ACB DOJ Movie Theater Comments



Comments of the American Council of the Blind regarding the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act28 C.F.R. Part 36; CRT Docket No. 126; AG Order No. 3449-2014 RIN 1190-AA63Movie Captioning and Video DescriptionNovember 18, 2014The American Council of the Blind (ACB) is a leading national membership organization. Its members are blind, visually impaired, and fully sighted individuals who are concerned about the dignity and well-being of blind people throughout the nation.Established in 1961, ACB is one of the largest organizations of people who are blind in the world, with more than 70 state and special interest affiliates and a nationwide network of chapters and members spanning the globe.In 2008, ACB established the Audio Description Project (ADP) to boost levels of description activity and disseminate information on audio description work throughout the United States and worldwide. ACB is committed to the development of audio description in a wide range of formats, including movie theaters. ACB along with the American Foundation for the Blind (AFB) appreciate the opportunity to respond to this notice of proposed rulemaking. Any reference to ACB in this document includes AFB. We will respond to specific questions in a narrative form. Introduction: The addition of description to a movie’s soundtrack increases the accessibility to the content and grows the size of the audience of those who are blind or who have low vision. Description enhances the viewing experience not only for those who need the service, but also for those who view a film with the visually impaired person. There is no legitimate reason why a person with a disability must also be culturally disadvantaged. The creator of any work to be publicly accessible must consider how his/her work is enhanced by universal access, the use of captions and audio description, or other enabling techniques. An architect who designs a building may not view the installation of ramps or lifts as part of his/her vision. And yet how inappropriate would it be for the museum housed in that building to ask that visitors who use wheelchairs to “bring your own ramp” if you want to venture inside! (Question 3): Should "audio description" be the nomenclature adopted in the final rule? A: ACB strongly supports the DOJ position that the term audio description be used as the official term to describe this method of effective communication.The generic phrase referencing the use of language to provide access to visual images is (and has been since the late 1970s) audio description. In whatever format (film/movies, DVDs, performing arts, museums), the description is made available as audio, in an aural format. The generic logo indicating the availability of description (as established by the National Endowment for the Arts and the Graphic Artists Guild) is AD))) and there is long-standing, established federal precedent in the government for the phrase “audio description.” For many years, the National Park Service has produced copious documents that refer to “audio description” and the Service regularly requisitions audio description for its videos and films. As a practical matter, newspaper and online movie listings include information about accessibility for a particular film by using CC for Close Captioning - but the letters VD (for video description) are not used because of the negative social connotation. Captions, by the way, are not referred to as “video” captions simply because they occur on television or with a video. ACB and its Audio Description Project is committed to spreading the word about audio description; we ask that the US Department of Justice help in that effort by maintaining the use of the phrase audio description - one phrase that can be universally applied - and helpful to people to know this important access service by knowing what to call it.(Question 7): Is the proposed six-month compliance date for digital screens a reasonable timeframe to comply with the rule? Is six months enough time to order, install, and gain familiarity using the necessary equipment; train staff so that they can meaningfully assist patrons; and meet the notice requirement of the proposed rule? Will manufacturers have the capacity to provide the necessary equipment for captioning and audio description as of the six-month proposed compliance date of this rule for digital movie screens? If the proposed six-month date is not reasonable, what should the compliance date be and why? Please provide specific examples, data, or explanation in support of your responses. A: ACB strongly supports the DOJ position that 100% of all digital theater screens provide audio description services within six months of the issuance of this ruling. Several large theater chains have already committed to have 100% of their screens equipped with audio description by the end of calendar year 2014. This equipment is readily available and should pose no undue burden for implementation. We believe it is important for visually impaired consumers to have the ability to view movies in their local communities wherever a digital screen exists with audio description.(Question 8): Should the Department adopt a four-year compliance date for analog movie screens (Option 1) or should it defer application of the rule's requirements to analog screens for now and consider additional rulemaking with respect to analog screens at a later date (Option 2)? Commenters are encouraged to provide information to support their recommendation.A: ACB supports the position of DOJ that four years is an adequate time for analogue theaters to make the transition to digital audio description equipment available for use by the blind and visually impaired community. We believe the current shift of the movie industry from analogue to digital will require these theaters to convert to digital technology sooner rather than later to remain financially viable. However, we think it is very important to provide services the underserved blind and visually impaired movie-goer in rural and low population communities. In many circumstances these blind and visually impaired consumers must travel large distances to reach movie theaters that offer audio description. It is important for the DOJ to consider DVD and other internet movie distribution networks as well for meeting this underserved population. We realize and concur with the Department that, particularly in small towns and in rural America, there will be some theaters that will simply not have the resources to make the conversion to digital delivery. For those areas, access to audio description on DVDs may well represent the only way that people who are blind can enjoy all the elements of a presentation that others take for granted.Another element that we believe needs further consideration concerns how audio description is delivered. We have