Married at First Sight

[Vice Admiral]

I don’t think it’s right to go on cluttering up the Movies/Films/TV – Opinions thread (which is essentially for brief recommendations) with the Married at First Sight controversy, so I’m starting a new thread.  Which may or may not be of interest to others.

This is what I posted yesterday.
__________________________________ 

There was more on this on Newsnight last night, and there’s a detailed analysis here:
External Link/Members Only

I find the concept of these programmes distasteful.  I don’t watch them, but then they’re not aimed at me.  In any case what is to my taste is neither here nor there.  But there are issues that go beyond taste.

On last night’s Newsnight there was a bright and articulate young woman who had appeared on Love Island a few years ago, who spoke of the welfare team and the fact that afterwards those who appeared were entitled to a minimum of ten sessions with a psychologist.

And Google AI has this:  “The Love Island welfare team is a dedicated group of registered mental health professionals, independent doctors, and psychological consultants employed by ITV. They provide comprehensive duty of care to contestants before, during, and for over a year after their appearance on the show.”

There have, however, been two suicides by Love Island contestants, and famously it was a suicide that put paid to The Jeremy Kyle Show.

I find rather odd that programmes involving ordinary members of the public – by definition, amateurs in a professional world – should require safeguarding teams, the reason demonstrably being that the contestants are regarded as potentially vulnerable.

Those who appear on The Chase presumably don’t need psychologists to be available.  Nor, I imagine, did contestants on The Generation Game.

Bring back wholesome family entertainment!  Come back, Mary Whitehouse, all is forgiven!

[Vice Admiral]

In yesterday’s Times, Daisy Goodwin – who apparently 20 years ago created a “reality” show called The Sex Inspectors, which she says was “fairly tame by today’s standards” – addressed the Married at First Sight controversy.  Here are two paragraphs from her article: 

Producers always argue, and I too have been guilty of this, that the punters [her term for contestants!] want to take part in the show. It’s an easy route to fame and fortune. But what no punter can ever understand is the effect that taking part in these shows will have on your psyche. There may be a few people for whom 15 minutes of fame is purely a positive thing, but for so many it exposes them to the kind of public scrutiny previously enjoyed by inhabitants of Bedlam. You can do all the psychiatric vetting you like but no one can predict what people will do in the fiction of a reality show or what shadow it will leave over their lives.

I have to say that the culture at Channel 4 has been particularly conducive to shows that exploit punters. No individual is to blame but the remit of the channel has always been to be original and daring, which has been translated into shocking at any cost. In my experience of pitching to commissioners there, the further you pushed the boundaries, the more likely you were to get a commission.

On the same page there was an article by Gemma Rose Bishop, a previous contestant on Married at First Sight (no date given).  She describes her experience as traumatic.  Here are three paragraphs from her article:

I’d say by the time we got to the honeymoon in Portugal I was a shaking wreck. You’ve had your phone taken away, your passport taken away. You’re in another country with just the producer’s funds and their card. Sometimes I was left in the room for six to eight hours. There were two producers with us and we would be told, “Filming will be happening soon,” but it would get delayed while your anxiety is growing. I couldn’t go out and do anything, I was told to wait.

I called one of the welfare team back in the UK on the burner phone I’d been given, which had only a couple of numbers on it. She said: “I’ll get back to you, your producers are there.” It was a really poor management of mental health.

They give you an option of whether or not you’re going to stay together in a room, in a bed. They allocate double the number of rooms and apartments in case you’re not together, but they do encourage you to be present in what is expected of the experiment. There is pressure.

[RandomGuy99]

It's a mental idea for a show and clearly attracted some strange people

[mr.bluesky]

It's a mental idea for a show and clearly attracted some strange people

A typical reality tv show for airheads who just want their 5 minutes worth of fame.

[PilotMan]

A typical reality tv show for airheads who just want their 5 minutes worth of fame.

Exactly.

I don't believe that anybody, male or female, goes in to these shows with the altruistic aim of getting a Cinderella fairy tale.

Then they want to complain about their mental health and how it affected them. Unfortunately, we live in a blame and claim culture, nobody wants to take responsibility for their own actions / inactions.

Maybe there should be harder scrutiny and obtaining disclaimers from those they allow in the show.

