Government announces that slightly sexy pop videos will have to be vetted by the BBFC

Read more UK Government Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See press release from gov.uk

The government announces that more DVDs are to carry an age rating, more is to be done on online age ratings and WiFi will be family friendly. placeholder Age ratings will be given to a range of video content that is currently exempt – such as some music and sports DVDs – so that those unsuitable for younger children will have to carry a British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) age rating in future. Video Recordings Act The government is publishing the response to its recent consultation on the Video Recordings Act which addresses concerns about the exemptions from age rating that are currently given to a range of music, sports, religious and educational DVDs and Blu-Ray discs. The Video Recordings Act will now be changed so that any of these products that are unsuitable for younger children will have to carry the familiar 12 , 15 and 18 BBFC age ratings in future. The changes are expected to come into force in 2014. Communications Minister Ed Vaizey said: Government realises that the world has moved on since these exemptions were written into the Video Recordings Act some 30 years ago. The changes we’ve announced today will help ensure children are better protected, and that parents are provided with the information necessary for them to make informed choices about what their children view. In order to help ensure parents can make more informed decisions about the material their children watch online, ministers are also calling on industry to develop solutions so that more online videos – particularly those that are likely to be sought out by children and young people – carry advice about their age suitability in future.

Who Pays the Censor?…BBFC calls for censorship of currently exempt music and sport videos

Read more BBFC News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Strangely no comment of the expensive fees involved and the impact it will have on many small market videos. Perhaps the government should pick up the tab so that they can be better places to make a judgement about the benefits of imposing yet more expense on British industry that’s already heading towards bankruptcy. See  article from  guardian.co.uk

The Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) will this week close a three-month consultation that most observers believe will end a loophole which means DVDs with titles like The Bitch of Buchenwald and Britain’s Bloodiest Serial Killerscan claim exemption from BBFC censorship. As things stand, most sport, documentary and music videos can claim an exemption from classification. The BBFC’s head of policy, David Austin said: The great majority of exempt video works are fine. They are not going to harm anyone, but there are a significant number of titles that are potentially harmful to children. We know from our postbag that parents are concerned about exempt videos. Usually they write and say, ‘Why did you give this video an E classification?’ The answer is we didn’t as it never came to us — it would not have gone to anyone. The BBFC estimates that around 200 videos might be caught by a change in the law. Austin showed the Guardian examples of videos that have claimed exemption but would have been classified. One of the more shocking is a documentary about the American heavy metal band Slipknot . It shows one fan who has carved the word Slipknot in to her forearm and another who has done the same in her belly, to which someone is seen pointing in admiration. A music video by the Norwegian black metal band Gorgoroth, which was rated X in Germany but is unrated in the UK, shows topless women being crucified with blood running down their breasts. A Robbie Williams video for the song Come Undone, contained on an exempt compilation, In and Out of Consciousness, shows drug taking and Williams cavorting in bed with two naked women. Other potentially problematic DVDs include wildly violent cage fighting DVDs and ones that instruct in krav maga, the combat techniques developed by the Israeli army. All the signs are that the government will change a law that was made in 1984, when no one could have foreseen a problem with music or instructional videos. The BBFC, together with other regulatory bodies, is calling for exceptions to the exemptions that would cover material that is violent, sexual, discriminatory, has repeated strong language or contains imitable behaviour such as drug use. A DCMS spokesperson said: DCMS launched a consultation in May on the exemptions from age rating that currently apply to music, sports, religious and educational videos. The government will publish its response in the autumn.