already suggested that there is validity to making audio description on DVDs an inherent element of coverage. We should add that it is crucial that, in addition to actually being required to include audio description on DVDs, there be a requirement that an approach be found that will assure that people who are blind can actually find where the described version of the movie is located on that DVD. There have been a number of menus that can be accessed using traditional controls because they speak. They have been around for well over a decade but have not gained much traction. We believe that it is high time that the Department look to make some method mandatory that would allow people who are blind to fully utilize the DVDs with audio description they buy. We would request that the Department mandate audible accessible menus on DVDs. Why not consider making the default version that plays when the video is inserted into the player the one that includes audio description? The sighted viewer could easily turn off the audio description feature. This is a simple approach that would cost providers nothing and would allow people who are blind to be included in the whole DVD experience with the accessibility actually there to utilize. We feel that this is relevant to this NPRM because of our belief that there must be recognition that people who are blind deserve access to audio description wherever they live and whatever format they utilize.(Question 12): How many devices capable of transmitting audio description to individuals should each movie theater have on hand for use by patrons who are blind or have low vision? Should the number of individual audio-description listening devices be tied to the number of seats in each auditorium or other location with a movie screen? Should the number of individual audio-description listening devices be tied to the number of seats in the theater facility as a whole? Please provide the basis for your comment. How many movie theaters have two-channel receivers that can be used to provide audio description? How many movie theaters will need to buy additional individual audio description listening devices? How much do audio description listening devices that meet the requirements of this proposed rule cost?A: ACB believes it is very important that we provide a sufficient quantity of audio description devices to support a group of blind and visually impaired consumers attending a movie at the same time. Many blind and visually impaired individuals have friends and family members that are also blind or visually impaired. Therefore, we recommend that all theaters provide eight audio description devices or two audio description devices per screen, whichever is the larger amount. We appreciate the cost involved with purchasing audio description devices and are supportive of devices that allow both audio description and assisted listening capability to consumers. However, it is important that theater staff understand how to configure this dual equipment for audio description consumers. Please see the comments associated to (question 15) for more information on theater staff training.(Question 14): It is the Department's view that the cost of the proposed requirement for theaters to provide notice indicating which screenings will be captioned or audio-described is de minimal. The Department requests comments on this view. Specifically, how much will it cost theaters to provide information regarding the availability of captioning and audio description for each movie and to specify whether open movie captions or closed movie captions will be provided for each particular showing and time? The Department understands that this cost may vary depending on the type of communication or advertisement, and so we request that commenters specify the type of communication or advertisement along with their cost estimate. In addition, how many times in a given year do theaters provide communications and advertisements that would trigger this proposed requirement? The Department understands that this will likely vary depending on how many screens a theater has, and so we request theater commenters to specify how many screens they operate in their response to this question. Because the rule would require 100 percent of movies available with captions and audio description to be shown with these accessibility features, should the Department permit theaters to indicate those movies that do not have these features rather than indicating those that have these features? Would this approach have an effect on the cost of providing notice? If so, how would it affect the cost?A: ACB takes exception to the notion that the cost of marketing audio description should be negligible. We believe that the Department should set a minimum of one-half percent of the marketing budget that theater chains and theaters should be required to spend to advertise and promote the availability of captioning and audio description. Unless theaters are mandated to market these accessibility services, the growth in their use will be extremely slow.ACB agrees with the Department’s suggestion that the actual cost of a proposed requirement for theaters to provide notice indicating which screenings will be captioned or audio described will be minimal. It is difficult for ACB to determine precisely what those costs would be or the number of times per month that theaters distribute their schedule information. But we assume that simply adding the AD))) or CC logos to already purchased print advertisements (or by adding the logos to material provided to Tribune Media or Rovi) could be accomplished at little, if any, cost. Similarly, adding the logos to material already submitted to websites (Fandango, , etc.) would require no additional cost.In addition, if this information is provided to ACB’s Audio Description Project, we can ensure that the information regarding described films could be distributed regularly and widely at a nominal cost to the theater chains and theaters for the benefit of the intended audience, especially via the Audio Description Project’s popular website (adp), Facebook presence and Twitter feeds. We believe that a positive approach to theater advertising is best, i.e., noting the presence of access for films that provide audio description (as opposed to indicating its absence and putting consumers in the awkward position of having to assume that *all* other films are accessible).It is imperative that theater chains and theaters be required to affirmatively market the availability of movies that are audio described. It is crucial that all ads for movies include information about whether the movie is audio described or captioned. It is not sufficient that this information be available in a few locations or formats. It should be available through a wide array of online listings; through listings run on apps available for hand-held