[bigden40]

In yesterday’s Times, Daisy Goodwin – who apparently 20 years ago created a “reality” show called The Sex Inspectors, which she says was “fairly tame by today’s standards” – addressed the Married at First Sight controversy.  Here are two paragraphs from her article: 

Producers always argue, and I too have been guilty of this, that the punters [her term for contestants!] want to take part in the show. It’s an easy route to fame and fortune. But what no punter can ever understand is the effect that taking part in these shows will have on your psyche. There may be a few people for whom 15 minutes of fame is purely a positive thing, but for so many it exposes them to the kind of public scrutiny previously enjoyed by inhabitants of Bedlam. You can do all the psychiatric vetting you like but no one can predict what people will do in the fiction of a reality show or what shadow it will leave over their lives.

I have to say that the culture at Channel 4 has been particularly conducive to shows that exploit punters. No individual is to blame but the remit of the channel has always been to be original and daring, which has been translated into shocking at any cost. In my experience of pitching to commissioners there, the further you pushed the boundaries, the more likely you were to get a commission.

On the same page there was an article by Gemma Rose Bishop, a previous contestant on Married at First Sight (no date given).  She describes her experience as traumatic.  Here are three paragraphs from her article:

I’d say by the time we got to the honeymoon in Portugal I was a shaking wreck. You’ve had your phone taken away, your passport taken away. You’re in another country with just the producer’s funds and their card. Sometimes I was left in the room for six to eight hours. There were two producers with us and we would be told, “Filming will be happening soon,” but it would get delayed while your anxiety is growing. I couldn’t go out and do anything, I was told to wait.

I called one of the welfare team back in the UK on the burner phone I’d been given, which had only a couple of numbers on it. She said: “I’ll get back to you, your producers are there.” It was a really poor management of mental health.

They give you an option of whether or not you’re going to stay together in a room, in a bed. They allocate double the number of rooms and apartments in case you’re not together, but they do encourage you to be present in what is expected of the experiment. There is pressure.

The need to shock and push boundaries has always been there. 

Does anyone remember “There’s Something About Miriam”?

[Squire Haggard]

I dont watch shite like reality TV. Similarly, if I see dogshit on the pavement, I dont stop and examine it.

If somebody wants to do both, thats their choice.

[daviemac]

Chanel 4 and the show's producers should be prosecuted and the show banned. You can't really blame those of such low mentality that they want their 15 minutes of fame by appearing of crap like this.

Channel 4's only consideration is the rating, it's been on the news that 2 women from the UK version were allegedly raped and one male participant was on bail accused of domestic violence while on the show.

It beggars belief.

External Link/Members Only

[Thephoenix]

Bring back Blind Date. 

[Jonestown]

I think Vice Admiral should get himself a dog, take his mind off all this modern day crap.

[bigden40]

There is an interesting question raised by this.

Whilst individuals are primarily responsible for their own criminal or abusive actions, the production bears responsibility for foreseeable risks in the ecosystem they design, control, and monetise - especially when vulnerable people are placed under intense pressure with cameras rolling.

But it's hard to say from the coverage so far the extent to which the production may have failed in their duty of care e.g. one of the three complaints it appears clear that the woman consented to unprotected sex but objected to him not pulling out before cumming - seems a stretch that the production could be liable for that.

I think that the outcome of this could be way more interesting than the show itself.

[Adoniron]

A typical reality tv show for airheads who just want their 5 minutes worth of fame.

Apparently many of them don't apply but are scouted by the producers from the ranks of "influencers" and "content creators".

[Blackpool Rock]

A typical reality tv show for airheads who just want their 5 minutes worth of fame.

Yeah the same as shite like Love Island 
I don't watch any of that crap but at the same time you pick up snippets from channel flicking and items on the news / trailers etc. These shows seem to attract a certain type of fake artificial person whose obsessed with how they look and their image although let's face it the producers only select these types of clones to be on it

As for the people who watch all this reality shite their lives must be so dull and boring that they need to fill a vacuum with something 

[Vice Admiral]

Google AI has this:  “The Love Island welfare team is a dedicated group of registered mental health professionals, independent doctors, and psychological consultants employed by ITV. They provide comprehensive duty of care to contestants before, during, and for over a year after their appearance on the show.”

