictly Come Dancing
7. Doctor Who
2011
1. The X Factor
2. The Royal Wedding
3. Strictly Come Dancing
4. Britain’s Got Talent
5. I’m A Celebrity
6. Coronation St
7. Downton Abbey
2012
1. Diamond Jubilee
2. Britain’s Got Talent
3. Coronation Street
4. Downton Abbey
5. The Voice
6. I’m A Celebrity
7. The X Factor

6. Purpose of the paper?
Green / Erickson – EMMA 2013
To help TV executives understand interactive TV show IP
Four models:
Legal
Accounting Communitarian
Entrepreneurial

7. Scholarship on interactivity
Green / Erickson – EMMA 2013
What counts as interactivity?
• Technological design, communication setting, Perceived
Experience (Kiousis, 2002)
• Superficial or challenge the author – text – audience
relationship? (Fiske, 1987; Cover 2006; Jenkins, 2006)
Is interactivity exploitative?
• Semiotic democracy or Loser-generated content?
(Burgess & Green, 2009; Petersen, 2008; Zwick et al,
2010; Martens, 2011)

8. Model 1 – Legal
Green / Erickson – EMMA 2013
Mainly Copyright and Trademark
Encourages production company to focus on securing
rights and preventing infringement above all else.
Copyright attracts to work moment it is ‘fixed’, including
user-contributions. Override by contract? (user
agreements)

9. Model 2 – Entrepreneurial
Green / Erickson – EMMA 2013
Use of term ‘IP’ as shorthand for a brand
Emphasises process of value creation
Simultaneous production/consumption of media
(Hesmondhalgh ; Jenkins, 2006). Creates dilemmas for
brand managers.

10. Model 2 – IP is important
Green / Erickson – EMMA 2013 © FremantleMedia

11. Model 3 – Accounting
Green / Erickson – EMMA 2013
Understands IP as an asset with financial value– either as
a legal intangible asset (e.g. copyright), or as a
competitive intangible asset (e.g. know-how)
Problem with intangible assets – how to value?
Interactive shows: number of comments, likes?
New kinds of know-how, new value from consumer data

12. Model 4 – Communitarian
Green / Erickson – EMMA 2013
IP belongs not only to the project, but also to the shared
culture from which that project draws its ideas and
inspiration, and to which others in that culture
contribute
So far, much interactive TV fails to meet definition of a
‘public good’ because of resource scarcity
Interactive shows could promote a different relationship
with their own fans and paratexts

13. Summary
Green / Erickson – EMMA 2013
1. IP can be understood in contradictory ways, depending
on position of an observer within a company: lawyers,
accountants, publics and entrepreneurs all define IP
differently.
2. One’s position impacts how one weighs the costs and
benefits associated with viewer contributions
Lawyer: “iron-clad EULA”
Entrepreneur: “Does contribution add value?”

14. New model – Programmes as
Platforms
Green / Erickson – EMMA 2013
Interactive TV programmes curate a large number of small bits of
info to create something entertaining – just like web platforms

15. New model – Programmes as
Platforms
Green / Erickson – EMMA 2013
Interactive TV programmes curate a large number of small bits of info
to create something entertaining – just like web platforms

16. New model – Programmes as
Platforms
Green / Erickson – EMMA 2013
Interactive TV programmes curate a large number of small bits of info
to create something entertaining – just like web platforms

17. New model – Programmes as
Platforms
Green / Erickson – EMMA 2013
Interactive TV programmes curate a large number of small bits of info
to create something entertaining – just like web platforms

18. New model – Programmes as
Platforms
Green / Erickson – EMMA 2013
Consumer inputs (votes,
tweets…)
Producer inputs
(presenter, camera feeds…)
Producer’s filter TV show
Here’s how interactive TV shows combine multiple inputs

19. New model – Programmes as
Platforms
Green / Erickson – EMMA 2013
• Legal: platform owns IP in the framework, but consumers own
their own contributions
• Entrepreneurial: contributions managed to create an engaging
experience that responds to market demand
• Accounting: contributions not counted as assets, but the
platform’s framework is comprised of intangible legal and
competitive assets that do appear on its balance sheet, including
customer data  Ad revenue
• Communitarian: platforms actively encourage outsiders to build
new applications using platform API (Application Programming
Interface) available to developers for free
And we can compare interactive TV shows to web platforms using
all of the other four IP models:

20. Conclusion
Green / Erickson – EMMA 2013
TV executives seeking to understand IP in interactive TV shows
should look less at traditional shows
Focus instead on web platforms, which manage consumer IP in a
similar way
In short: interactive TV programmes should be seen as platforms

21. Thanks!
Green / Erickson – EMMA 2013
Any questions?