I'm just watching the 22 August 2023 (Acton Yard) episode of "The
Secrets of the London Underground". They did an item about the Unimog
road/rail tug L85 which is used around Acton TfL Museum.

For some reason, all the front shots of it had a blurred patch where the
road number plate is situated.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_departmental_stock#/media/File:Ruislip_Unimog_1000_C622EWT_L85.jpg>

https://i.postimg.cc/0rRhBcg8/vlcsnap-2023-09-01-22h11m13s896.png

Can anyone think why TfL would have requested that the programme should
blur out the numberplate? I see that its registration number C622EWT is
listed on the DVLA as being SORN (with unknown date) so it looks as if
it is confined to the Acton museum and cannot legally be driven on the
road because it is untaxed. I wonder if that is connected with the
reason for blurring - some sort of "you cannot show the number plate of
a SORNed vehicle" rule ;-)

In message <A1WdncVZ558oym_5nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, NY
<me@privacy.net> writes
>I'm just watching the 22 August 2023 (Acton Yard) episode of "The
>Secrets of the London Underground". They did an item about the Unimog
>road/rail tug L85 which is used around Acton TfL Museum.
>
>For some reason, all the front shots of it had a blurred patch where
>the road number plate is situated.
>
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_departmental_stock#/me
>dia/File:Ruislip_Unimog_1000_C622EWT_L85.jpg>
>
>https://i.postimg.cc/0rRhBcg8/vlcsnap-2023-09-01-22h11m13s896.png
>
>Can anyone think why TfL would have requested that the programme should
>blur out the numberplate? I see that its registration number C622EWT is
>listed on the DVLA as being SORN (with unknown date) so it looks as if
>it is confined to the Acton museum and cannot legally be driven on the
>road because it is untaxed. I wonder if that is connected with the
>reason for blurring - some sort of "you cannot show the number plate
>of a SORNed vehicle" rule ;-)

I can't remember what the programme was, but something I caught earlier
in the week had blurring. The thing being blurred was clearly a Red
Funnel ferry, but in some shots the company name was clearly visible (no
attempt at blurring), in others completely blurred. I assumed poor
editing, but with a distinctive livery, why bother ?

Adrian
--
To Reply :
replace "bulleid" with "adrian" - all mail to bulleid is rejected
Sorry for the rigmarole, If I want spam, I'll go to the shops
Every time someone says "I don't believe in trolls", another one dies.

On 01/09/2023 22:51, Adrian wrote:
> In message <A1WdncVZ558oym_5nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, NY
> <me@privacy.net> writes
>> I'm just watching the 22 August 2023 (Acton Yard) episode of "The
>> Secrets of the London Underground". They did an item about the Unimog
>> road/rail tug L85 which is used around Acton TfL Museum.
>>
>> For some reason, all the front shots of it had a blurred patch where
>> the road number plate is situated.
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_departmental_stock#/me
>> dia/File:Ruislip_Unimog_1000_C622EWT_L85.jpg>
>>
>> https://i.postimg.cc/0rRhBcg8/vlcsnap-2023-09-01-22h11m13s896.png
>>
>> Can anyone think why TfL would have requested that the programme
>> should blur out the numberplate? I see that its registration number
>> C622EWT is listed on the DVLA as being SORN (with unknown date) so it
>> looks as if it is confined to the Acton museum and cannot legally be
>> driven on the road because it is untaxed. I wonder if that is
>> connected with the reason for blurring - some sort of "you cannot show
>> the  number plate of a SORNed vehicle" rule ;-)
>
> I can't remember what the programme was, but something I caught earlier
> in the week had blurring.  The thing being blurred was clearly a Red
> Funnel ferry, but in some shots the company name was clearly visible (no
> attempt at blurring), in others completely blurred.  I assumed poor
> editing, but with a distinctive livery, why bother ?

Some channels consistently blur out names and logos. I assumed, perhaps
incorrectly, that this is to avoid product placement, either to comply
with regulations or simply because the owner of the brand declined to
pay up.

Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> wrote:
> In message <A1WdncVZ558oym_5nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, NY
> <me@privacy.net> writes
>> I'm just watching the 22 August 2023 (Acton Yard) episode of "The
>> Secrets of the London Underground". They did an item about the Unimog
>> road/rail tug L85 which is used around Acton TfL Museum.
>>
>> For some reason, all the front shots of it had a blurred patch where
>> the road number plate is situated.
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_departmental_stock#/me
>> dia/File:Ruislip_Unimog_1000_C622EWT_L85.jpg>
>>
>> https://i.postimg.cc/0rRhBcg8/vlcsnap-2023-09-01-22h11m13s896.png
>>
>> Can anyone think why TfL would have requested that the programme should
>> blur out the numberplate? I see that its registration number C622EWT is
>> listed on the DVLA as being SORN (with unknown date) so it looks as if
>> it is confined to the Acton museum and cannot legally be driven on the
>> road because it is untaxed. I wonder if that is connected with the
>> reason for blurring - some sort of "you cannot show the number plate
>> of a SORNed vehicle" rule ;-)
>
> I can't remember what the programme was, but something I caught earlier
> in the week had blurring. The thing being blurred was clearly a Red
> Funnel ferry, but in some shots the company name was clearly visible (no
> attempt at blurring), in others completely blurred. I assumed poor
> editing, but with a distinctive livery, why bother ?

Might an AI blurring bot in the video editing package be doing it
automatically to anything that lools like a number plate or phone number?

On 01/09/2023 23:03, Recliner wrote:
> Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> wrote:
>> In message <A1WdncVZ558oym_5nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, NY
>> <me@privacy.net> writes
>>> I'm just watching the 22 August 2023 (Acton Yard) episode of "The
>>> Secrets of the London Underground". They did an item about the Unimog
>>> road/rail tug L85 which is used around Acton TfL Museum.
>>>
>>> For some reason, all the front shots of it had a blurred patch where
>>> the road number plate is situated.
>>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_departmental_stock#/me
>>> dia/File:Ruislip_Unimog_1000_C622EWT_L85.jpg>
>>>
>>> https://i.postimg.cc/0rRhBcg8/vlcsnap-2023-09-01-22h11m13s896.png
>>>
>>> Can anyone think why TfL would have requested that the programme should
>>> blur out the numberplate? I see that its registration number C622EWT is
>>> listed on the DVLA as being SORN (with unknown date) so it looks as if
>>> it is confined to the Acton museum and cannot legally be driven on the
>>> road because it is untaxed. I wonder if that is connected with the
>>> reason for blurring - some sort of "you cannot show the number plate
>>> of a SORNed vehicle" rule ;-)
>>
>> I can't remember what the programme was, but something I caught earlier
>> in the week had blurring. The thing being blurred was clearly a Red
>> Funnel ferry, but in some shots the company name was clearly visible (no
>> attempt at blurring), in others completely blurred. I assumed poor
>> editing, but with a distinctive livery, why bother ?
>
> Might an AI blurring bot in the video editing package be doing it
> automatically to anything that lools like a number plate or phone number?
>

That would be my guess.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Certes wrote:

>Some channels consistently blur out names and logos. I assumed, perhaps
>incorrectly, that this is to avoid product placement, either to comply
>with regulations or simply because the owner of the brand declined to
>pay up.

What really puzzles me is, usually on C5, when there is a whole
programme about a named company, but occasional examples of the
logo are blurred. Do they have a quota?

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
chris@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1

Plant amazing Acers.

On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 22:03:19 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> wrote:
>> In message <A1WdncVZ558oym_5nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, NY
>> <me@privacy.net> writes
>>> I'm just watching the 22 August 2023 (Acton Yard) episode of "The
>>> Secrets of the London Underground". They did an item about the Unimog
>>> road/rail tug L85 which is used around Acton TfL Museum.
>>>
>>> For some reason, all the front shots of it had a blurred patch where
>>> the road number plate is situated.
>>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_departmental_stock#/me
>>> dia/File:Ruislip_Unimog_1000_C622EWT_L85.jpg>
>>>
>>> https://i.postimg.cc/0rRhBcg8/vlcsnap-2023-09-01-22h11m13s896.png
>>>
>>> Can anyone think why TfL would have requested that the programme should
>>> blur out the numberplate? I see that its registration number C622EWT is
>>> listed on the DVLA as being SORN (with unknown date) so it looks as if
>>> it is confined to the Acton museum and cannot legally be driven on the
>>> road because it is untaxed. I wonder if that is connected with the
>>> reason for blurring - some sort of "you cannot show the number plate
>>> of a SORNed vehicle" rule ;-)
>>
>> I can't remember what the programme was, but something I caught earlier
>> in the week had blurring. The thing being blurred was clearly a Red
>> Funnel ferry, but in some shots the company name was clearly visible (no
>> attempt at blurring), in others completely blurred. I assumed poor
>> editing, but with a distinctive livery, why bother ?
>
>Might an AI blurring bot in the video editing package be doing it
>automatically to anything that lools like a number plate or phone number?