There have, however, been two suicides by Love Island contestants, and famously it was a suicide that put paid to The Jeremy Kyle Show.

I find rather odd that programmes involving ordinary members of the public – by definition, amateurs in a professional world – should require safeguarding teams, the reason demonstrably being that the contestants are regarded as potentially vulnerable.

Lord Grade, former chairman of the BBC and ITV, makes a similar point in a letter in today's Times:

Broadcasters’ reliance on reality formats involving members of the public is risking a line being crossed, the line that separates entertainment from exploitation. Each new format seems to bring us closer and closer to that abyss. The emergence of the ever-increasing protection measures they are having to adopt to fulfil their duty of care to contestants, both during and after the production, is evidence of the growing risks they are trying, and too often failing, to mitigate.

In the name of what? Viewer titillation and online clicks? As a former broadcaster I would urge broadcasters, in assessing new formats, to ask themselves, “If we need this unprecedented suite of protections for contestants, is this really exploitation?”

The answer is easy: don’t make the show.

[Vice Admiral]

Yesterday’s Sunday Times carried an article by Rod Liddle about Married at First Sight.

Now sometimes my views align with the Rodster’s and, erm, sometimes they don’t.

On this occasion it’s difficult not to be swept along on the wave of his invective – somewhat snobbish though it arguably is.

Here’s an extract:

I have mixed feelings about the likely permanent cancellation of the reality TV show Married at First Sight UK.

On the one hand its end would be a blessing for mankind and might mark our first few tentative steps away from the pixelated pit of filth in which weekend family television viewing is now firmly enmired. On the other hand, they will probably come up with something worse, such as my idea for a show, “Give Her One for Me, Bob”, in which male contestants vie to shag as many young women as possible while suspended above a pool of shortfin mako sharks.

I had high hopes for that, seeing the depths to which the programmers will stoop — in the name of democracy, obviously, cos its what the public wants, innit? Or at least what a significant tranche of the public, raised on alcohol, McCrispys and porn wants. Who would deny them their rights as consumers?

Yes, OK, there will be some bourgeois pearl-clutching here: it is unavoidable. The signifiers of the participants on shows such as MAFS UK — glottal stops, stapled-on lips, tattoos, inarticulacy, pig ignorance, textspeak, a misplaced faith in their own worth and the concomitant demand to be respected while having done nothing to achieve that respect — do not lie, and neither, sadly, do the stats, the number who tune into this rebarbative crap. Three million or so, nearly 5 per cent of the population. Down below the rest of us, then, there is a foetid pool of untrammelled skankery.

[Stevelondon]

There is so much shite on telly these days. I just don’t know how people find the time to watch it all.

I must admit. I’ve never understood the fascination for some folk to follow any of the soaps. Corrie, Eastenders etc.
I’ll be watching morning tv and someone will be going on about the pub in Emmerdale catching fire. Or one of the main male characters turns out to be in fact a woman.
Then recall that several years prior they were talking about exactly the same thing.

Soaps are one of the reasons I never wanted to live in Manchester, Yorkshire or the East End of London 😂

Far too dangerous.

[Blackpool Rock]

There is so much shite on telly these days. I just don’t know how people find the time to watch it all.

I must admit. I’ve never understood the fascination for some folk to follow any of the soaps. Corrie, Eastenders etc.
I’ll be watching morning tv and someone will be going on about the pub in Emmerdale catching fire. Or one of the main male characters turns out to be in fact a woman.
Then recall that several years prior they were talking about exactly the same thing.

Soaps are one of the reasons I never wanted to live in Manchester, Yorkshire or the East End of London 😂

Far too dangerous.

Yeah average life expectancy is 50 which ironically is still higher than the average IQ of the viewers   

[sadolddeejay]

Soaps are one of the reasons I never wanted to live in Manchester, Yorkshire or the East End of London 😂

Far too dangerous.

Property's cheap in Midsomer by all accounts.

[Stevelondon]

Property's cheap in Midsomer by all accounts.

😂.   I never understood why house prices kept going up in Oxford. 🤷🏼

[DastardlyDick]

😂.   I never understood why house prices kept going up in Oxford. 🤷🏼

People wanting to get rid of the OH?

