Talk:British Board of Film Classification/Archive 1

Game ratings

I recall from an issue of Edge that game publishers often submit supplimentary information to the BBFC when they're getting a game classified. For example I believe a videotape of all the Mortal Kombat fatalities was submitted with that game, to make it easier for them to assess all of the content. Could somebody track down the issue I'm thinking of, or another source, and add this sort of information

Classifiers / censors?

The BBFC prefers to be called a board of classification as it is described in the introduction, but surely it could also accurately be described as a censor? Could it not be added that the BBFC classifies and censors films? Magic Pickle 00:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the activities of the BBFC are sufficiently described in the article to allow the reader to determine if s/he considers the Board to be a censorship body. The word "censor" is a loaded one. The article makes it clear that the Board can and does request cuts be made before granting certificates. Valiantis 14:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Censor may be a loaded term, but it is also an accurate one - the BBFC does not just classify films, it also cuts films and/or bans them, even today - this is censorship, for better or worse. The word 'request' is also loaded, the BBFC does not 'request', it orders, and its orders are mandatory.Magic Pickle 22:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a slightly simplistic statement. Most of the cuts that the BBFC "orders" are "ordered" so that a film will be awarded a specific certificate required by the distributor - so for example, if the distributor wants a 12 certificate and the BBFC believes that the film as presented by the distributor qualifies for a 15 certificate, then it will request cuts to enable it to award the 12 certificate that the distributor wants. The distributor has the option of not making the cuts and accepting a more restrictive certificate, so this is classification not censorship. The only time a cut would be ordered would be if the film would not receive an 18 certificate without a cut or cuts being made. In 2005 the BBFC cut no 18 or R18 cinema works [1] and only cut 7 films in total - all of them to allow a less restrictive certificate (hence this was at the distributors' requests -a higher certificate could have been awarded). In any case, where theatrically distributed works are concerned, the "censor" remains the local authority, so it's factually incorrect to state the BBFC bans cinema films; if the BBFC does refuse to certify or if it orders cuts there is nothing to stop a local authority from granting permission for a film to be screened (in the 1970s, the GLC granted certificates to films that the BBFC had refused to certify).

As far as video works are concerned you are on somewhat more stable ground in so far as the BBFC is the designated body under the Video Recordings Act. I believe there is sufficient content in the article for the intelligent reader to decide that the BBFC is a censor in the case of videos (which happens to be my belief) without frontloading the introductory paragraph with the word "censor". 'Show, don't tell' is a good principle to adopt when writing articles. Valiantis 02:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes - I was primarily referring to home video recordings, where the BBFC still does order mandatory cuts of works that do not allow for the distributor to recategorise. The R18 category is censorship by proxy as these works can only be acquired from sex shops, in contrast to most other Western countries. No films for cinema exhibition featuring material likely to be outright banned/cut (not recategorised) would ever be submitted to the BBFC - so it isn't really a case of the BBFC being liberal in that regard. This is interesting - perhaps a section on the more active censorship role of the BBFC in regard to home recordings could be added? Magic Pickle 19:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the line about "as opposed to most other Western countries" is debatable. Moreover, it is highly problematic to make comparisons between whether one jurisdiction is more "liberal" than another. (See my comments elsewhere on the page). For example, in Germany sexually explicit material (on video or in print) can only be sold on premises to which under-18s have no access. It cannot be advertised anywhere under-18s can see it etc etc. (See Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien). On the other hand such premises do not have to be licensed (as far as I am aware). So the law is simultaneously more restrictive (the kind of softcore print material that is available in many UK newsagents is only sold in restricted premises in Germany) and more liberal. The specific issue as to whether the R18 cert is "censorship by proxy" is certainly a matter of opinion; as such one must tread very carefully when including such comments in the text of an article. In addition, if you are saying that it is the restricted sale of R18 videos that is the act of censorship, then this has nothing to do with the BBFC; this is the law in operation - the BBFC do not determine where R18 videos may be sold.