Music to be Muffled with Red Tape…Government proposes that music, sport and religious videos should be expensively vetted by the BBFC if it is felt that they would be rated 12 or higher

Read more UK Government Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from culture.gov.uk See consultation paper [pdf] from dcms.gov.uk

As announced in the Queen’s Speech, the Department for Culture, Media, Sport and Censorship is seeking views about the exemptions in the Video Recordings Act and about how advertisements shown in cinemas are censored. Consultation Open date: 09 May 2012 Closing date: 01 August 2012 Please send your comments or if you have any queries about this consultation to: AdsExempt@culture.gsi.gov.uk or by post: Advertising and Exemption Consultation Department for Culture, Media and Sport 2-4 Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5DH Cinema Advertising Censorship The government is asking whether the BBFC really needs to get involved in the censorship of cinema adverts. At the moment it is mandatory that the BBFC rate such advertising, but the Government is asking if the more general system of advert censorship provided by CAP and ASA is sufficient. Option 0: No change Under this option cinema advertisements would continue to be referred to the BBFC for age rating whilst also being subject to mandatory self-regulation overseen by the ASA. This regime has been in place for a number of years and it could be considered that it should remain on the grounds that it appears to work effectively to ensure that children are not exposed to inappropriate content via cinema advertisements and consumers’ rights are properly observed. Some may feel also that the statutory backing is an essential element of the regime. However, as set out earlier in the preceding paragraphs, others may consider that the age rating role provided by the BBFC in relation to cinema advertisements is already adequately covered by the self-regulatory approach of the industry and that it therefore represents an unnecessary burden on business. Option 1: Remove the requirement for BBFC classification of cinema advertisements This option would potentially remove the financial and administrative burdens on the cinema advertising industry of having to submit each advert to the BBFC for an age rating. Arguably, this would also make matters simpler for industry, reducing the additional time constraints resulting from both BBFC and CAA clearance. The BBFC has indicated that the current average classification cost is around ฃ111 per ad classified. There is an additional administrative burden for industry attached to this process in supplying the BBFC with hard copies of the adverts requiring classification. The impact on the BBFC of removing the classification requirement would simply relate to their resourcing of this function. However, could removing the requirement to age rate adverts shown in cinemas by the BBFC result in a reduction in consumer and child protection? The industry bodies and the CAA believe the existing advertising clearance system as set out in paragraphs 4.6 to 4.23, underpinned by the ASA’s non-broadcast advertising code (CAP Code), is robust enough to ensure there are no regulatory gaps, particularly in relation to child protection, and that suitable consumer safeguards will be maintained. This option would also not place additional enforcement burdens on local authorities On music censorship the government is nominally considering 4 options: option 0: Leave the existing exemptions in place and untouched, on the basis that either the present arrangements do not give rise to concerns to an extent that would justify legislative change, or that removing exemptions would place unnecessary or disproportionate burdens on industry for limited benefit. option 1: Remove the exemptions from age rating for music, sports, religious and educational video works. This requires primary legislation to achieve. Removing the exemption would mean that producers would have to submit all film material to the BBFC for classification before making them available for sale in the UK regardless of genre. option 2: Lower the existing content thresholds for exemption so that more products are brought within scope of the age rating requirement (as we have done recently for video games). This can be achieved by secondary legislation. option 3: Ask other parts of the video industry to introduce a self-regulatory parental advisory system for the currently exempt genres, similar to the BPI’s PAS labelling scheme for the music-themed products. Option 2 is noted as the Government’s preference

Is it Safe?…Convictions stand under non-enforceable VRA

Read more UK Legal News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Based on article from ukhumanrightsblog.com See also judgement from bailii.org

Interfact, associated with the UK Private Shop chain, asked the High Court for leave to make a late appeal for a conviction under the VRA. The case was Interfact Ltd v Liverpool City Council where R18s were sold by mail order from licensed premises. The High Court held that where defendants had been convicted of criminal offences under national legislation which was unenforceable owing to a failure by the UK to comply with a pre-enactment procedural requirement imposed by EU law, it was not incumbent upon the Court of Appeal to re-open their cases out of time unless their convictions had given rise to any substantial injustice. The applicants sought to quash their convictions, arguing that the court was required to exercise its discretion to reopen the decision of the Divisional Court and to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal out of time because the earlier decisions were contrary to EU law. They argued that failure to grant the relief sought would infringe the principle of effectiveness in EU law. They contended that because of the government’s failure to notify the regulations under which they were convicted to the Commission, their convictions and punishment infringed the prohibition on retrospective punishment under Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court dismissed the applications. …Read the full article

