Can anyone use the MPAA ratings?

[Frank Cox]

I just got an email from the Saskatchewan Consumer Protection Branch asking for feedback on their idea to modernize Saskatchewan film classifications.

Their proposal is to adopt a regime similar to what was recently decided on by Ontario, where film ratings as such are no longer required but theatres must provide "information about the content of the movie" instead.

I'm currently writing a response to their email saying that this is indeed a good idea (in my opinion) but this raises the question of where one is supposed to get the "information about the content of the movie" that would be required.

Saskatchewan currently uses the BC Film Classification Board film ratings but every one of their film rating pages says that these ratings are copyrighted and may only be used by authorized persons and so on, so I guess those ratings would be out of bounds if Saskatchewan goes through with this new proposition.

The MPAA ratings contain "information about the content of the movie" so I'm wondering if that would be available to use instead. I just checked a Cineplex theatre in Toronto and the webpage said that Barbie is classified PG; where did they get that information from?

[Marcel Birgelen]

Imagine one would come up with some kind of universal rating system under some non-restrictive copyright license?

Actually, I find the current Dutch rating system a good compromise between simplicity and effectiveness. It gives both a general age rating and a basic content qualification using symbols.
Ratings will always be subjective, but at least this system gives a little extra dimension towards the decision making process if something is suitable or not, without actually reading up on a summary of the rated content.

The MPAA ratings contain "information about the content of the movie" so I'm wondering if that would be available to use instead. I just checked a Cineplex theatre in Toronto and the webpage said that Barbie is classified PG; where did they get that information from?

Well, from the MPAA I guess? They rated the movie PG after all.

I'm not aware of the MPAA rating actually containing any content qualification beyond the age qualification. They're usually just listed as the five ratings there are, with no further specification of the kind of content that this qualification was based on.

[Martin McCaffery]

At least in the US, the ratings on the posters and trailers usually come with a brief (sometimes hilarious) reasons for the rating: Smoking, swearing, drug use, etc. I guess Frank can tell us if the Canadian version of the posters have the MPAA ratings and info. If they do, I think Frank answered his own question. Unless he wants to know where the MPAA got the info, in which case films have to be submitted to the MPAA for review. Since the ratings are supposed to be for the parents of children, the review committee, at least historically, was made up of mommies. Not sure if that is still true.

The MPAA Ratings are copyrighted, so a movie can only get one of those ratings from the MPAA. Iif any legislatures or other government bodies try to incorporate them into law, they will get a visit from an MPAA lawyer, which may stop Saskatchewan from officially using them

[Frank Cox]

My question needs a bit more explanation, I think.

Right now there's a law in Saskatchewan that says that any movie exhibited in a movie theatre in Saskatchewan must be classified by the Saskatchewan Film Classification Board.

A couple of decades ago (in response to the controversy around the classification of the Exit to Eden movie) all Saskatchewan film classifications were farmed out to the BC Film Classification Board. So a movie is classified by the BC Film Classification Board "for Saskatchewan", and move theatres are required to include the BC classification on all advertising, etc.

BC film classifications are G, PG, 14A, 18A, Restricted and Adult, along with a brief description like "coarse language", "explicit violence" or whatever.

Now the Saskatchewan government is considering dropping the requirement for theatres to use those BC film classifications and simply provide "information about the content of the movie" instead.

This is, in my opinion, a good idea since it will avoid situations where a Saskatchewan theatre like mine can't play a movie because it's not classified in Saskatchewan. I've been bitten by this requirement before when I wanted to play an older title where the classification has been somehow lost (Cape Fear, for example) or a small filmmaker wants to exhibit his movie in my theatre but the hassle and cost of getting it classified for Saskatchewan (several hundred dollars, paperwork and a few weeks of waiting) make it impractical. Who's going to pay $440 to classify a movie that will be played once or twice for maybe 40 people?

The issue here is, though, that the "information about the content of the movie" will have to come from somewhere.

The BC Film Classification website says "Our ratings are copyright protected and must not be reproduced without permission. Our licensed theatres and distributors may reproduce our ratings for public exhibition purposes."

Obviously I'm not a lawyer but I don't see how a statemenet like "The BC Film Classification Board says this movie is PG" is actually copyrightable since it's just factual information like "the house on the corner is blue" or "it rained here yesterday" but they seem to think that it is so I assume that using information from there to provide the required "information about the content of the movie" would not be allowed if they are no longer doing film classifications for Saskatchewan.

However, almost everything that I play here is a recent Hollywood release and information about all of that stuff is available in the form of those MPAA ratings.

So my question is, since I apparently won't be able to use the BC classification information if this legislation goes through, will I be able to use the MPAA information instead? Would it matter since I'm not a US-based movie theatre?

I can't imagine that anyone would be too concerned about a small-town movie theatre in Saskatchewan using that information as part of the advertising, but I don't want someone popping up and saying, "You can't do that!" if I can avoid it.

Martin says that the MPAA information is copyrighted so do you need permission from somewhere or someone to use it and if so who do you ask about it?