I don't intend to re-revert your change to the article although I still disagree with it as I assume you will revert my revert and I am not minded to get into a pointless edit war over two words. I agree that the article could be sharpened up vis-a-vis the different attitude of the board to video and film - perhaps you would like to do this? By the way, you are incorrect in stating that No films for cinema exhibition featuring material likely to be outright banned/cut (not recategorised) would ever be submitted to the BBFC. If you check stats from 2003 you will note that a couple of films were cut to achieve an 18. As far as I am aware the issue which is most likely to cause films to be cut at 18 is that of animal cruelty where the BBFC is obliged to comply with the Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937. For example the Korean film The Isle [2] was cut specifically for that reason. Valiantis 04:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I've always found it a little ironic that hardcore porn is illegal in the UK, yet the Sun's page 3 would be deemed pornography in many countries that allow hardcore porn! Not to mention Eurotrash ;-)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.86.138.193 (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

A bit of hyperbole there, by saying 'no films' featuring material likely to be cut in a cinema release I really meant - very few indeed. My point being is that film distributors for cinematic release rarely bother to go to the trouble of submitting something they know is likely to be banned - this isn't a case of the BBFC cesnoring less as you seemed to imply. As for the Germany debate - I would argue that the situation you describe clearly is more liberal - if the shops are not required to be licensed. If you want to buy an R18 film legally in the UK you must go to one of the sex shops which number about 100 in the whole country - and there are lots of local bureacratic rules that prevent sex shops being sited because they mustnt be placed near churches, schools etc making it difficult for more to be opened. Therefore the R18 category becomes censorship by proxy. I agree this is not necessarily the BBFC's decision but they are part of the process. Also - Don't forget how hard the BBFC fought to prevent explicit sex being allowed under R18 at all - only defeats at the hands of the Video Appeals committee forced them to capitulate and in that sense they were active censors rather than classifers and I believe that is why a description of them as such should stand. Magic Pickle 23:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Quango

Who are these completely unattributed critics (who call it a QUANGO, that I've never heard of? It's a NGO not QUANGO, anyway Pete 06:18, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Google for "bbfc quango". -- Karada 09:40, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If you can find a significant name or organisation from those few hits that is critical of the BBFC (and moreover critical because of its ownership/structure) then cite it in the article. If you can't, and I don't think I can, then the line you added should be removed, IMO. Pete

the BBFC is a quango because it has legal powers delegated to it by the government, unlike the MPAA which is an NGO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.70.60 (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

More restrictive than in other countries?

I feel this short paragraph is potentially misleading as it's in the realm of comparing apples and oranges (and bananas and kiwi fruit). That's to say, the UK, US, France and Germany all have different systems of film classification in terms of whether they are industry-led or government-led; whether they classify only or whether they cut too; whether refusal to classify is a ban (as it effectively is in the UK) or only a commercial blow (as in the US); whether age-restricted classification means children may not see a film in a cinema (as I believe is the case in France) or whether they may see a film if accompanied by an adult (as is the case with all US certs except NC-17); whether cultural differences on 'bad' language have a significant impact on certification (i.e. on this issue is it possible to compare anglophone and non-english-speaking countries?).

I dunno, I have Child's Play 3 on VHS and It has a trailer for "American Me" (Both movies are quite violent).

The paragraph quotes one "extreme" example, but one might as easily add examples where the BBFC classification has been less restrictive than that in another country. This is particularly the case with comparisons between the US and the UK, where US R certs regularly translate as 15 certs in the UK, and where the UK is notably more liberal on sex and nudity whereas the US seems less concerned with violence.

