A Serbian Film…Released uncut on US DVD

Read more Latest UK Cuts at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from invinciblepictures.com

It is reported that the US distributor,  Invincible Pictures, will be releasing an uncut Limited Edition DVD of A Serbian Film. This will be the first uncut release featuring an English language friendly version. Some reports suggest that the release will be DVD only but the Invincible Pictures website also lists a Blu-ray version. US: Uncut and MPAA Unrated for: US 2012 Invincible Pictures R1 DVD at US Amazon released on 22nd May 2012 but only just in stock

Ludicrous Advert Censors Want Everybody to Live in a PG Rated World…ASA get wound up by 12A rated YouTube trailer for Ghost Rider

Read more ASA Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See  article from  asa.org.uk

Two ads for the film Ghostrider: Spirit of Vengeance in 3D: a. A digital outdoor ad seen in Glasgow Central Railway Station, on 14 and 15 February 2012 showed a trailer of the film, which was displayed without sound. The ad showed various scenes including a living skeleton character whose head was on fire and a man with a missing eye, screaming at the screen. b. A YouTube banner ad, seen in February 2012, showed an image of Nicholas Cage which faded into a moving image of a skeleton whose head was on fire while text stated GET READY FOR THE WORLD’S DARKEST HERO . The film’s title and a range of clickable options then appeared on the right of the banner ad and a static image of the skeleton character sat on a motorbike and wielding a flaming chain appeared on the left. 1. One complainant, whose children aged four and seven years had been frightened by the ad, challenged whether ad (a) was unsuitable to be seen in an untargeted medium where it could be seen by children. 2. One complainant challenged whether ad (b) was unsuitable to be seen by children. 1. & 2. Entertainment One (eOne) said that the film was certified by the BBFC as a 12A which meant that anyone aged 12 and over could go and see the film unaccompanied and children younger than 12 may see the film if accompanied by an adult. They said that while the ads may have been considered unsuitable for general viewing, the media selected to display the ads was not intended to be viewed by unaccompanied children under the age of 12 where an adult would not be capable of shielding the child from such fear or distress. eOne said that YouTube advised in their Terms of Service that anyone under 13 should not use the site and they therefore considered that YouTube was not a medium which would target children under the age of 12, without parental supervision. They said that it was a parent’s responsibility to review YouTube’s Terms of Service and recognise that it was not recommended for children under the age of 13. In relation to ad (a), eOne said that Glasgow Railway Station was used widely by working commuters and as such, was not a location that would or should have been frequented generally by children under the age of 12 and in any event, they understood that it was highly unlikely that any children under 12 would be at the station unaccompanied. YouTube, who displayed ad (b) on behalf of eOne said that they did not consider that the ad was unsuitable for untargeted display on the basis that the film was rated 12A and displayed obviously fictitious content. They considered that it was the responsibility of eOne to ensure that any ads submitted for display on YouTube were compliant with the CAP code. ASA Decision Complaints Upheld 1. Upheld The ASA noted that the imagery shown in ad (a) reflected the content of the film which was rated as a 12A by the BBFC. However, we also noted that most of the scenes included depicted violence or scenes of horror from the film, including footage of the film’s main character, a living skeleton engulfed in flames attacking people with a metal chain. We considered these images could frighten some children and that the ad was likely to catch their attention, especially because it was shown on a large screen. We therefore concluded that it was unsuitable to be shown in an untargeted public medium Ad (a) breached CAP Code rules 1.3 (Social responsibility) and 4.2 (Harm and offence). 2. Upheld We noted that ad (b) reflected the content of the film and that the skeleton figure was a fantasy character and was likely to be recognised as such. However, we considered that the moving image in the ad, which depicted the film’s lead actor Nicholas Cage turning into the skeleton character after his face was consumed with flames had the potential to cause distress to some children. We noted that in order to create a YouTube account, users were required to confirm that they were at least 13 years old. We also noted, however that this ad could be viewed without logging in to the site and therefore it was not possible to prevent under 13-year-olds from viewing it. We also understood that a small proportion of visitors to YouTube were children despite their Terms of Service stating that under 13s should not use the service; seven per cent of YouTube users were aged between two years and 11 years and nine per cent were aged 12 to 17 years. Because ad (b) included imagery that could have caused distress to some children, and it could be viewed by all YouTube users including children, we concluded that it was inappropriately targeted and breached the Code. Ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 (Social responsibility) and 4.2 (Harm and offence).