Censored by BBFC Fees…Open Letter calling for an ‘Independent Industry Of British Film’

Read more UK News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

From Colin Warhurst (A would-be British Film-maker) See also www.reformthevra.co.uk

Dear Sir/Madam, My name is Colin Warhurst, and I am an independent film-maker from the North West, and the purpose of this open email is to stress the word independent. I apologise for its length, but this is a big issue that requires all of the facts. Today, affordable digital technology allows individuals or organisations to in affect, become virtually fully functional film studios. A camera, a computer and an idea are all that is needed to start making films. The realistic possibility of normal people, without funding or backing from agencies, of achieving this micro-studio setup and making their own feature films was virtually non-existent even up to 10 years ago due to technology. What this means is that the film landscape going into the early 21st century is radically and fundamentally different to what has gone before. It is also important to note that this You Tube generation cannot be judged on the merits of virals, Internet celebrities and shaky spontaneous video often found on such video content sites. Yes, the quality varies massively, but the explosion in creativity on sites such as this should provide compelling evidence as to the potential talent and creativity out there, and of these millions of videos and ideas, a proportion of us go further, treating our work with an added level of ambition, professionalism, passion and commitment in order to go beyond simple viral film-making and into the creation of proper Film. To cut to the chase, I am one of these film-makers, and at great personal effort and expense, became one of the pioneers in what has been unofficially dubbed the North West New Wave. I Co-Directed and Produced an entirely independent feature film of our own creation entitled Mancattan. The film was made for under £600 of our own funds, and took two years to complete. Now, as an independent artist, and as a business-person wishing to generate money within, or to bring into the UK, but with no further funds available as an independent film-maker, I ask one simple question. How can I sell my film in the UK, legally? The sword of Damocles in the shape of the horribly outdated Video Recordings Act 1984 and the massively high (for independents such as myself) charges for BBFC certification are effectively censoring, or killing dead, films and film-makers such as myself. I cannot, and will not, ever be able to afford the approximate cost of £1000 to have Mancattan rated. So how can I sell my film if I can’t afford the rating? I believe Lord McIntosh most recently summarised the act as follows; The Video Recordings Act was nasty; it was introduced as a Private Member’s Bill by Lord Nugent of Guildford. In effect, it applied the rules of a public cinema or public display to people’s video recordings in their own homes. In other words, it created censorship in individuals’ homes where no censorship had existed before, and it made a difference between what you have on your video recording machine and what is on your bookshelves. Douglas Houghton, Hugh Jenkins, and I thought that that was deplorable and I still think that it is utterly deplorable. Some MPs when asked this question have suggested that there are completion funds, competitions, bursaries and other sources of funding which must be fought or found in order to accomplish the raising of the capitol for this purpose. This is not realistic or of assistance to the New Wave of self-made digital British film-makers such as myself. Bodies such as the UK Film Council are not in existence to help independents; their funds and schemes are in no position, and never have been, to help a film-maker such as myself. Any other art or creative medium does not have these rules of censorship in place. Imagine the Orwellian state we would live in if every painting, piece of poetry, song, music performance and text put to paper had to be certified. We would describe such a world as dystopian and unrealistic, yet that is the creative state a British film-maker lives in. On some level, despite the assertion of Lord Davies of Oldham who makes the opposite statement without evidence or backup, the censorship on film contravenes the European Convention On Human Rights. So, even though we know the answer, I’ll re-phrase my question bearing all of this in mind. Why can’t I sell my film legally in the UK directly to consenting adults only, directly to our (over 18) customers via credit card, therefore staying out of larger retail stores and the public domain outside of our own websites. The BBFC can still do it’s job, and UK film-makers can feel welcome, encouraged and free to create ideas, and business, at home. We would have a viable, profit making independent UK film scene, which develops and grows talent in the UK, allows film-makers to pay their crews, actors and contributors via profit shares, and leaves unthreatened the larger real film industry currently dominated by foreign films (American films do count as foreign films remember) in our UK screens which currently offer no protected ring-fencing for British films. In other words, an Independent Film Scene in Britain would not pose a threat to the established British Film Industry and would instead create an internationally respected and culturally invaluable Industry Of British Films. Independent film-makers may not necessarily or realistically want an audience of millions, or even thousands, where a few hundred would suffice; if we sold even one hundred of our DVDs to our fans at £10 each, many of us could cover the budgets for our entire film. Ironically, that £1000 could then be spent on a BBFC rating. We need something to break this chicken-egg, carrot-stick deadlock. Could, or should, the BBFC offer low/no-budget film-makers a rate now, pay us back later scheme, perhaps at a higher rate. So the first one hundred DVD’s sold cover the BBFC granting a rating in lieu, any funds after that then go to the film-maker. The BBFC is not helping us in any way, and worryingly, have the monopoly on certification; where else can we go? Could an alternative to the BBFC and voluntarily ran body for independent film-makers be created, who have Government trust and backing, but who rate films at significantly lower costs for direct-sale only? There are many options, and we want to pursue any ideas until something works. We know the VRA and BBFC are there to protect us, and younger people on the whole, from obscene content; and this where the crux of the change since 1984 occurs. Back then, the majority of indie film-makers may have been purveyors of dodgy horror, porn and other bad things. In 2010, you are tarnishing every potential film and film-maker with the same brush. The VRA assumes my content is of a dubious and obscene nature, and surely is overkill when the obscene publications act would protect the public and any bad film-makers taking advantage of the independent film scene and new rules that we would like to see come into place. I find it offensive that we are all presumed to be working and making films in the world of violence and pornography, and cast out of being able to express ourselves via the medium of film just in case. Mancattan isn’t a horror film, or porn movie. It is a 90 minute rom-com, part of which was filmed in New York. I would love to sell you a copy to show you it is harmless, but I can’t. I could sell it in the United States. Please, if any constructive, positive and genuinely empowering options for all the other Mancattans out there can be found, then please help us. I am not the first self-made UK feature film maker stuck in this position, and I won’t be the last. There are hundreds of good, safe-for-viewing and quality films sat on the shelf that have been made with blood sweat and tears. There are hundreds more following in their wake. A film, today? A camera, a computer and an idea. A new Industry Of British Films? A few cameras, a few computers, and a few ideas… and some much needed help from YOU. Many thanks for your time, I welcome your thoughts, replies and ideas. Sincerely Colin Warhurst (A would-be British Film-maker) info@reformthevra.co.uk http://www.mancattan.co.uk