I'm keen to either remove this paragraph entirely (as without a much more detailed analysis it reads as POV) or to rewrite it in a more detailed and/or balanced way. Not sure how best to approach this. Any thoughts? Valiantis 18:14, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My interpretation is that the "Melon Farmers view" is well-represented. I think you should feel free to represent the "BBFC is liberal" view more strongly, if you feel it is warranted. However I do not feel that excision of material is warranted in this article. Pcb21| Pete 00:50, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. It's not really an issue of representing a "BBFC is liberal" view (FWIW, my own view is that it is much less illiberal than it once was, which is not the same thing), more a concern that it's not useful to compare systems of classification / censorship in such a broadbrush way. The single quoted example in the paragraph refers to a film that hits one of the BBFC's buttons - so-called 'imitative' drug-use. It would be informative to include this film as an example of this specific 'area of concern', but not as emblematic of the BBFC's attitude to all 'areas of concern' (e.g. sexuality, profanity, violence etc.). Time factors permitting, I'll probably make changes to break down the boards attitudes / policies one by one, possibly linking to articles on film censorship in other countries (if these exist). Valiantis 14:55, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I like the re-organising you did just now. When you have time, I agree that some specific detail about particular policies (on drugs, sex, whatever) would be a really good addition. Pcb21| Pete 18:27, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Finally got around to doing this more detailed look at policies. Obviously any improvements would be welcomed. I removed the paragraph that intially caused me concern as I think readers will now have enough info to judge for themselves whether UK censorship is more restrictive than other countries (my own opinion - sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't). I also removed the specific reference to the film More on the following bases: - It's a fairly old and obscure movie, albeit that the actual censorship was of a relatively recent video release. The comparison to the French certificate is potentially misleading - around 80% of French movies are given an unrestricted cert [3] as the French system is very liberal - and this film had an 18 cert in Germany, a K-16 cert in Finland and a 15 cert in Sweden [4]. If anyone feels this is the best example of a movie being cut because it shows drug use then it might be re-instated but perhaps with more emphasis on the actual cuts than in comparison with France. I did want to put a more recent or better known example of a movie cut for depiction of drug use, but couldn't think of a one. (Pulp Fiction came to mind, but this was cut - or more accurately reframed for video - 10 years ago - not the best example of contemporary policy) Valiantis 18:29, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"and where the UK is notably more liberal on sex and nudity whereas the US seems less concerned with violence."

-Perhaps, but the fundamental rule is - a sex / violence filled film can be available for legal sale in the USA without having to go through the process of inspection and cutting provided by our BBFC. Lack of classification may be a financial blow in the USA - but not a legal one, and in that sense the USA is always more 'liberal'. Magic Pickle 23:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Erm, and your point is? The issue is a comparison of film classification in different countries. The UK film classification system is more liberal on issues of sex and nudity than the MPAA. However, unlike in the US, films (more or less) must be classified in the UK, so it's swings and roundabouts. This is my original point: - that a simplistic comparison between one country and another should be avoided as it is inherently misleading. The sentence my original comment referred to (a year ago) is no longer in the article and has been replaced by a detailed analysis of the BBFC's different attitudes to censorship/classification of different issues. Comments like "the US is more liberal than the UK" are clearly POV and don't belong in an article. (Similarly, "the UK is more liberal than the US" is also an opinion and should similarly be avoided). As I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, the issue is to show facts and allow the reader to form opinions.Valiantis 15:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that the UK is more restrictive, but I also agree with you that it is POV and probably shouldn't be included. Perhaps if someone can reference a published article which makes this assertion and let the reader decide for themselves? I notice the censorship description has remained in the article which is good, as this is clearly a fact. Magic Pickle 11:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I can reference you a recent article that claims the exact opposite if you like. We could have lots of quotes asserting variously that the UK is more liberal, that the US is more liberal, that China is where it's at with the liberality etc. but what would be the point? This would just create a fog of opinion and counter-opinion. This page sets out in some factual detail what the BBFC does, how it operates, and what standards it applies. People can judge from that whether they consider it "restrictive" or not. Why do you think it is useful to include comparisons of film regulation in the UK with that in America (or in any other country) which will inherently be a case of apples and oranges (as I said 2 years ago)? If you think comparison of classification/ censorship in different countries is worthwhile then the place to do that would be in a separate article on that subject which could at least go into the requisite level of detail on the different mechanisms censorship uses in different countries. Valiantis 01:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