[Vice Admiral]

Today’s Times has this:

A member of the Married at First Sight UK cast has been arrested on suspicion of rape ... Married at First Sight UK, which has more than three million viewers, is billed as a “bold social experiment” in which single people agree to marry strangers after meeting for the first time at their mock weddings.
Yes, a “bold social experiment” to determine how long it will be before the inevitable happens and a young woman complains of inappropriate behaviour, coercion or worse.

Priya Dogra, the chief executive of Channel 4, said that she was “deeply sorry” for distress caused to the women who alleged they had been raped. The broadcaster has commissioned a review into contributors’ welfare on the show.
Oh well, that’s all right then.

The production company that makes the show, CPL, previously said that its welfare system was “gold standard”.
Oh well, that’s all right then.

[juzz]

VA, you quote a lot from The Times. I sometimes wonder at what point it could make this site open to action based on infringement of copyright laws?

[daviemac]

VA, you quote a lot from The Times. I sometimes wonder at what point it could make this site open to action based on infringement of copyright laws?

How is quoting from a newspaper infringing copyright laws?

[juzz]

How is quoting from a newspaper infringing copyright laws?

I hate quoting AI sources, but this Gemini summary seems to be better than anything I'd write...

In the UK, you can generally only reproduce short excerpts (a few sentences or a short quote) under "fair dealing" exceptions for quotation, criticism, review, or reporting current events. Reproducing whole articles, entire paragraphs, or images requires a paid licence or express permission from the publisher.

The boundaries of what is legally permissible are outlined below:

1. Fair Dealing (Quotations and News Reporting)
UK copyright law allows you to reproduce limited amounts of a newspaper article without permission, provided you meet these strict conditions:
You are reporting on current events or reviewing the article: The exception is only meant for adding your own critique, commentary, or context to the news story.
You use a short extract: There is no specific word count defined in law, but copying just a few lines or a headline is generally safer than copying entire paragraphs.
You provide sufficient acknowledgement: You must clearly credit the author, the newspaper, and include a link back to the original article.
It cannot act as a substitute: If your reproduction means a reader does not need to visit the original newspaper's website, it is copyright infringement.

2. What is strictly forbidden
Unless you have obtained a licence, you must not:
Copy and paste a full article: This is a clear copyright violation.Use screenshots, PDF downloads, or photos:
Simply photographing or screengrabbing a newspaper page to share on your site breaches copyright, even if you link back.
Copy headlines alone: UK courts have ruled that even short, distinct headlines possess copyright and using them without a licence can be an infringement.

Summary of Best Practices
If you want to discuss a news story on your website, the safest and most standard legal approach is to:
Write the article in your own words (as facts cannot be copyrighted, only the original text).
Include a brief, fair dealing quotation with attribution.
Add a direct markdown link to the original article so readers can read the full story on the newspaper's site.

I think VA is pretty good at 'provide sufficient acknowledgement', but less so on the 'substitution' bit - 'If your reproduction means a reader does not need to visit the original newspaper's website, it is copyright infringement.'

Don't get me wrong: I'm not having a go at VA or anyone else, but I am aware that UKP has to be careful in the way it operates. I am sure there are people out there who would like to see the site gone.

Having said that, I could be accused of the same thing quoting AI. But at least AI doesn't usually generate the same word order twice.

[daviemac]

I hate quoting AI sources, but this Gemini summary seems to be better than anything I'd write...

Can you quote or better still link to the actual legislation, not something AI has produced. That way you don't have to write anything or concern yourself with infringing copyright.

As an example this ↓ gives the legalities of prostitution as well as guidelines on the public interest aspect of prosecutions.

External Link/Members Only

Apart from anything else when signing up to the site all member "agree to indemnify UKPunting and its team members against any costs, claims, damages, liability, legal fees, loss and other expenses we may incur resulting from your post(s) or other communications using the UK Punting Forum."

So maybe the legislation covering that as well.

[Vice Admiral]

I think VA is pretty good at 'provide sufficient acknowledgement', but less so on the 'substitution' bit - 'If your reproduction means a reader does not need to visit the original newspaper's website, it is copyright infringement.'

As most users of this site probably realise, the reason I quote extracts from articles in the Times rather than just providing a link is that Times content is behind a paywall.

With regard to the question of “substitution”, I think that it could be argued – should the matter come to court! – that by quoting interesting extracts I am in fact tempting readers to go and read the rest of the article.

