• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

mkpeReport

top analysis covering digital cinema, 3-D, HFR, and laser illumination

  • Reports
  • About
  • mkpe.com
  • cinepedia.com

US Department of Justice Takes Next Steps on Closed Captions

August 2014 by Michael Karagosian

A long awaited Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) from the US Department of Justice (DOJ) for accessibility in cinemas was released late July that potentially impacts much of the US exhibition industry. This reports covers highlights of the NPRM, it reviews NATO’s actions, and offers suggestions for how such a rule could be improved.

The NPRM is a statement of proposed rules that would adjunct the Americans for Disabilities Act of 1990. It would require, with certain exceptions, 100% of cinemas to provide audiences with closed captions and audio description (VI-N audio in the jargon of standards). The aggressive timeline proposed for compliance is six months from the issue of the rule. The rule could be issued as early as this year.

Serious discussions about such a rule began in 2008, and substantial advances in technology have taken place since. All manufacturers today voluntarily incorporate in their products a standardized protocol that will drive third-party closed caption devices. In addition, at least one manufacturer, Doremi, builds lower cost closed caption capability directly into its products, which can be turned on for a small fee. Devices that support audio description in cinemas have been in service since the 90’s. With the introduction of closed captions, combination devices that also support audio description are now available.

The US National Association of Theater Owners (NATO) has continually taken strong positions in the conversation on rule making. More often than not, though, its positions have placed it on the losing side of the argument. In 2008 and again in 2010, the DOJ proposed that 50% of auditoriums be capable of supporting closed captions. NATO’s response in 2010 was that this number was too high, and that 25% was a better number. In the NPRM now issued, the DOJ’s response is to increase the number of required screens to 100%, indicating that NATO has lost substantial leverage in this discussion. NATO has since requested that the period for information gathering in response to the NPRM be extended from end of September to end of November this year. It will be telltale if the DOJ ignores NATO’s request.

Had NATO taken the high road in its 2010 response and said that 50% was a good idea, it may have retained some leverage and its members might be in better shape today. A public commitment would have put its members on the winning side of the argument, and could have mitigated public comments such as the one below, taken from the DOJ’s website in response to the new NPRM:

“this is an option that should already be available to the disabled community. why do we always have to fight and beg for what is right?”
(Public Submission ID: DOJ-CRT-2014-0004-0029)

The irony is that NATO’s members, collectively, have exceeded the original proposal for closed caption provision in 50% of screens. NATO was quick to point this out in its initial response posted this month. There is a significant difference in definition, though, between the DOJ and NATO. The DOJ refers to percentage of screens in a complex, and NATO refers to percentage of screens across the US. However, the DOJ’s new proposal of 100% and NATO’s loss of leverage makes such discussions moot.

NATO took other steps that could have led to its reduced position of importance to the DOJ. Rather than encourage members to promote closed caption capability, NATO took the opposite course, and encouraged members who had rapidly installed closed captions to not promote it. NATO’s concern was that such promotions would unfavorably highlight the not-so-rapid actions of certain other members. Such extreme conservatism merely tossed away a valuable opportunity for its fast-acting members to build capital within the deaf and hard-of-hearing communities. NATO also reduced any visible support for closed captions on its website. In its 2010 response to the DOJ, NATO referred to its Digital Cinema System Requirements document, last revised in 2008, which requires that digital cinema systems play closed caption tracks when included in the distribution, and support third party closed caption systems. That document, however, has since disappeared from NATO’s website. Notably, the primary website that the DOJ refers to in its NPRM for technical facts on closed captions is the MKPE.com website, underscoring another opportunity lost by NATO. (Full disclosure: I consulted with NATO from 2000-2011. I provided support for NATO’s 2008 discussions with the DOJ on accessibility, contributed to NATO’s 2010 response to the DOJ’s ANPRM, and led the development and authoring of NATO’s Digital Cinema System Requirements. The DOJ also engaged in dialog with me prior to the release of the NPRM.)

In general, US exhibitors should be in pretty good shape to meet the intent of the NPRM, but there are actions to take. While NATO reports that over 50% of screens now offer full electronic accessibility services, the actual number of screens that could readily update their systems should number over 90%. There is no upside to arguing for less than 100% of screens: such arguments will only further dilute NATO’s bargaining power, when more pertinent issues should be addressed. Of real concern is whether manufacturers can respond to orders, and whether installations can be completed, within a six-month period. It is also worth pushing back on the DOJ’s formula for the number of closed caption viewers required per complex. A single formula will likely lead to overstocking requirements in markets that won’t benefit from it. A more favorable position for exhibitors would be to require closed caption transmitters for each auditorium, and allow the exhibitor to purchase viewing devices in response to market demand. In exchange for wasted investments in capital equipment, investments in the promotion of accessibility services to the public would help build beneficial community capital, from which demand for closed caption viewers can be fairly gauged by exhibitors.

Before closing, it should be noted that some Hollywood studio executives expressed surprise that the DOJ did not target their companies to produce accessible content for every movie, i.e. closed captions and descriptive audio. This outcome is because ADA law only applies to places of public accommodation, a category that includes cinemas, but not studios. Studios are unlikely to ever be targeted under ADA, as there reportedly exists substantial case law where the supplier of content and materials to the place of public accommodation are determined to have no responsibilities under ADA.

The DOJ’s NPRM for captioning and audio description in movie theaters can be viewed and downloaded here. NATO’s initial response can be viewed and downloaded here.

Filed Under: Accessibility Tagged With: Accessibility, Closed Captions, DOJ, MKPE, NATO

Primary Sidebar

Search

Topics

  • 3-D
  • Accessibility
  • Alt Content & Advertising
  • Anti-Piracy
  • Color
  • Communications
  • Deployment Entities
  • Distributors
  • Exhibitors
  • Fulfillment
  • High Dynamic Range
  • Higher Frame Rates
  • Installations
  • Patents
  • Projectors
  • Servers and IMBs
  • Sound
  • Technical Bodies
  • Theatre Management Systems
  • Trade Organizations and Shows

Full Archives

a publication of
MKPE Consulting LLC

Footer

Important Stuff

  • About
  • Privacy Policy

Archives

  • Category & Monthly Archives
Archives date back to 2008.

MKPE

mkpeReport is a publication of MKPE, a world-class consultancy building business at the crossroads of cinema and technology.
Learn more about MKPE.

copyright © 2008 - 2023 mkpe consulting llc

We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of all cookies.
Cookie settingsACCEPT
Manage consent

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
CookieDurationDescription
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional11 monthsThe cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-others11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy11 monthsThe cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytics
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
Others
Other uncategorized cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.
SAVE & ACCEPT
Powered by CookieYes Logo