Archive for the ‘bbfc’ tag
This is one of a series of responses to the publication of the report of the Leveson Inquiry. For an introduction, and links to other posts, see here. Sorry, this is the longest one. I hope it’s worth it.
Much commentary in the lead-up to the publication of the report was on what sort of regulatory system would be recommended. The report outlines various aspects of a new regulatory system, which would be different from that of the PCC, as well as the proposals put forward by those associated with the PCC and with newspapers. But actually, we are not sure what model is being recommended yet. In my view a key feature of regulation must surely be the method of oversight, and it is this particular point where important details are left for a later stage. The report proposes that Ofcom (and by saying so, ruling out the idea that it would be Government or a Minister) plays a role in recognising an independent regulatory body but how that relationship is to proceed is not yet clear. The criteria are (to some extent) set out, and it would appear as if the designation would be on the lighter side, i.e. no obvious monitoring role for Ofcom, and the ‘backstop’ (as in place for broadcast advertising) would not be present at first, although it is recommended that Ofcom would be best placed to be involved in that process.
On the other hand, what we do see is many statements on the importance of independence. The language of self-regulation is also used quite extensively. I’m watching the summaries and reactions carefully as how this is received and reported is going to be so important.
As for compulsion/incentives there is very positive discussion of the ‘Irish model‘ (pp. 1708ff) and indeed similar proposals regarding the link between subscription to a regulatory body and the use of defences, with some further suggestions regarding arbitration. I guess the difference in emphasis is that the ‘carrot’ in Irish law is the statutory Reynolds-like defence (responsible journalism), here it appears to be data protection/ICO powers and civil costs (presumably in defamation, privacy etc.). It’s fair to say that if we see methods of co-regulation as being set out on a spectrum, as academics like Chris Marsden have argued, that we don’t have a clear statement in the report on where on the spectrum Leveson would see press regulation sitting. (This is not necessarily a criticism, as defining that will now fall to Parliament, perhaps).
If I were forming a view on the system (which I can’t without more details), I would also need to know whether decisions of the body would be subject to judicial review and bound to act in accordance with the Human Rights Act. I should hope so, with penalties of up to £1,000,000 and also the ability to benefit from membership in other proceedings. For the press, as well as complainants, who guards the guardians is very significant. Some of this could flow from the method of designation (I won’t bore you with my views on this which I have set out in length), and the report does appear to assume that JR (not sure whether this means ‘old’ style or s 6 HRA) would be part of the scheme (p. 1766), but this could be made even clearer by building it into the statutory underpinning… (To be fair, there is also a very brief mention (p. 1601), in the context of the Hunt proposals rather than the inquiry’s own recommendation, that the industry would be ‘unlikely to contest’ justicability, but that’s far from enough).
I am interested in the question of multiple regulatory bodies. There is a genuine difficulty in this issue – is a single body the sensible way to have an accountable, understandable system? Or does (as the BBFC has recently argued, perhaps reflecting its own changing position and role) the existence of multiple regulatory bodies avoid the concentration of power over expression in too few hands? In the report, it’s not really seen in that way, although it is argued (p. 1779) that more than one regulatory body (in the area under consideration) should be possible but is not advocated and “would (be regarded) as a failure on the part of the industry”. (But see the recent changes to the Video Recordings Act, recognising two bodies instead of one, so as to separate the video games sector from video/DVD works, which was not really seen in that way; the BBFC or the whole cinema/video/games area isn’t discussed in the report).
There has been some doubt expressed by the Prime Minister on taking forward the recommendations in his speech today. It’s interesting to see the approach here being about “crossing a rubicon”. Frankly I think this is a selective reading of the current law, where on one hand we see serious restrictions of press freedom through the law of defamation, contempt of court, official secrets in place, and on the other hand press privileges such as favourable VAT treatment, exemptions from data protection legislation in place. That rubicon has long been crossed and it is a bit rich for the Prime Minister to suggest that press freedom is currently safe in the hands of the House of Commons. I am not signed up to the view that the response should be one that satisfies the victims (I’ve never believed that is the measure of law in any other area so I don’t intend to start believing it now), and think that it is unfair to criticise Cameron for failing to honour that sort of promise; however, as this paragraph should make clear, I think the conceptual basis of his approach is dead wrong and potentially misleading.
(For the record, on VAT – the recommendation, following the legal advice of HMRC etc, is that this is not really a viable method of control: p. 1660).
An eye-catching recommendation is a specific statutory provision on the freedom of the press (p. 1780) This is fairly new to me but I probably missed it in the avalanche of evidence and documents. I can see it being part of the mandate of a regulatory body for sure, but I’m not sure what it offers above and beyond the existing requirement of article 10 ECHR as referenced in the Human Rights Act. And two other things: (a) constitutional provisions on press freedom are controversial in terms of the relationship between the rights of the press, rights to expression more generally, and the wide idea of communication rights, and (b) the EU Charter now couples freedom of expression and media pluralism; would that approach be followed here? The draft here, modelled on that of the Media Regulation Round Table, is called an admirable proposal but not prescriptive as to text. I think that caution is wise – as drafted, it seems too favourable to media interests and its relationship with Article 10 ECHR and Article 11 CFR is unclear.