Google AI's cautionary comments about avoiding quoting complete articles are, however, noted.   (And incidentally I would be very surprised if AI has copyright status, so I don’t think that Juzz need worry about that.  AI is a tool, not a legal entity, and in any case it is itself doing the “thieving”.)

While it is obviously important for a website like this to remain on the right side of the law, I think it is fair to suggest that Times lawyers probably have bigger fish to fry than to sue UKP on very marginal grounds.  Quite apart from anything else it would provoke much hilarity in the rest of the press.

In any case the “indemnification clause” that Daviemac cites means that, if anyone ends up in the slammer, it will be me rather than Head1!

[juzz]

It is a minefield - like most UK law, there is no exact prescription - it is based on 'reasonable'.  An entry point to what is acceptable under  copyright law would be External Link/Members Only - that is one article the AI used.

I am not sure the paywall is enough reason for no link (I do understand the logic though). The paywall, if anything is demonstrating the value The Times is putting on its material.

[Vice Admiral]

It is a minefield - like most UK law, there is no exact prescription - it is based on 'reasonable'.  An entry point to what is acceptable under  copyright law would be External Link/Members Only - that is one article the AI used.

I am not sure the paywall is enough reason for no link (I do understand the logic though). The paywall, if anything is demonstrating the value The Times is putting on its material.

That thought had occurred to me, and indeed the original draft of my last post made reference to it – but I removed the reference because I thought it might be a bit of a hostage to fortune!

[daviemac]

It is a minefield - like most UK law, there is no exact prescription - it is based on 'reasonable'.  An entry point to what is acceptable under  copyright law would be External Link/Members Only - that is one article the AI used.

I am not sure the paywall is enough reason for no link (I do understand the logic though). The paywall, if anything is demonstrating the value The Times is putting on its material.

Can you address this. -

Apart from anything else when signing up to the site all member "agree to indemnify UKPunting and its team members against any costs, claims, damages, liability, legal fees, loss and other expenses we may incur resulting from your post(s) or other communications using the UK Punting Forum."

I read that to be each member is personally responsible for what they post and the site cannot be held libel.

Happy to be proved wrong though if you show the legislation or official (not AI) legal stand that says otherwise.

[RedKettle]

Can you address this. -

Apart from anything else when signing up to the site all member "agree to indemnify UKPunting and its team members against any costs, claims, damages, liability, legal fees, loss and other expenses we may incur resulting from your post(s) or other communications using the UK Punting Forum."

I read that to be each member is personally responsible for what they post and the site cannot be held libel.

Happy to be proved wrong though if you show the legislation or official (not AI) legal stand that says otherwise.

As an overall point I think you are right.  However in practice a publication would take action against the site and then the site would seek compensation against the member using the indemnity.  That gives the site a couple of problems, firstly tracking down the real ID of the member and secondly do they have the funds to actually compensate the site?  An indemnity with someone who has a fiver to their name is not going to help.

However I am not a lawyer!

[daviemac]

As an overall point I think you are right.  However in practice a publication would take action against the site and then the site would seek compensation against the member using the indemnity.  That gives the site a couple of problems, firstly tracking down the real ID of the member and secondly do they have the funds to actually compensate the site?  An indemnity with someone who has a fiver to their name is not going to help.

However I am not a lawyer!

I will be interested in what juzz has to say on the subject as it's him who claims the site is at risk.

In my opinion the risk of The Times taking legal action against an anonymous punting forum over one or two quotes is less than negligible, it would cost them more to instigate proceedings than any damages settlement they could expect. Especially as it's debatable whether or not what has been quoted falls withing what is legally allowed, not to mention the quotes are on a restricted site.

However, as always, I'm willing to be corrected if juzz can quote reliable legislation or past case history where any publication has taken similar action under similar circumstances and won. 

Who at the Times is going to stand up and state they've been reading an escort review site and seen a couple of quotes?   

[juzz]

I will be interested in what juzz has to say on the subject as it's him who claims the site is at risk.

I am not a lawyer or copyright expert either. Years ago the organisation I worked for was litigated against because its logo had a similar, small component to a large British corporate.  They lost, but it was expensive and traumatic, and since I have been (over?) sensitive to such issues.