mobile phones; and on telephone information lines where movie times and locations are listed; in printed media such as newspapers, magazines; and in such other places as information about scheduled showings may be made available to the general public.This is crucial for two reasons. First, many potential users of audio description have no idea it is available. Having family or friends seeing information that indicates that audio description is available can be an encouragement for people with vision loss to attend movies in theaters which they otherwise would not have done. Many members of the general public may also not know it is available and may well have friends or family members who they will encourage to attend movies once the service is understood to be available.We believe that a positive and proactive approach to theater advertisements is best, i.e., noting the presence of access for films that provide audio description (as opposed to indicating its absence and putting consumers in the awkward position of having to assume that *all* other films are accessible).Finally, we believe that every theater should be required to announce at the start of every performance that the movie that is about to be shown has captions and audio description available. This will allow all of those present at the theater to know that these options exist and are free to patrons who can benefit from their use. This could be an announcement on screen similar to the “turn off cell phones” message at the beginning of all movie showings. We think it would also be helpful if these announcements included an example of what audio description and closed captioning are to increase understanding among the general public. Further, it would also be very useful if the announcement about audio description and captioning showed before the movie starts, actually included a little audio description so the blind or visually impaired person could know that their receiver is working correctly. Presently, there is no audio description until the movie actually starts – none of the trailers at the beginning have description. If your unit is not working correctly, it’s a bit late to do much about it without missing the beginning of the film.(Question 15): How much additional time beyond the normal time movie theaters spend training staff would be needed to incorporate instruction in the operation and maintenance of the equipment for captioning or audio description? How much additional time do theaters anticipate spending on assisting patrons in using the captioning and audio description devices? How should the Department estimate the value of the additional time theater personnel would spend on assisting patrons in using the captioning and audio description devices? Would that additional cost be borne by the theaters, and if so, how? A: ACB believes that it is absolutely critical for movie theater staff to have adequate training in access awareness (including an understanding of the nature of blindness or low vision) and theater equipment maintenance and operation. For example, all too often equipment set for assisted listening are given to blind or visually impaired consumers who desire audio description. By the time the problems are discovered, the film has already begun and addressing the issue disturbs other patrons and the description consumer ends up missing the film’s opening sequences. Even when the equipment functions properly, many times the signal doesn’t reach all portions of the theater. Blind and visually impaired consumers need a way to determine that the equipment is functioning properly before the start of the feature presentation. Please see (14) for more details.In addition, some training in providing effective services to individuals who are blind or visually impaired such as sighted guide technique. Often, theater staff will direct information to a sighted companion, ignoring the description consumer. Ideally, two to four hours of training would be focused on the audio description equipment technology and the proper interaction with blind and visually impaired consumers. (Question 17): The Department invites comment on methods and data for monetizing or quantifying the societal benefits of the proposed regulation, including benefits to persons who are deaf or hard of hearing or blind or have low vision, as well as to other members of the movie-going public or other entities. For example, the Department invites comments on methods and data for estimating the number of people with vision or hearing disabilities who would benefit from this rule, and addressing the challenges noted above in developing such an estimate, as well as comments on methods and data that could be used to estimate the value of the different types of benefits noted above. The Department also invites comments on its qualitative discussion of the benefits of this rule, which include equity, human dignity, and fairness. A: Perhaps the most important need addressed by audio description in movie theaters is the ability to bring children and adults who are blind or have low vision into the mainstream of society. The inability of anyone, adult or child, to participate fully in popular culture - which has a unique power to bind us together - effectively alienates individuals who are blind or visually impaired from his/her community. As such, description provides the keys to our culture to the extent that description helps people who are blind or visually impaired be more familiar with media (television and movies), museums, theater, and other everyday events, thus allowing the description user to be more engaged and engaging individuals. This makes it possible for the user of audio description to be more socially integrated into society and develop stronger employment skills.As background to the information from the U.S. Census describing the blind and visually impaired population, we would also like to offer more demographic information detailed below. We have found that many newly blind and visually impaired individuals do not define themselves as visually impaired to the formal U.S. Census process. The most current demographic information available reveals that more than 25 million Americans (about 1 out of every 15 people) report experiencing significant vision loss, i.e., individuals who have trouble seeing, even when wearing glasses or contact lenses, as well as individuals who are blind.According to the report for the 2012 National Health Interview Survey, 20.6 million American adults age 18 and older reported experiencing vision loss. The term “vision loss” refers to individuals who reported that they have trouble seeing, even when wearing glasses or contact lenses, as well as to individuals who reported that they are blind or unable to see at all. This estimate pertains to a nationally representative sample of the non-institutionalized civilian population 