Classification

[Storyteller]

[This thread began on the "Advice on Films" forum, but seems to fit better here. - Moderator.]

On the BBFC website, bbfc.co.uk, the following advice appears:

"The Video Recordings Act (VRA) defines the supply of DVDs as ‘supply in any manner, whether or not for reward, and therefore, includes supply by way of sale, letting on hire, exchange or loan’ [Section 1(4)]. It is therefore clear that hiring out video works in a library is covered by the Act. There is no concession to ‘educational’ communities such as schools."

As a 'lay' person, this says to me that films we make for viewing by anyone apart from ourselves personally should have a BBFC classification, as the Act applies to video tape and disc recordings of films which are provided on loan or by way of gift.

Surely there must be an exception for amateur films?

Peter

[Dave Watterson]

Hi Peter

This is an interesting question. I am snuffly with cold and cannot keep my eyes open long enough to do research now ... will have a look tomorrow. If anyone else has thoughts on this, please write.

Dave

[Michael Slowe]

Poor old 'snuffy with cold', wish you better!

I think that this regulation is intended to prevent circulation of pornographic and otherwise undesirable material. If there are doubts about a given production then yes, classification might then be sensible, but otherwise I'd forget about it. Dave (in his official web master capacity) might not sanction this but I'm being realistic.

[Dave Watterson]

I am no lawyer but ...

As you say the Video Recordings Act 1984 is the one which applies. Subsequent legislation made few real changes to it.
There was a hiccup when in 2009 it was pointed out that UK government had not notified the European Commission about the Act and so it could not be enforced. This was resolved in 2010 when it was technically repealed and immediately reinstated after giving due notification. (!)

Section 2 of that Act said a DVD was exempted if among other things ...
(a) it is designed to inform, educate or instruct;
(b) it is concerned with sport, religion or music; or
(c) it is a video game.

Exemption does not include what we loosely think of as video nasties: explicit sexual acts, torture and so on. Nor does it include work prohibited by the anti-terrorism legislation.

I reckon most amateur video supply could claim an "educational" purpose - clubs sharing expertise in the art of film-making etc. The IAC video library is part of the organisation's educational function.

Section 3 of the Act makes provision for exemption of a DVD "designed to provide a record of an event or occasion for those who took part in the event or occasion or are connected with those who did so." So wedding videographers can relax.

In practice the laws are intended to stop the supply of video nasties. I cannot imagine any Trading Standards Officers (they are the main enforcers of the legislation) bothering about our videos.

Dave

[Michael Slowe]

So Tom's alright then, his weddings can include all the stripping and torture he can find!

How are the sniffles Dave?

[fraught]

I cannot imagine any Trading Standards Officers (they are the main enforcers of the legislation) bothering about our videos.

I hope that is the case Dave! After the comments i've had regarding my film 'Room 4' about ensuring i put a warning on at the beginning and what with my next project 'Addict' ... i'm starting to panic!

[Storyteller]

In practice the laws are intended to stop the supply of video nasties. I cannot imagine any Trading Standards Officers (they are the main enforcers of the legislation) bothering about our videos.

Actually Dave, I don't think restriction on the supply of 'video nasties' is the primary reason for the Act. I think that is a well-intentioned 'nanny' society seeking to inform us of what might be unsuitable viewing for certain kinds of people - hence the age markings. Actual 'video nasties', such as the importation and supply of so-called 'snuff' movies, in which it appears that people are really killed*, s.e.x.** with minors,whether or not consensual, and s.e.x. with animals ('bestiality), fall to be prohibited by the OPA (Obscene Publications Act) and CEMA (the Customs & Excise Management Act 1979), with which I used to be intimately acquainted, before I retired.

Not wishing to be unkind, but I'm not convinced that filmed dramas would fall to be exempted as 'educational', in that they 'educate' other members of our clubs. I would really like a legal opinion on that. I'll ask about.

