CONNECT WITH US
Gaming

Gaming

Why talent agents, the game industry, esports, brands and creators should be mindful of California’s Talent Agencies Act

GamesBeat logo

Published on

Add as a preferred source on Google
Why talent agents, the game industry, esports, brands and creators should be mindful of California’s Talent Agencies Act

The legalities of creators and the rules that talent agencies must abide by probably aren’t the favorite subjects of most people in gaming. But it turns out the legal details really matter, particularly when litigation arises among parties where talent promotes popular video games.

Some companies representing artists, creators, game makers and other talent seem to have forgotten that the Talent Agencies Act of California (1978), and a similar law in New York, actually exist. The legal history of the act and its enforcement show that a single agent should not represent both a brand seeking talent and an artist looking for brand sponsorships.

Yet lawyers and other experts in the space say that this appears to happen routinely in today’s game industry that brings together brands, traditional game makers, gaming influencers, esports athletes and makers of user-generated content.

We’ll have a roundtable on this subject at our GamesBeat Next 2026 event, which is coming on November 2-3, 2026 in San Francisco (25% ticket discount here: GBNEXT26_SPEAKER_25). Our speakers include moderator Yoshio Osaki, president of IDG Intelligence; Andy Lunique, triple-A Creator expert; Alex Owen, general counsel, Leviathan Core, Stikler, EasyCampaign; George DePree, CEO, Leviathan Core, Stikler, EasyCampaign; and Dan Rogers, senior partner at Premack Rogers Downs.

In a nutshell, the laws states that any single party with a conflict of interest should not be representing both talent and brands seeking that talent at the same time.

“Since the clear object of the [Talent Agencies Act] is to prevent improper persons from becoming [talent agents] and to regulate such activity for the protection of the public, a contract between an unlicensed [agent] and an artist is void,” the courts ruled back in 1967 in a case dubbed Buchwald v.


Source link
Related Topics:Gaming

Disclaimer

We strive to uphold the highest ethical standards in all of our reporting and coverage. We TheMorningPulse.fyi want to be transparent with our readers about any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in our work. It's possible that some of the investors we feature may have connections to other businesses, including competitors or companies we write about. However, we want to assure our readers that this will not have any impact on the integrity or impartiality of our reporting. We are committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news and information to our audience, and we will continue to uphold our ethics and principles in all of our work. Thank you for your trust and support.