18 years of age and over.Of this population, at least 6.5 million individuals are more severely visually impaired. Survey data of state special education staff found that over 93,000 children served through special education (ages 0 to 21) in 1998 were visually impaired or blind (American Foundation for the Blind, 2000). Data collected by the American Printing House for the Blind indicates there were 55,200 legally blind children in 1999.Conclusion: The Department of Justice has, in its latest NPRM, substantially extended the obligations that theaters have to make audio description available. The comments that follow do not only speak directly to the NPRM, but also raise issues that we believe deserve serious consideration.As with so many other issues, audio description has found applications far beyond the live performance venues and movie theaters. It is now accepted as a valid accommodation in museums and art galleries, is provided on DVDs, appears on the Internet to clarify visual content and is being included in applications that are being developed for computers, telephones and tablets.We would suggest that the Department consider recognizing that audio description needs now to be considered independently of the other elements with which it has, in the past, been associated. If there is validity in making audio description available on television or in movie theaters, surely there is no difference in the efficacy of making it available on DVDs, on the Internet or in applications. Just as people who are blind have the right to access information wherever it is generated, we believe that, as an inherent component of such information access, the clarification provided by audio description ought to be included.We would reiterate a position we have taken in the past in other comments we have made. The history of access for people who are blind since the passage of relevant civil rights laws has been limited and accretive. Instead of taking the position that people who are blind have the right to be fully included in all components of society, the Department has chosen to force people who are blind to fight for each new element of coverage that has been acquired. It is beyond the scope of these comments to outline the history of audio description. However, long before audio description appeared in theaters, people who are blind were spending their own money to buy video tapes that included audio description. In meetings we had with the motion picture industry as early as 1987, we were assured that audio description would be provided as soon as the conversion to DVDs happened. We were asked as a group to cut the industry some slack and to have faith. More and more studios have now begun to provide audio description for theaters, but the promise that was made with regard to DVDs has not been fully kept. We do not have firm statistics, but we believe that no more than 35 percent of the movies that are audio described in theaters make it to DVD.Future Developments: There are a number of companies who are exploring the delivery of audio description through applications on cell phones. Essentially they would utilize wireless connections to get access to a stream or would allow the audio description file to be downloaded in advance by the user. This approach would enable a person who is blind to access an audio description track with their phone. Audio description could be made available in a variety of languages and is more likely to be clear and not subject to poor reception. These systems have the ability to synchronize the audio description directly to the sound track of the movie as heard in the theater or home setting, and may represent an approach that has real potential to meet and augment audio descriptive obligations in innovative ways in the future. This approach might also allow audio description to be provided in the home with DVDs that do not have description by using the same synchronization approach used in the theater. This is another example of how crucial it is to do two things: first, as stated several times earlier, we cannot consider a narrow and directed response to this NPRM and must instead focus on making audio description available wherever it is being delivered. Second, we must all recognize that there may be other approaches to creating access to audio description than those being proposed in the NPRM that deserve serious consideration.We have indicated throughout our comments that we believe that the Department must broaden its approach to audio description or leave people who are blind outside of coverage as the potential for audio description expands. In the United States, we are currently in the midst of a digital revolution. There is a huge range of platforms where movies are now being viewed. It is probably true that more people view motion pictures outside theaters than in them. Broadcast television channels, cable television channels, satellite television channels, and channels delivered from the Internet either repeat those components available elsewhere or package movies and other content which is purchased separately. An example of this last kind of delivery is Netflix, while Amazon is emerging with a slightly different model. In addition to all of these approaches to delivering content, there are other boxes such as "Apple TV" where content is being aggregated. Even though this NPRM speaks to movie theaters, we believe the Department must include in it some direction for those providing content in these various ways to make certain that they consider the needs of people who are blind or have low vision. We wish to recognize one cable provider, Comcast, that is leading the industry in accessibility to their platform for develop an interface that is accessible and that may make audio description accessible in the future. However, other cable providers don’t appear to be taking seriously their obligation to be accessible to people who are blind or have low vision. We are convinced that it is crucial that the Department of Justice recognize that, without its intervention, audio description will absolutely not be successful in fulfilling the potential it has to enrich the lives of millions of Americans who are blind or visually impaired. We look forward to DOJ taking a strong look at where the future is headed related to new digital platforms and ensuring the rights of all blind and visually impaired individuals to have accessibility and access to this content. Thank you very much for your efforts to improve the lives of blind and visually impaired consumers.Respectfully Submitted,Eric BridgesDirector of External Relations and PolicyAmerican Council of the Blind2200 Wilson Blvd., Suite 650Arlington, VA 22201(202) 467-5081Email: ebridges@American Foundation for the Blind 1660 L Street, NW, Suite 513 Washington, DC 20036 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download