What are the specific lab content policies?

[Jim Carlile]

Did anyone ever figure out just what Yale's specific policy is regarding content? Or others?

I was amused to see the recent discussion on censorship. I agree with Chas, not with Moviestuff. I think this "child porn" rationale is pretext-- no one is criticizing labs for refusing to handle illegal material.

But Yale's policy seems vague. And I am curious what they do when it comes to lab work. Say you turn in something for developing and printing and it violates their policy. What happens?

Telecine they just call you up and tell you to come down and get it. But lab work--hmm, do they have an enforceable policy on this?

Moviestuff, please don't freak out on this-- it's a good question. I've heard what they do and apparently it does not make you happy

[Evan Kubota]

They don't watch film as it's being processed... worst case scenario they somehow catch wind of what was on it and might not want your business anymore. Their loss. It might better to limit your work there to stuff that is not going to be printed or transferred.

OTOH, Yale's prices aren't great so unless there's some screaming reason to support their beliefs I can't foresee sending anything there.

[Evan Kubota]

They don't watch film as it's being processed... worst case scenario they somehow catch wind of what was on it and might not want your business anymore. Their loss. It might better to limit your work there to stuff that is not going to be printed or transferred.

OTOH, Yale's prices aren't great so unless there's some screaming reason to support their beliefs I can't foresee sending anything there.

[TronX]

Nagisha Oshima's "Ai No Koriida" (In The Real Of The Senses; 1976) was a period piece about WWI and Abe Sada. Oshima was staunchly anti-censorship and insisted the film contain hardcore pornographic material. As a result, the exposed film had to be sent to France for processing and an un-cut version has yet to be displayed in Japan.

What Yale seems to be doing is imposing its opinions upon filmmakers, which I disagree with. The argument I've heard in their defense deals with child pornography and how they would not want to be held responsible. My question is, why would a child pornographer shoot on film? It requires time for processing, it can be cumbersome to work with, and it is far more expensive. If I were a child pornographer - which I am most certainly not - I would definitely choose video over film. Therefore, Yale's argument seems invalid and unnecessary.

[MovieStuff]

Did anyone ever figure out just what Yale's specific policy is regarding content? .....
But Yale's policy seems vague.

Oh for pete's sake. Here's their policy, as stated clearly on their website:


We realize that the artist has full and total choice of expression. However, we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. As a policy, we do not and will not process, print, repair, or transfer any film containing: nudity, pornography, sexual acts (either real or simulated), lewdness, satanic, occultic, religiously blasphemous, exploitative of children, debasement of women, containing S & M, anything illegal, or in any way extremely offensive to us. Nor will we participate in the desensitization of or the glorification of killing, rape, violence, gore, suicide, torture, profanity, etc.… whether in visual or audio form.

Moviestuff, please don't freak out on this-- it's a good question.

It's a question that's been asked and answered a dozen times. Nothing new here. You just like to stir up debate about a non-issue. Like Evan says, their prices are not that terrific so who cares. Like I've said before, complaining about Yale is like balking at the price of a hooker in a sea of whores. Just go down the street and use someone else.

I've heard what they do .....

But still have no first hand experience.

Typical.

Roger

[MovieStuff]

If I were a child pornographer - which I am most certainly not - I would definitely choose video over film. Therefore, Yale's argument seems invalid and unnecessary.

Which is why that isn't their argument. See my post above. Their policy is very specific and everyone that really cares has researched it and is familiar with it. I don't agree with it but, as they say, they recognize that the artist has full and total choice of expression. But they don't have to participate in any film project that they do not want to be involved with which, funny as it may seem, is your right also. ;)

Roger

[Evan Kubota]

"their policy is very specific"

Actually, it's not... claiming to reject anything that "desensitizes to or glorifies violence" is hopelessly difficult to determine - especially without any knowledge of the context in the finished film. Single shots of "A History of Violence" could be construed as glorifying it, but definitely not the whole film.

Also, the insertion of "anything offensive to us" is a huge catchall. I think the original poster is simply trying to get some real-world examples of what will and won't be allowed.

Even if Yale didn't have this policy I would probably not use them...

[Joe Gioielli]

If anyone has a question about their policy, contact Yale and talk to them about it.

Geezum Crow, how hard is that to figure out?:roll:

[MovieStuff]

"their policy is very specific"

Actually, it's not...

Well, you could make changes and additions forever but it's as specific as it needs to be for any first time customer to make a logical choice about what lab they might consider for their project. If you have the impression from their posted policy that Yale isn't the right place for your film, and it appears you have, then I would say it has served its purpose. Does this mean that Yale might be missing out on some otherwise unoffensive material because of a misunderstanding? Probably, but that's their choice and their loss; no one elses.

