The Intersection of Creativity and Law in Promoted Entertainment
As a creative director, Ian Davies is used to solving problems to the best of his ability and leaving their resolution up to others. Most recently, this has come in the form of a world of action and adventure, complete with what must be some very complicated legalities, in the form of Promoted Entertainment; a production company as innovative as it is interesting. In creating the world of Promoted Entertainment, shared as metalapolis – A Story Driven World in Minecraft, Davies has proven that the solution to any dilemma can and should be found through creative thinking and tenacity. This practice applies to almost every creative solution, and even goes some way to echoing the practices of the legal profession. A recent case study covering comprehensive motions to suppress statements gives root to this concept.
Promoted Entertainment takes the form of a Minecraft server hosted on software called PocketMine-MP, which evidences the aforementioned declaration of innovation. The most impressive detail of Davies’ projects, however, is arguably found not in the fact that the platform incorporates hourly and daily updates, or even in the number of elements and features Davies has included therein, but rather in the fact that none of these have been provided by Minecraft itself, but rather developed and created solely by Davies and those who have joined him in his quest towards a fully-functioning videogame. This page acknowledges even the laws of physics as a necessary consideration before building can begin on the world of Promoted Entertainment, which arguably mirrors the path taken by any legal professional looking to find certain solutions to certain problems.
More complex still is the matter of crafting talking pieces into the world, whereby one must create a set of parameters for an object to be recognised for what it is, which is as if lecturing the game to register an object or character as what it is. This plays into what is perhaps the smartest element of Davies’ theme: an almost involuntary consideration of storytelling. So much can be read between the lines of the game – though perhaps especially its mechanics – that the entire world practically bursts with life upon viewing. It is perhaps unsurprising, then, that motion to suppress statements involves the telling of a narrative; for the purpose behind a motion to suppress anything is to limit its use within a trial or hearing. Thus, lawyers often prepare a motion to suppress in order to argue that certain statements cannot be used as evidence by the prosecution or defence, lest they be deemed inadmissible during trial (or because they were obtained under coercive or unethical behaviour). The questions asked by this theme are undeniably interesting ones.
The similarities are found everywhere, from the structure of aapis, which are what allow Pokemon to interact with the real world, to the concept of individual feature bonus systems (largely recognised for their place in Candy Crush). The real breakthrough, however, is found in the understanding that innovative law may be even more like creative direction than many think. After all, one must work with what has been given and deconstruct the expected to yield a range of outcomes and recognitions. Much like with Promoted Entertainment, one must therefore delve deep into a narrative in order to find a solution.
Of course, the resulting ideas are not always those which are agreed upon, and certainly not the ones which are guaranteed to be confirmed, but they are ideas which provide a solid starting point and a good foundation for other professionals to expand upon. In this, there truly is an element of motion to suppress statements upon which one sees what effectively makes Davies’ projects so successful; he understands the need to realise the “scrap” between the good ideas. As such, one may even consider the concept of creating a motion to suppress statements to be readily applicable the world of Promoted Entertainment, and even to other such projects.
No project – and certainly not one so vast as Promoted Entertainment – can exist without a number of other experts stepping in at various paths. There are (and will be) artists, producers, models, and hundreds of other professionals and experts who will step forward to create the world and allow it to thrive in ways which Davies alone could not. Naturally, consideration must be given to how these workers are paid, and how the payment process works. What is undeniable, however, is that the final product is a feat of a team’s efforts, and that all those within the team have their role in place to provide a final release worthy of any who would play it. This applies in equal measure to a legal team, where every member has their place and they all fall together for the sake of a client. It’s about understanding which person fits which role and how to best work together.
Thus, we come to the conclusion that both creative directors and lawyers are required to familiarise themselves with what would be considered the “rules” of a given scenario or application, whether that be the Minecraft world or the law. This is made much easier by understanding many companies’ similar collaboration with legal professionals who are required (and, out of necessity, paid) to understand the rules and their applications.
Davies’ understanding of the necessary responsibilities and characteristics of creative direction is therefore nothing short of impressive. These qualities can be found in all skilled professionals so, while the average lawyer may not be working on Promoted Entertainment, there is something for them to take away from the example of Davies. After all, the concept that a motion to suppress statement can be done creatively is one that can be echoed throughout the market, both legally and creatively.