[Mike Blakesley]

Well, from the MPAA I guess? They rated the movie PG after all.

I'm not aware of the MPAA rating actually containing any content qualification beyond the age qualification. They're usually just listed as the five ratings there are, with no further specification of the kind of content that this qualification was based on.

There's lotsa misinformation in this quote! (Sorry Marcel)

First, MPAA rated Barbie PG-13, not PG.

Second, they have been including rating explanations in the ratings for many years, such as "Rated R for strong bloody violence, language throughout, brief nudity and drug use." Or my all time favorite, from the movie "Twister," which was rated PG-13 for "intense depiction of very bad weather."

I can't imagine that anyone would be too concerned about a small-town movie theatre in Saskatchewan using that information as part of the advertising, but I don't want someone popping up and saying, "You can't do that!" if I can avoid it.

As a fellow small-towner, knowing how much us boondockers fly under the mainstream radar, if I were you I'd just use it, and if they gripe at you, apologize and stop using it. Like you say, the chances of any objections are small and there's not going to be any penalty, is there? I guess if there WAS the possibility of a penalty then forget this whole paragraph!

It's also not the MPAA any more, they just call it the "MPA" now. I'm not sure why that is, unless it's because they cover non-domestic films as well as domestic ones?

[Martin McCaffery]

It's also not the MPAA any more, they just call it the "MPA" now. I'm not sure why that is, unless it's because they cover non-domestic films as well as domestic ones?

Their declaration of world domination!

Frank could, of course, just call the MPA in DC and ask. What the MPA is concerned about is people self-applying for free a Rating that respectable filmmakers have to pay for.

Copyright law is different in every country, but I'm willing to bet that a sign that says "The MPA says this movie is Rated PG-13 for jokes your kids won't understand" would fall under fair use. Or just using "Not Recommended for people under 13 because watching people smoke may cause cancer" if you want to be even more generic.

[Marcel Birgelen]

There's lotsa misinformation in this quote! (Sorry Marcel)

First, MPAA rated Barbie PG-13, not PG.

Second, they have been including rating explanations in the ratings for many years, such as "Rated R for strong bloody violence, language throughout, brief nudity and drug use." Or my all time favorite, from the movie "Twister," which was rated PG-13 for "intense depiction of very bad weather."

First of all, I guess I misread Frank's post, which I just re-read and still is quite confusing to me, but his second post helps
Apparently, he was referring to the BC rating of the movie, which I didn't cross-check, but is, apparently, "PG". I thought, he was referring to the MPAA rating of the movie, I was lazy and didn't bother to check. But heck, maybe this only highlights why al those different rating systems are confusing, especially if they're using similar codes.

Secondly, I guess there is a bit of confusion here to what an MPA(A) rating actually entails. Is the explanation a mandatory part of the rating or just some optional, descriptive information? I know that MPA(A) rating cards often contain some references why a movie has been rated that way and yeah, the Twister one is pretty hilarious. But, then again, are those explanations part of the "rating"? Maybe they turn up on the movie poster and in the MPA(A) rating card in the trailer, but do they also turn up in movie listings?

As for the answer regarding if someone can use MPAA ratings, I've asked our AI oracle:

Q: Are MPAA ratings copyrighted?

A: Yes, MPAA ratings are copyrighted. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is responsible for assigning ratings to movies, such as G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17. These ratings are trademarked and copyrighted, which means that they cannot be used without permission from the MPAA. The use of these ratings is typically granted for promotional purposes related to the movie, but any other use would require permission from the MPAA.

Edit: An attempt at increasing the relevancy of the answer

[Mike Blakesley]

I guess there are two ways to "use" the ratings being discussed here.

The MPA is most concerned, I think, with filmmakers applying a rating without running it through the MPA rating procedure, which costs some amount of money. I doubt they're too concerned with random movie theaters (in any country) quoting the ratings that have been applied to films legitimately. They WOULD have a problem with a theatre running some random un-rated movie but sticking an MPA-type rating in their advertising.

The question of whether the explanatory text is "part and parcel" of the rating is an interesting one. It probably is, but anyone advertising the rating is free to decide whether to include the explanatory verbiage or not.

[Tony Bandiera Jr]

At least in the US, the ratings on the posters and trailers usually come with a brief (sometimes hilarious) reasons for the rating: Smoking, swearing, drug use, etc. I guess Frank can tell us if the Canadian version of the posters have the MPAA ratings and info. If they do, I think Frank answered his own question. Unless he wants to know where the MPAA got the info, in which case films have to be submitted to the MPAA for review. Since the ratings are supposed to be for the parents of children, the review committee, at least historically, was made up of mommies. Not sure if that is still true.