Back in Business…BBFC notification of the re-enactment of the Video Recordings Act

Read more BBFC News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

From the BBFC website

The BBFC have updated their website re the the re-enactment of the Video Recordings Act: On 21 January 2010, the Video Recordings Bill received Royal Assent. This Bill corrects a procedural error that meant the Video Recordings Act 1984 (VRA) was not enforceable against individuals in UK courts. It repeals and revives the Video Recordings Act 1984 (VRA), restoring the public protection provided by a robust video classification system. It sets out the statutory requirement for videos, DVDs and some video games to be classified and age rated by the British Board of Film Classification. The voluntary classification scheme the BBFC has been running since the discovery of the VRA’s lack of enforceability ends with immediate effect. Henceforth, all classification certificates issued by the BBFC will be pursuant to the VRA. The BBFC will issue replacement certificates in accordance with the VRA for all those works for which it issued certificates under the voluntary scheme between 1 September 2009 and 21 January 2010. So no customer need withdraw from sale any work for which a voluntary certificate was issued. All classification certificates issued by the BBFC in accordance with the VRA since 1984 are valid, and remain so following Royal Assent of the Video Recordings Bill. Any video recording containing an unclassified video work which has been released in the interim period will need to be withdrawn from sale now the new Act is in force, unless the work can claim exemption. The BBFC would like to thank its customers for complying with the provisions of the VRA by continuing to submit works to the BBFC for classification on a voluntary and best practice basis during the period of the VRA’s unenforceability.