But that article is about 'This film is Not Yet Rated' - about the MPAA situation in America. No matter how illiberal the MPAA may or may not be - they have no legal power to stop a film being released on video. I'm not sure if they have the right to stop a work being screened at the cinema. I think not, but I can't be sure without a bit more research. We can have long winded discussions about what the MPAA snips and what the BBFC snips but the essential difference is the law - if the BBFC outright reject a work (and they do - they rejected about half a dozen titles last year) then the work cannot be legally supplied in the UK. In the US, the work can be supplied legally - unrated - if the distributor wishes. Therefore the legal situation is clearly more liberal in the USA - the right to supply works without having to go through a censor or 'classifier'. The MPAA are the real definition of 'classifier' - if a distributor decides they do not want to get a classification from the MPAA, there's nothing to stop them releasing the work. If the BBFC outright rejects, (and cuts won't help) it's the end of the road for the distributor. Now, this is perhaps a slightly different issue than liberality of classification, so perhaps the article can highlight how all UK released video works must be classified by the BBFC by law. This is where the BBFC stands out in relation to many (perhaps not all) countries. Magic Pickle 17:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The article already states that video works must be classified by law; in the section "Responsibility and Power" it states explicitly "Under the Video Recordings Act, all video releases not exempt under the Act must be classified by the BBFC, it being illegal to supply material which has been explicitly refused a certificate." It goes onto explain the details of this a little further in the next section: - "Under the Video Recording Act 1984, all non-exempt recordings must be classified by an authority chosen by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. This classification is then legally binding, in that supply of material contrary to its certificate (selling recordings which have been refused a certificate, or supplying to someone younger than the certified age) is a criminal offence." What more do you want to add???

As you acknowledge, you are talking about the general liberality of film censorship; this is an article about the BBFC. The only comparison is with the equivalent American body - the MPAA. That is not a particularly useful comparison for the reasons you yourself outline and I have previously referred to. FWIW I think you would struggle to convince anyone that the MPAA itself is more liberal than the BBFC. As I already said, an article comparing how film censorship works in a variety of countries would be an appropriate place to discuss the overarching legal position.

BTW, the article I referred you to, which I assume you read, is not primarily about This film is not yet rated. It mentions this at the start and spends most of the rest of the article comparing the MPAA's behaviour (at least as depicted in that documentary) with that of the BBFC. It features an interview with David Cooke and with one of the BBFC's examiners and also with the man behind Melon Farmers who states "I've gone from fighting with the BBFC to having a drink with them".

• • The illiberality of the MPAA is irrelevant when it comes to the law - the BBFC are backed up by the law, the MPAA are not- however illiberal their decisions may be. Therefore a comparison of any kind of BBFC to MPAA is irrelevant, purely because of the lack of the MPAA possessing legal powers. The Wiki article does indeed mention the BBFC's legal backup, but perhaps a brief note of how this compares with other countries, notably the USA, would be an informative and relevant piece of info. It would not need to go into great detail, just to mention that the BBFC has a legal remit which is not replicated in the USA. I think the BBFC is trying to now rebrand itself as a classifier (backed up by references the Guardian article you linked to - indeed I did read it) and we should be mindful to point out their active censorship role in the Wiki article. Look at the fight the BBFC had with the VAC over explicit sex in R18 films (only about 5 years ago) as an example of their active censorship role. As for the Melon Farmer man finding common ground with the BBFC - bully for him, (there have been staff and policy changes behind the scenes at the BBFC in the last few years, this may explain his new attitude towards the BBFC) - but their legal role is still rock solid, as are some of their - policies for outright rejection of video works. Magic Pickle 15:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Exempt

This symol File:Exempt.gif is used by Screen Select to indicate exempt movies. Might be owrth mentioning, don't know if anyone else uses it. Rich Farmbrough 20:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe that symbol is used on video and DVD boxes generally for exempt videos. Probably worth including. However, has anyone considered the copyright issues re: the use of any of these certificate symbols? I believe the user who added them to this article brought them over from History of British film certificates but I believe they're marked (c) the BBFC. Should they all be removed on that basis? Valiantis 13:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The Exempt certificate is not a BBFC certificate (or official in any capacity), so it technically shouldn't be included on the BBFC page, but could probably be included in the UK section of Motion picture rating system.