The MPAA Ratings are copyrighted, so a movie can only get one of those ratings from the MPAA. Iif any legislatures or other government bodies try to incorporate them into law, they will get a visit from an MPAA lawyer, which may stop Saskatchewan from officially using them

As of about 12-14 years ago, that is partially true. I met the (then) ratings board as I was doing extensive work on their screening rooms. They were a mix of adults, about equally men and women. I asked what the requirements were and found that to be on the ratings board, you MUST be a parent (preferably still married, but I seem to recall one man and woman were single parents), there was a minimum age requirement (I think it was mid-30's early 40's) and you had to pass a background check and very extensive interview process which tested you on your morals and ethics. Being single and not a parent, I was not eligible to be a part of the Board.

I did get to ask a question that had been on my mind for decades: Why is it possible that a movie rated "R" can show all of a woman's nude body, even multiple times or for long shots, yet (for a long time prior) ANY part of a male's frontal, for even a split second, even not aroused, was an automatic "X" (or the newly minted "NC-17") The answer didn't surprise me, but did give them pause. "Just because." I found that a very illogical and puritan answer, and told them such. They did say that it was a very hotly debated issue in the discussions they had while rating the films, but for a long time (and as I am sure you all noticed, that has since changed) and for the sake of erring on the side of caution, they kept with the "puritan" end of the ratings.

On a related note, I also got to ask how "The Right Stuff" (epic film BTW) got away with a PG (changed to PG-13) rating despite the character of Gus Grissom repeatedly saying "Fucking-A, bubba" AND the line about "This isn't about pussy, it's about monkey". The answer I got was that the Fucking-A was not used in a sexual context, was spread out over a long gap between uses, and the reference to pussy was not considered explicit. (I agree with both views on this.)

The screening process is in itself very interesting. The ratings board will meet up in the screening room, outfitted with VERY comfortable recliners, food and beverages, and a display showing reel numbers and timecode/frame counts. As they watch, they have lighted clipboards and will (without eyes leaving the screen!) jot down notes on any parts they may need to discuss, including noting the reel and frame numbers!

That was in itself pretty impressive. After the screening of the full film, uninterrupted, they sometimes ask the projectionist to re-run particular reels (a process MUCH easier since D-Cinema actually) to re-watch anything they wanted to discuss later. They then take a short break, then off to the meeting room (which I was not allowed to go to) to discuss and rate the film. Some films, they told me, took three or more viewings of the same edit to decide on a rating. The decision, much like a jury's, had to be unanimous. The resulting rating was given to the studio/director, and if they accepted it, the process ended.

If the studio or director didn't like the rating applied (usually because it was, in their view, too restrictive), they would appeal it. They had to resubmit a new edit of the film and the process (and costs) started all over again. In rare cases, the Ratings board would allow (and watch) just the affected reels/scenes, but most of the time the entire film had to be re-submitted and watched to make sure no funny business was done. They did share a few anecdotes about particular directors being a major pain in the ass (and no, I will NOT reveal names) and some studios who were also major headaches.

All in all it was a lot more complicated than I had thought, and realized that the ratings, though not perfect, were actually done with a great deal of fairness and objectivity.

[Mike Blakesley]

The 1983 movie "Tootsie" has either Dustin Hoffman or Bill Murray (I forget which) saying "Fuck you" several times in one scene, but it was rated PG. Again, though, it was completely non-sexual in context.

Seems like all PG-13 movies now have at least one "f bomb" in them. Usually, completely unnecessary.

About the full-frontal male vs. female argument over what constitutes an NC-17 rating, I always figured that the woman's genital area has all of the "equipment" on the inside where you can't see it. All you are seeing, generally, is hair. Men, on the other hand, have the old schvanz right out there in view. So, if you can see the genitals that's NC-17, but if they're covered (by clothing or hair) then that's an R, unless the view is sustained for a long time or in an explicitly sexual nature.

[Harold Hallikainen]

On use of the ratings, it seems the copyright issue is for the film makers. They cannot say it has an MPAA rating unless MPAA has indeed given it a rating. On the exhibitor side, a simple "The MPAA has rated this film R" seems very far from copyright infringement. You are stating a fact which does not seem to be infringement.

Harold

[Harold Hallikainen]

Thinking further, this seems more like a trademark issue instead of copyright. Use of the rating without authorization would be similar to "pirating" a product and misleading the public as to the source of the product (in this case, the rating). An advantage of trademarks is that they do not expire as long as they are in use, while copyrights expire... eventually.

[Frank Cox]

The MPAA doesn't seem to have a public email address (that I can find, anyway).

I just phoned their office and left a message requesting a callback.

If anyone calls back, I'll ask the question.

[Jon Dent]

the ratings, though not perfect, were actually done with a great deal of fairness and objectivity.

Objectivity and fairness towards what? Sure as hell isn't the actual themes or tone of the movie. They can be ridiculously violent and get a PG-13 if they don't show blood (Taken, War of the Worlds), or they can be slapped with an 'R' for the single offense of showing a character skinny dipping by themselves in an entirely non sexual way (Nomadland). That reeks of a checklist that doesn't take any kind of context into account.

It's a job a fricking robot could do.

[Mike Blakesley]

Maybe this is an application for the A.I. overlords of the future.