Digital Economy Bill…Video Recordings Act amendments discussed in Lords Committee

Read more UK Parliament Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Based on committee transcript from publications.parliament.uk See also Digital Economy Bill Parliamentary Status from services.parliament.uk See also Digital Economy Bill Text from publications.parliament.uk See also Digital Economy Bill Explanatory Notes from publications.parliament.uk

The Digital Economy Bill was discussed in Lords Committee on 8th February 2010. A long list of amendments were discussed and withdrawn. Here is a brief summery of these. Exemptions: Amendment 246 Moved by Lord De Mauley This was an unneeded suggestion to add to the list of material that would exempt a video game from the need for classification. In reality the list in the original bill is sufficient, but this issue has become something of a band wagon issue having received press attention. So a fair few lords lined up to add their name to the cause including Baroness Howe of Idlicote, The Lord Bishop of Manchester and Lord Addington. Government Censorship Power: Amendment 247 Moved by Lord De Mauley Rightfully questioned the powers being given to the Secretary of State in the name of future proofing games censorship. BBFC as R18 Experts: Amendment 248 Moved by Lord De Mauley This amendment relates to the BBFC retaining powers to classify games containing R18 pornography. It also questioned whether both the VSC and the BBFC should duplicate the work of differentiating between 18 and R18 material. The BBFC seem to be held as the ‘experts’ in identifying porn. At least the debate seemed to assume that  R18 is here to stay and no seemed to be taking the opportunity of the bill to re-ban porn. Hybrids: Amendment 250 Moved by Lord Howard of Rising Also amendment 251 Moved by Baroness Howe of Idlicote These amendments raised the dual censor issue of what to do with hybrid media, ie games containing video or DVDs containing games etc Duty to promote online safety: amendment 251A Moved by Baroness Howe of Idlicote (1) It shall be the duty of internet service providers and mobile phone operators to take such steps, and to enter into such arrangements- (a) to bring about, or to encourage others to bring about, a better public understanding of online safety; (b) to provide prominent, easily accessible and clear information on filtering options of public electronic communication services for the purposes of online safety- (i) at the time of purchase of the service; and (ii) to make such information available for the duration of the contract. (2) In this section online safety means safe, responsible use of the internet and other communication devices by children and young people. Baroness Howe of Idlicote said she was speaking for children’s charity CARE and wanted to make the availability of parental control facilities to be made more prominent. Again there were lords queuing up support this amendment. The government pointed out that in reality it is far too complex a question for a sentence to be attached to this bill and that the issues are being widely discussed for future measures. Age Verification Schemes: amendment 251A Moved by Baroness Howe of Idlicote Additional protection from harmful material through online on-demand programme services using age verification scheme For section 368E(2) of the Communication Act 2003 (harmful material), substitute- (2) An online on-demand programme service must not contain any material which might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of persons under the age of eighteen. (3) If an online on-demand programme service contains the following material, the material must only be made available using a clearly identifiable and robust age verification scheme to determine that the person purchasing or otherwise obtaining access to the material is not under eighteen- (a) material which might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of persons under the age of eighteen; (b) material which is contained in a video work for which a classification certificate has been issued containing the statements mentioned in section 7(2)(c) of the Video Recordings Act 1984 (recordings to be supplied only in licensed sex shops); (c) material which falls within subsection (4) unless it is contained in a video work for which a classification certificate other than one containing the statements mentioned in section 7(2)(c) of the Video Recordings Act 1984 (recordings to be supplied only in licensed sex shops) has been issued. (4) Material falls within this subsection if it is pornographic and portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following- (a) an act of penetration of the vagina or anus of a person with a part of a person’s body or anything else; (b) the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex; (c) the performance by a person or an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal; (d) an act of masturbation; (e) an act of ejaculation; (f) human genital organs or human urinary or excretory functions; or (g) an act of restraint or violence which is associated with sexual activity. (5) In this section- classification certificate and video work have the same meaning as in the Video Recordings Act 1984; pornographic has the same meaning as in section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (possession of extreme pornographic images). Perhaps the easiest practical attack on the availability of porn and lords drew parallels with the age controls inherent in physical R18s being limited to sex shops. Lord Davies of Oldham for the Government said: My Lords, I am happy to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester on these points, but I cannot accept the amendment because we have a law in place that achieves its effect. Section 368E(2) of the Communications Act was introduced by the Audiovisual Media Services Regulations 2009 and requires that, if an on-demand programme service contains material which might cause serious impairment to children or young people, it should only be shown in a way that would ensure that they do not usually see it or hear it. The regulations are in response to a European Union directive that applies to all on-demand programme services all the time. I accept entirely the anxieties of the noble Baroness about these issues, which prompted her to table the amendment, but the question is whether we should go further than the present regulations. We are in discussion about this with Ofcom and the Association for Television On-Demand, the leading video-on-demand industry body to make sure that any moves we make are the right ones to ensure that children are adequately protected. If it turns out on reflection that it is necessary for the Government to take action, we can introduce further regulations under the same provision as those in force at present, to strengthen and reinforce the protection. I reassure the noble Baroness that she has raised an important topic but her amendment is not necessary. Fees: Amendment 254 Moved by Lord Howard of Rising This amendment questioned whether the government were right to withdraw from powers to control censorship fees. Content Advice: Amendment 255ZA Moved by Lord Howard of Rising This amendment discussed exactly how mandatory content advice labelling should be. Very mandatory or just a bit mandatory.