I agree with your opinion that classification requirements don't apply to family films and wedding videos and the like. Not that I make these. <g>

*So-called 'snuff' movies and whether they truly exist certainly was, when I was employed to seize such prohibited material, a matter of some conjecture. I only ever saw one move that might have fallen into that category. It was called 'Cannibal Holocaust', and it is the only film I've ever heard of in connection with discussions about 'snuff' movies. I'm not omniscient, but that's my experience. It was still the most revolting film I ever had to watch [parts of].
**If I don't space the word, some nanny program changes s.e.x. to 'meaningful physical relationship'. Yuch! Perfectly good, inoffensive, word.

Peter

[Storyteller]

I've just received advice from a barrister friend of mine, Deputy Justices' Clerk at the city Magistrates' Court (which means 'most senior lawyer'). She says:

"Just looking at this while my magistrates are out on their decision after a trial - so I haven't had chance to look at this in any great depth but my initial view (without accepting any liability for negligent misstatement etc etc etc) would be that if I was an amateur film-maker [...] I would be applying to the BBFC for classification."

I hope she will be able to look into it in a little more depth and give a fuller answer, but in the meantime, the possibility has to be faced that those of us making scripted dramas (live-action or animation) might have to consider getting classified if our films are going to be sold, given to others, or lent via a library. I reckon documentaries and sports will be exempt - but even that, if you read the BBFC website, is a 'classification' awarded by the BBFC.

Peter

[fraught]

I've seen 'Cannibal Holocaust' a while back... and although not really a "snuff" film, it does contain a scene where a man shoots a live pig. I'm pretty sure this scene has not made it to these shores legally! And quite right too.

As for classification and the BBFC, harking back to my TV/Film College days, i was under the impression that films shown in clubs, private screenings, etc could literally be anything (within reason i guess). At the end of the day, regardless of the BBFC, it's the local authorities decision that will allow a film to be shown in it's area. So maybe we should be approaching them?

[fraught]

Going through the BBFC website, i found this;

"Local Authorities remain legally responsible for what is shown in cinemas under the Licensing Act 2003 and can still overrule the decisions of the BBFC."

I also found this;
"The most significant piece of legislation to affect BBFC classification standards is the Video Recordings Act 1984. This Act requires all ‘video works’ (films, TV programmes, video games, etc) which are supplied on a disc, tape or any other device capable of storing data electronically to be classified by the BBFC, unless they fall within the definition of an exempted work."


Definition of an exempt piece of work is;
"Under the Video Recordings Act 1984, a video is an exempted work if it is designed to inform, educate or instruct; is concerned with sport, religion or music; or is a video game.

However, if such a work, including video games, depicts human sexual activity or gross violence to any significant extent it will need a BBFC classification. In addition, video games which contain ‘linear’ material (that is video footage) also have to be classified by the BBFC."

[Storyteller]

Regarding the power of local authorities to "overrule the decision of the BBFC" - this is true - but first there has to be a decision by the BBFC.

We're still stuck with: "The Video Recordings Act (VRA) defines the supply of DVDs as ‘supply in any manner, whether or not for reward, and therefore, includes supply by way of sale, letting on hire, exchange or loan’ [Section 1(4)]" as quoted in my opening post.

Peter

[fraught]

I just used the BBFC's Fee Calculator... my current film will end up being around 70mins long, which will cost nearly £600 to get a BBFC rating! LMAO!

Let's all keep quiet shall we and hope the BBFC don't look in.

[Michael Slowe]

I really think we are in danger of getting our knickers in a twist over a situation that is so highly unlikely that it can be ignored. The content that the legislation is aimed at has been described in the above posts, it doesn't need a brain surgeon to recognise it and none of us are likely to include it in our films. Having said that there was a scene in my last year's documentary of an old sheep being 'put down' by a farmer which the Sky TV channel that was broadcasting the film asked me to cut out! There was however no mention of classification.

[Dave Watterson]

I have asked the IAC National Chairman if he thinks it worth investigating the issue with some appropriate lawyers. It may take some time before he can consult with other committee members and decide whether or not to do so.

As Michael suggests we might be getting unduly worried about something that is unlikely to bother us. On the other hand sticking our heads in the sand is seldom a good long-term strategy.

I will keep you posted ...

Dave

[Brian Saberton]

This thread seems to have set a hare running and looks like escalating alarmingly. Some questions are best asked discretely rather than on an open forum.