I think RK makes a good point - the first port of call would be the site owners, for the simple reason of where else could anyone start? You could go further, and say there is an argument that the site is clearly managed and moderated, and copyright issues could have been addressed as part of that. Just like social media firms say they aren't responsible for what users post, but governments don't agree.  Note that I don't necessarily agree with this - I am largely playing devil's advocate!

In my opinion the risk of The Times taking legal action against an anonymous punting forum over one or two quotes is less than negligible, it would cost them more to instigate proceedings than any damages settlement they could expect. Especially as it's debatable whether or not what has been quoted falls withing what is legally allowed, not to mention the quotes are on a restricted site.

However, as always, I'm willing to be corrected if juzz can quote reliable legislation or past case history where any publication has taken similar action under similar circumstances and won. 

Who at the Times is going to stand up and state they've been reading an escort review site and seen a couple of quotes?   

I tend to agree - but the more quotes there are, the greater the risk it upsets someone. Just a couple wouldn't draw attention, and wouldn't stand up as a case either.  If it was more than that and did draw someone's attention, it has the potential to motivate an ambitious journalist who imagines a headline like 'The Times  shuts down the UK's largest prostitution review site'. I agree that it is low risk, and wouldn't make financial sense, but it does have the potential to be a good story.

I don't think any of us can truly assess the true size of the risk (certainly not me). FWIW, I think it's small to negligible too. But I also think it stands to reason that the more quotes there are on the site, the greater the risk of someone Googling a phrase and getting UKP as a hit. If that happens, the risk profile changes: it then becomes about the risk that they could or would do anything about it. 

I also think it's likely that we have newspaper journalists as members on the site. But I don't think they are the risk!

PS: I just did a test, and accessed the Off Topic section, including this thread, without logging in!

PPS: I'll go digging for copyright infringement cases when I get a bit of time tonight.

[daviemac]

I am not a lawyer or copyright expert either. Years ago the organisation I worked for was litigated against because its logo had a similar, small component to a large British corporate.  They lost, but it was expensive and traumatic, and since I have been (over?) sensitive to such issues.

I'm going to bow out of this, it's obvious you don't really know the legalities of it all so it's a bit pointless really.

What you have quoted is not a like for like example, one company using a logo similar to another is nothing like a few quotes posted by a member of a punting forum. Similar logos mean one company can be mistaken for another larger more successful one.

Finally it might be better if you let the site owner worry about copyright issues and not warn others about their posts. I'm sure if Head1 feels there is any risk the rules will be amended as they have as a result of other legal issues.

[juzz]

I'm going to bow out of this, it's obvious you don't really know the legalities of it all so it's a bit pointless really.

What you have quoted is not a like for like example, one company using a logo similar to another is nothing like a few quotes posted by a member of a punting forum. Similar logos mean one company can be mistaken for another larger more successful one.

Finally it might be better if you let the site owner worry about copyright issues and not warn others about their posts. I'm sure if Head1 feels there is any risk the rules will be amended as they have as a result of other legal issues.

I feel I must say that the logo example was, as I said above, the reason why I am aware and sensitive to copyright issues. It was NOT a comparison of a logo issue with quotes on this forum. That's why, later in the post I said I would go digging for example copyright infringement cases.  I guess that's moot now, but just to close off here is a link with some guidance by the freelance group of the National Union of Journalists. External Link/Members Only  Point 6 is interesting.

To explain a little more the logo issue I endured: The nearest similar (but fictitious) example I can think of is if Wall's ice-cream, whose logo is a stylised heart,  took action against British Heart Foundation because their logo involves a heart as well. Should it succeed? Is there any danger of mix-up? Are BHF trying to pass off or be mistaken for Wall's? Can something like a heart shape be copyrighted?

Copyright is complex, and cases tend to be fought on an individual basis.

I'll bow out as well now. My post was made with good intentions for the site, and I am pleased VA has taken it in that spirit.

[RedKettle]

In my opinion the risk of The Times taking legal action against an anonymous punting forum over one or two quotes is less than negligible, it would cost them more to instigate proceedings than any damages settlement they could expect. Especially as it's debatable whether or not what has been quoted falls withing what is legally allowed, not to mention the quotes are on a restricted site.

I completely agree! I don't think the indemnity is worth much, but no harm having it, but the possibility of legal action over Times articles is good as non existent.