If anyone has a question about their policy, contact Yale and talk to them about it.

Geezum Crow, how hard is that to figure out?Rolling Eyes

Absolutely. Don't take my word or anyone else's about Yale. Just call them and talk to the owner. Short of that simple and logical effort, any experienced film makers that read Yale's policy and still maintain that they "don't get it" are being purposely obtuse for the sake of argument.

Roger

[Angus]

"anything that offends us"....could mean anything they decide on a particular day.

No S&M....well that rules out the film I am planning to make in July!!!

[BolexPlusX]

Say!

We've beaten this to death 80 times, but only beaten the JFK assasination to death 3 times.

Would Yale have processed the Zapruder film?

Did Yale kill JFK?

[Actor]

Since MovieStuff is in the transfer business I'd be interested in hearing what his policy is. If he will transfer anything then I applaud him but on the other hand I wonder if such a policy is practical for a businessman. Obscenity and pornography are difficult to define but a totally pragmatic definition is "anything that the local cops, district attorney and other sundry politicians and powers that be say it is." If you disagree with that definition then you'd best have a lot of time and money to fight them in court.

There were two separate cases some years back involving alledged child porn. In one a father photographed his toddler in the nude. Since the girl's genitalia were exposed and "at the wrong angle" the lab turned the guy in as a child pornographer. In a similar case a woman was charged for photographing her son in a bathtub. She thought it was funny and cute. The lab and the prosecutor disagreed. I don't know the outcome of either case.

So I see the question as simply one of whether the owners of a lab want to make a profit or to crusade for freedom of expression.

[MovieStuff]

Since MovieStuff is in the transfer business I'd be interested in hearing what his policy is. If he will transfer anything then I applaud him but on the other hand I wonder if such a policy is practical for a businessman.

Hell, I may decide not to transfer something if I wake up with gas.

But, to answer your question more accurately, we will pretty much transfer anything. However, there was one time that we knew our daughter was going to be in the shop all during the summer and we turned down a job that we knew was going to contain male nudity and some homo-erotic material. I really didn't care one way or the other but it would have been awkward trying to keep our 6 year old from seeing it. Did I explain all this to the prospective client? Nope. Not required. We just politely said that we would rather not handle it and he took it somewhere else.

And, of course, that's the whole point. As a business owner, I can decide when I want to do business and when I don't. I don't really even have to provide a reason at all, much less a good reason that satisfies the masses. That Yale labs actually provides a whole list of reasons is really hilarious considering how many people try to paint them as being capricious in their selection of what they will and will not handle.

Maybe they wake up with gas, too.

Roger

[CHAS]

Did anyone ever figure out just what Yale's specific policy is regarding content? Or others?

I was amused to see the recent discussion on censorship. I agree with Chas, not with Moviestuff. I think this "child porn" rationale is pretext-- no one is criticizing labs for refusing to handle illegal material.

But Yale's policy seems vague. And I am curious what they do when it comes to lab work. Say you turn in something for developing and printing and it violates their policy. What happens?

Telecine they just call you up and tell you to come down and get it. But lab work--hmm, do they have an enforceable policy on this?

Moviestuff, please don't freak out on this-- it's a good question. I've heard what they do and apparently it does not make you happy

It's funny, Jim, how you like to pop up on forums only when it's a matter of Yale labs ... I'll never forget the hilarious postings you made on the old alt.net S8 forum ... for the record, I never meant to make that previous thread about Yale -- I was trying to talk about how much I liked the Spectra lab. Perhaps you should get your "controversial" work transferred/processed over there. No reason to bring up Yale anymore since there is a choice, their prices are better, and they are only five minutes away.

[Evan Kubota]

"As a business owner, I can decide when I want to do business and when I don't. I don't really even have to provide a reason at all, much less a good reason that satisfies the masses."

I think we got into this in the other thread also, but you aren't allowed to reject whatever you want in some cases. If I owned a store and refused to sell anything to blacks (or Mexicans, or Chinese, etc.) I would be rightfully targeted by anti-discrimination groups and so on.

I admit that a transfer house is a little different since you aren't simply selling something but also dealing with content provided by the person purchasing the service. I still believe that unless it's illegal there is an unspoken, implied belief that the posthouse will handle whatever you give them.

Example. Kinko's doesn't want you to xerox copyrighted materials on their machines, but other than that and blatantly illegal content (kiddie porn, etc) it seems like you should be able to do what you want. I'm not sure what their actual policy is.