Just a point on education and training, which was a big theme in the earliest Leveson hearings, but is not the subject of a specific recommendation after all. It’s noted (p. 736) that training is increasingly university-based and the importance of training is emphasised. Would the new press body have a role to play? I don’t see anything on that but it may be helpful. Perhaps this is a thumbs-up for existing education but I wonder whether further action will be needed under this heading…
My UEA colleague Dr. Keith Johnston posted this piece on his blog just before Christmas, The past, present and future of 3-D?. This post is a summary of some of Keith’s points, and then a discussion of my own about classification. In his post, Keith acknowledges the scepticism expressed by some commentators regarding the actual merits and/or chances of success of the current iteration of 3D cinema and television. A key point is that of the nature of the present media and computer industries:
In the 1950s, 3-D was designed to compete with other screen technologies: in 2010, computing, the Internet, home video and television are lined up to support corporate Hollywood. The Nintendo 3DS offers 3D without glasses; Internet sites are experimenting with anaglyph and sequential field videos; 3-D Blu-Ray releases are growing; while Sky’s 3-D television service promises to introduce 6 hours of unique 3-D content a week for British audiences.
Now this is an interesting issue, and one that will be intriguing to watch as things develop. It’s not that any particular party is going to disregard all other considerations in favour of promoting 3D, but it does give a good shot at success. We saw a few nudges in this direction during the Blu-ray/HD-DVD struggle, although for 3D the differences are more between media than within a single format. But as Keith also points out, it’s helpful to revisit the history of 3D and various attempts at it, even if current conditions might be different in some respects.
One thing that interests me regarding 3D is the recent announcements by the BBFC regarding classification of 2D/3D versions. (Not least because it indicates how common it is to produce in both formats). Following the existing practice where a classification is for a work in a given format, 2D and 3D videos (i.e. DVD/Blu-ray/etc) are classified separately. The 2010 announcement was that if an item is classified in 3D, the 2D cert can be issued at a lower cost, for the same classification. But this isn’t available the other way around, as there is (according to the BBFC, and with good reason) the potential that a full viewing in 3D format of the same underlying content could end up with a higher classification. But note too that, for these purposes, 3D anaglyphic (old-style 3D) is treated like 2D, with the ‘new’ 3D being the focus. A similar scheme in respect of cinema was also announced, just before Christmas. It’s a version of a procedure already used for changes of aspect ratio, checking master versions, and so on, and in practice means that the word is checked as being the same, but not examined in the usual way.
To explain what this means: imagine a film, The Big Blue Ocean, is first submitted in 3D Blu-ray format, and gets a classification of 15. The distributor can then apply at a lower cost than usual to get a 15 cert for the same film in standard DVD/Blu-ray format. But if they think that they could get a 12 for it in 2D, then they can still apply separately – for example, if the big dramatic shark scene would be considered to ‘dwell on detail’ of moderate violence (which you can’t do at 12) in 3D only. If they apply for the 2D version first, then they have to apply separately for 3D, no matter what the cert or what cert they want.
I don’t know of many situations where the 3D and 2D certificates have differed, although the BBFC does frequently say on its parent-focused site that “3D versions may be unsuitable for younger or more sensitive children” or some other form of words. One example is Spiderman 2, which had different 2D (PG) and 3D (12A) certs (and completes a nice circle given the overlap or link between the earlier Spider-Man and the introduction of 12A). But I can contemplate a number of situations where the classifications may diverge in other cases, particularly as more 3D discs come on the market. (Not that I’ll be watching them, being a member of club astigmatism whose brain hasn’t quite figured out how to make it work comfortably). I wonder how issues of this nature (setting aside the much more prominent distinction between cinema and video) have been dealt with at earlier stages of technological development.
Edit: if I had seen it in time (or in the right dimension), I would have illustrated this post with this image.
With the permission of the publisher, here is a copy of my article on the Digital Economy Act and computer games, published a month ago in the Entertainment Law Review. Download the PDF here. A follow-up (and longer) piece, looking at broader issues around regulation and differing concepts of game-playing, is on the way in the Journal of Gaming and Virtual Worlds next year.
The Digital Economy Act 2010, better known for its much-debated copyright provisions, also facilitates major changes to the statutory regulation of computer and video games in the United Kingdom. This article sets out the history of the regulation of game content by the BBFC and the video game industry, reviews the various reports and interventions that led to the 2010 provisions, and considers the implications of various new definitions. The possible separation of film and games is considered, as are developments in relation to tax relief and to the regulation of games in other jurisdictions.