As for the certificate symbols, they are, of course, copyrighted by the BBFC (otherwise anyone could use them even if their film hadn't received that certificate). The symbols can be freely downloaded from their website with the BBFC stating that 'the BBFC logo and the BBFC category symbols are trademarks and must not be used out of context'. I think that the use of the symbols on both this page and on History of British film certificates would be considered 'in context', so we should be okay. I'm sure the BBFC would speak out if they had a problem. - Green Tentacle 11:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that's probably satsfactory then re: the copyright issue. I had looked on the BBFC site but couldn't find any comment. Must have been looking in the wrong place... Valiantis 17:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Who decides what is exempt anyway? My Apollo 11-13 video had the E symbol, probably because it's historical, documentary material. There must be criteria for exemptions somewhere. -Rednaxela 02:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The criteria are in the Video Recordings Act 1984. Distributors decide that the video work they are "publishing" fits the criteria in the act. I believe that if anyone "publishes" a work as exempt which clearly breaches the criteria then they would be liable to some form of legal sanction. The details would be in the text of the Act but I'm not sure that's available on-line. Valiantis 14:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The criteria are that "sport, music, religious, and educational works are exempt" unless they contain "excessive human sexual activity or acts of force or restraint associated with such activity, mutilation or torture of humans or animals, human genital organs or urinary or excretory functions, or techniques likely to be useful in the perpetration of criminal acts or illicit activity." That's why most historical videos are exempt, because they're educational. I believe a number of companies got away with publishing supposedly educational videos on sexual topics because there's no clear definition of "excessive" in the act.

Straw Dogs

Are we sure about the claim that the BBFC refused a certificate for Straw Dogs? I was under the impression it was released in cinemas, but not on video, as with The Exorcist. JW 11:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

According to the BBFC's own site the film was passed for cinema distribution with an X cert on November 3 1971. This version had a run time of 117m 16s and no cuts were made to the version submitted by the distributors (which of course doesn't mean it wasn't cut by the distributors themselves prior to submission). Another version running at 116m 2s was passed at cert 18 for cinema distribution on April 20 1995 - again no cuts were made by the BBFC to the version submitted by the distributor. A version at 115m 42s was rejected for video release on March 15 1999 (allowing for the faster run time of PAL vids this is appears to be a longer version than the original cinema version) and a version at 112m 18s (which would be equivalent to a cinema run time of just under 117m) was again rejected for video release on June 2 1999. A video version running at 112m 51s was passed for video distribution on September 27 2002 - no cuts were made. I make that equivalent to a cinema runtime of 117m 33s (if my maths is correct!). See here for the link to the original submission, which then links on to the others.

I will amend the article accordingly. Valiantis 14:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Borat and Jackass 2

Two questions: it says in the article that dangerous stunts of an imitable nature will be cut even at the "18" level. How much footage from Jackass: Number Two did this mean the British missed out on? (Hopefully not the fart mask or the bit where that guy drank horse semen.) Also, did they cut the scene from the Borat movie where Borat and the fat guy were having the nude fight? That was so funny I can't talk about the scene without laughing. Scott Gall 10:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen Jackass 2 so can't comment, but in Borat we got a very long nude fight seen where you saw the fat guy's scrotum on Sacha Baron Cohen's face in quite some detail. In the massage scene you see the "tent". However, SBC's penis has been censored out with black bars. Judging by the other penis' in the film, and the fact that I've never seen flaccid penis' censored before, I can only imagine that this was done to hide Sacha Baron Cohen's shame. :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.86.138.193 (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, that scene was included in the UK version of the Borat movie, even if it did have black bars.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

OLD ratings

What does "A", "X", and "XX" mean???? I dont know. Gimmie a hand CoolChris 21:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

See History of British film certificates which is referred to from the article. -- Arwel (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

12A

how come theres no mention of the 12A controvesy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.104.12 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 3 June 2007

There's a 12A controversy? About the films it allows people to see or something like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.127.79.8 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 30 July 2007

Have found a couple of links for this via a simple Google search. If anyone thinks they are appropriate enough for the article feel free to add them:

http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/jmiles/entry/casino_royale_and/

http://film.guardian.co.uk/censorship/news/0,,783637,00.html

http://www.filmjudge.co.uk/readfeature.php?ID=7

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.127.79.8 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 31 July 2007

Examiners hired on a permanent basis?