Perhaps We Need to Think About This…Mobile phone company’s only just start to think about handling complaints about their low quality website blocking systems

Read more UK News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Presumably these services were designed for parents to implement on their kid’s internet devices. In this scenario, ‘better safe than sorry’ makes sense and the kids aren’t going to worry about missing a few things. However this approach is inadequate for a ‘one size fits all’ model applied to the whole family. The censors the need to ditch their gung-ho over-blocking and take a little bit more time (and money) to properly classify sites for age. See  article from  openrightsgroup.org Report over-blocking to Blocked.org.uk

Since we published our report Mobile Internet censorship: what’s happening and what to do about it , jointly with LSE Media Policy project, a number of people have been in touch with us asking what to do if they discover their site is blocked incorrectly by mobile networks’ child protection filters. But if you are responsible for a site and have found it is blocked, you will also want to get in touch with the mobile networks concerned to check that it is blocked on their network and to get the site removed from the filters so everybody can access it again. One of the points in our report was that it can be too difficult to do this – you can read about Coadec’s problems trying to get their site removed from Orange’s Safeguard on their blog. The mobile networks have told us they are working on improving the way that these reports can be made, which is great. I wanted to do a quick update on progress so far. So I asked the networks what the best way to get in touch with them about this would be. If you are trying to contact the operators to get your site unblocked, here’s what the networks offer at the moment: Vodafone For the moment, Vodafone have asked that these requests go to this email address: ukmediarelations@vodafone.com They are planning to have a more specific address available soon. [The mediaRelations email address just about sys it all] Orange and T-Mobile The email address to use is safeguard@everythingeverywhere.com and can be used for reports relating to both Orange and T-Mobile. O2 O2 have a useful URL checker , which also allows people to check sites’ classification – which says whether and why a site is blocked – and to report if they consider the site to be classified incorrectly. Three Three told us their official position at the moment is: if a Three customer believes a website is being incorrectly blocked then they should call our Customer Services team. We are currently reviewing how best customers can contact us to report these concerns.

Streamlined Whingeing…BBC refocuses its complaints reporting system

Read more BBC and BBC Trust Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See  article from  worldtvpc.com

The BBC is just about to revitalise its complaints service to make the process faster, simpler and easier for all concerned. The plans follow a report from the House of Lords last July that strongly suggested improvements are made to the convoluted and overly complicated complaints process at the BBC . The BBC will remain handling their potential issues in-house, with the planned new system, which will go live on 26 June, designed to feature a central point to better organise what are defined as complaints, with messages coming in from several areas of their websites. Additional features will include the provision of a phone number and weblink alongside the complaints e-mail address, and plans to respond to same-subject complaints with a same response being sent to all matching queries, as opposed to answering one-by-one. While the trivial complaints will be given the right of appeal, the main focus of the reform is the substansive issues raised towards them, as the BBC claim that as per standard, they will be responded to within 30 days, although this limit will not be applied to their online-only content, such as news stories. The BBC Trust Complaints & Appeals Board chairman Richard Ayre states: We have agreed improvements to the complaints system to speed it up, simplify it, and focus resources where they are genuinely needed. If the BBC gets something wrong, these changes should ensure complaints get more quickly to the people best placed to deal with them. And, if the BBC sometimes gets things badly wrong, it should deliver a remedy that’s timely and unambiguous.