Digital Economy Bill…Changes to the Video Recordings Act being debated in Parliament

Read more UK Parliament Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See Digital Economy Bill Parliamentary Status from services.parliament.uk See Digital Economy Bill Text from publications.parliament.uk See Digital Economy Bill Explanatory Notes from publications.parliament.uk

The Digital Economy Bill has started its progress in Parliament starting in the House of Lords. It has already been discussed in committee and will next be heard at the Report Stage in the Lords on the 1st March 2010. There are several sections of interest to Melon Farmers: Online infringement of copyright This includes open ended and general powers for the government to censor the internet in the name of copyright protection Powers in relation to internet domain registries Setting up another tool for the government censorship of the internet Video recordings Act The Government are making the following basic changes This section separates out video censorship into two sections, video games censorship (PEGI ratings will be implemented by the Video Standards Council) and video works censorship (as implemented by the BBFC). The current exemptions from mandatory games classification will be reduced so that anything that would be rated 12 or upwards will now be subject to mandatory vetting by the games censors. The government seem to be adding a new power for the censors to revoke as well issue certificates People submitting video works are to be forced to agree to a ‘code of practice’ re the labelling of their products. There’s also added complex wording targeting more complex mixtures of media And of course the government have added the power to change the Video Recordings Act at any time in the future via an order of the secretary of state

Video Recordings Act 2010…VRA given Royal Assent and is back in force

Read more UK Parliament Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See bill status from services.parliament.uk

The Video Recordings Bill was given Royal Assent as scheduled on 21st January 2010. The law comes into force immediately.

Video Recordings Act 2010…Passes 3rd Reading in the Lords and is set to become law

Read more UK Parliament Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See bill status from services.parliament.uk See debate transcription from publications.parliament.uk See 1984 film classification law gets reboot from theregister.co.uk by John Ozimek

The Video Recordings Bill has received its 3rd Reading in the House of Lords on 20th January 2010. The bill is scheduled to receive Royal Assent and come into immediate effect on 21st January. So once again all videos and DVDs have to be vetted by state appointed censors and ludicrous restrictions, such as a ban on mail order porn, are restored.