Is this statement in the main article correct? I applied for, and attended the first stage interview for an examiner's job in the spring of 2001. At that interview it was made clear by the deputy director (can't remember her name, sorry) that examiners were appointed on five-year, fixed terms, and that these were almost never renewed. The rationale for this (she explained) is that they wanted a constant turnover of examiners to ensure that decisions reflected current public opinion: in other words, they didn't want examiners to make a career out of it and become institutionalised. I was invited to the second stage selection day, but by this stage had been offered another job which I wanted more (and which, more importantly, had a permanent contract), so I pulled out. LDGE 20:24, 7 July 2007 (BST)

How does one apply? 87.114.36.32 (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair use criteria

The use of images not in compliance with our fair-use criteria or our policy on nonfree content is not appropriate, and the images have been removed. Please do not restore them. — Moe ε 18:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Moe, I think you'll find that the images fit Wikipedia's fair use criteria perfectly:

1. No free equivalent. Yes, the symbols are copyrighted, so no alternative exists.
2. Respect for commercial opportunities. Yes, as use in the article does not stop the BBFC making money.
3. (a) Minimal use. Yes, as each image is only used once and all images must be used to help a reader's understanding.
   (b) Resolution/fidelity. Yes, as all images are low-res.
4. Previous publication. Yes, all the images are frequently published in the UK media etc.
5. Content. Yes, the content is encyclopaedic.
6. Media-specific policy. Yes, meets all requirements.
7. One-article minimum. Yes, when restored, the images will all be in use.
8. Significance. Yes, the symbols are used even more commonly than the certificate names and are vital to a reader's understanding of the topic.
9. Restrictions on location. Yes, as they are only used in the article namespace.
10. Image description page. Yes. This was missing, but I have the required details to all images.

I notice from your user page that you are based in the USA and will therefore not be that familiar with the content of this article (your description of the images as 'decoration' certainly shows a fairly major misunderstanding of the topic). Please allow me to clarify that these symbols are used much more commonly than their MPAA equivalents. In fact, the symbols are used far more often than the actual names of the certificates. They are seen before every cinema screening, on every DVD/video box, on all film posters, on cinema billboards and in film reviews. The BBFC allow (and encourage) anyone to use the symbols 'in context'. Without the images, a reader's understanding of the topic will be severely compromised.

I have therefore restored the images. - Green Tentacle 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't meet minimal use. Minimal use doesn't only mean use it once, it also means is used as little as possible if equivelants for text are possible, and the fact they are basically formatted for the decoration of these article. Any kind of table to display fair use images unless critical commentary is provided on the image(s), is being used not in according to fair use. See also any album cover discography where the fair use qualifications didn't meet every single time. Don't restore unless you provide critical commentary on each rating. The text, "Suitable for all" doesn't warrent a fair use image. And it doesn't matter where I'm based, 1 because the Wikipedia servers are located in the United States, and two any gallery for MPAA icons will be treated like this as well. Fair use makes no exceptions for galleries. The only one you restored that could actually meet this is the PG-12 logo which had significant commentary on it. — Moe ε 14:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You also provided faulty rationales for all the images 2002-onwards because none of them were low resolution like you claimed. — Moe ε 14:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

There are some graphic representations over on Commons. However, I would concur with Green Tentacle's view that the BBFC, if anything, encourages use of their symbols in order to raise awareness of them, and they are widely seen in the UK media (e.g. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10], etc.), as well as being used by retailers (e.g. [11], [12], [13], etc.). They're not even interested in prosecuting video pirates who use them on counterfeit products. Nick Cooper 16:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Green Tentacle and Nick Cooper. The symbols are far more common in the UK than the text equivalents and are vital to a complete understanding of the subject, and Moe Epsilons' description of them as decoration displays a lack of knowledge of the subject. The only valid point Moe Epsilon makes is that they are far too good quality to count as "low resolution" - possibly they should be replaced by the equivalents from Commons. I note that removing them from this article has resulted in many of them being tagged as orphaned and liable to deletion in a few days, so action will need to be taken quickly if they are to be retained. -- Arwel (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to be an expert on every subject to know when fair use applies and when it doesn't. If these images are on the Commons, than this whole case is moot and the images need to be deleted and replaced with the Commons versions. Images on the Commons are not fair use and are unavailable for copyright, therefore, if they were released under the Commons, then the claim of fair use here is fake. — Moe ε 18:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added the Commons images to the article. If anyone would like to upload every other version of the images to the Commons, then we could use them on the other article where I removed the images. Keep the ones I tagged for deletion unless you have a valid reason for keeping falsely tagged, obsolete images on Wikipedia. — Moe ε 18:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to start by re-iterating my point, which has also been supported by both Nick and Arwel, that the images are vital to a reader's understanding of the topic. I feel that the table does constitute a critical commentary - it is certainly more in depth than the discussion of album covers, which is non-existent on virtually all album articles, though the image is allowed without question. I see that the MPAA's symbols are allowed without objection.

However, as far as I can see, the images on Commons are completely illegal. They are recreations of the BBFC's images (and are missing some details). Under no circumstances would any version of the images be allowed under Commons licensing. I have therefore removed the images and restored the perfectly-allowed fair use images. The images should also be deleted from Commons.

I do take your point that the 2002 onwards images are not low resolution, though an editor finding images like that should convert them into low res images and not just remove them. On a related note, I have re-uploaded the earliest versions of the A, H and X images on the history of British film certificates article under a claim of fair use, rather than the a claim of public domain (the images are not old enough).

You admit that you are not an expert on fair use rules. Nor am I, but it is three against one. A Wikipedia policy (somewhere) states that it is up to the editor wishing to remove information to prove their case and not those wishing to retain it. Therefore, unless you can come back with a solid, legally-watertight argument why these images are not allowed (which, really, would constitute an objection from the BBFC) then you should not remove the images again. - Green Tentacle 19:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

When I said I wasn't an expert, I meant towards the BBFC. I am an expert in fair use policy as it is the primary focus of my activity. I am reverting you. Take it to WP:AN if you wish to debate this, because your lack of understanding of fair use's minimal use policy is disturbing. And theres no amount of WikiLawyering you can do that can make the text "Suitable for all" require a fair use image. And it doesn't matter how many people suppoort you because number games don't work on Wikipedia. The BBFC doesn't need to comment on this and you're making policies up in your head. Fair use states that miminal use is required for images that are copyrighted. Images that are used purely for decoration are prohibited. These are an example of images used for decoration, period. — Moe ε 20:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Having read the minimal use policy (again), I cannot see how the use of the images do not meet it. The policy states that 'multiple items are not used if one will suffice' - well, obviously one image will not explain all of the categories, so all the images are required'; it also states that an image 'is used only if necessary' - the images are undeniably necessary.

Again, your description of the images as 'decoration' shows your complete misunderstanding of the topic. The images are not decoration - to all intents and purposes they are the certificate. The textual names and descriptions are rarely used. Have a look at this document produced by the BBFC. It is designed to be displayed in shops selling DVDs, videos or rated computer games. Nowhere on the document does it include the textual names of the certificates. It uses the certificate symbols. Similarly, take a look at this DVD cover. The symbol is the only way to see what certificate the DVD is (it also includes the Irish certificate). There are strict laws here meaning that the certificate symbols must be included on the DVD cover, spine, back and disc (and at minimum sizes). The symbols are the certificates and they must be included to make the article comprehensible. The whole article is a discussion of the images.

I am therefore putting the images back. There's no need to go to the administrators (though Arwel is one and has already agreed with me) because the issue is clear cut and there is a prescient for it, as the Motion Picture Association of America film rating system article uses the MPAA symbols without any objection, as does pretty much every country's equivalent article. - Green Tentacle 22:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Game Classification - Manhunt 2

The whole debate around the Manhunt 2 game non-classification, possible revamping of game classification in the UK and its relation to PEGI needs addressing as the role may be taken away from the BBFC in light of Dr Byron's review. The current duplication of the comment on Manhunt 2 reads as an out of place example. Set within the broader context alluded to here within the current concerns it is more relevant to include in the article. Although this may be speculating future events, even with references, which is questionable to include in Wikipedia. Will have a go at it later for people to judge themselvesJon1984 (talk) 08:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

but less than a month later cut Takashi Miike's Ichi the Killer by three and a quarter minutes specifically for its alleged sexual violence

lol "alleged? they cut a girls nipples off —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heatsketch (talk • contribs) 02:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Uc still exists?

Hey, I saw the current ratings on this article and I thought that Uc has been gone since the early 2000s. If I am wrong please show me some examples of more modern films with this classification. --87.244.96.209 (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)