I have noticed it on Google Earth for street names, which is
particularly perverse and irritating.

On 02/09/2023 10:40, Chris J Dixon wrote:
> Certes wrote:
>
>> Some channels consistently blur out names and logos. I assumed, perhaps
>> incorrectly, that this is to avoid product placement, either to comply
>> with regulations or simply because the owner of the brand declined to
>> pay up.
>
> What really puzzles me is, usually on C5, when there is a whole
> programme about a named company, but occasional examples of the
> logo are blurred. Do they have a quota?
>

There used to be a fairly strict set of rules about showing brand names
on TV programmes[1] but that went by the board in 1992. Even then it
wouldn't have applied to a programme about a specific company.

[1] In ITV it involved in turning jars and packets around away fro
camera so that the names weren't prominent. The BBC went one further by
actually producing it's own "brand" labels. The one I remember was Glen
Emma whisky! Pubs in soap operas on both sides had their own brand beer
clips on the hand pumps and keg taps. I believe the pub in Coronation
Street actually had its own beer specially brewed by a local brewery.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 02/09/2023 10:56, Scott wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 22:03:19 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> wrote:
>>> In message <A1WdncVZ558oym_5nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, NY
>>> <me@privacy.net> writes
>>>> I'm just watching the 22 August 2023 (Acton Yard) episode of "The
>>>> Secrets of the London Underground". They did an item about the Unimog
>>>> road/rail tug L85 which is used around Acton TfL Museum.
>>>>
>>>> For some reason, all the front shots of it had a blurred patch where
>>>> the road number plate is situated.
>>>>
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_departmental_stock#/me
>>>> dia/File:Ruislip_Unimog_1000_C622EWT_L85.jpg>
>>>>
>>>> https://i.postimg.cc/0rRhBcg8/vlcsnap-2023-09-01-22h11m13s896.png
>>>>
>>>> Can anyone think why TfL would have requested that the programme should
>>>> blur out the numberplate? I see that its registration number C622EWT is
>>>> listed on the DVLA as being SORN (with unknown date) so it looks as if
>>>> it is confined to the Acton museum and cannot legally be driven on the
>>>> road because it is untaxed. I wonder if that is connected with the
>>>> reason for blurring - some sort of "you cannot show the number plate
>>>> of a SORNed vehicle" rule ;-)
>>>
>>> I can't remember what the programme was, but something I caught earlier
>>> in the week had blurring. The thing being blurred was clearly a Red
>>> Funnel ferry, but in some shots the company name was clearly visible (no
>>> attempt at blurring), in others completely blurred. I assumed poor
>>> editing, but with a distinctive livery, why bother ?
>>
>> Might an AI blurring bot in the video editing package be doing it
>> automatically to anything that lools like a number plate or phone number?
>
> I have noticed it on Google Earth for street names, which is
> particularly perverse and irritating.

Especially when they caption the road name anyway!
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 10:58:24 +0100, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 02/09/2023 10:40, Chris J Dixon wrote:
>> Certes wrote:
>>
>>> Some channels consistently blur out names and logos. I assumed, perhaps
>>> incorrectly, that this is to avoid product placement, either to comply
>>> with regulations or simply because the owner of the brand declined to
>>> pay up.
>>
>> What really puzzles me is, usually on C5, when there is a whole
>> programme about a named company, but occasional examples of the
>> logo are blurred. Do they have a quota?
>
>There used to be a fairly strict set of rules about showing brand names
>on TV programmes[1] but that went by the board in 1992. Even then it
>wouldn't have applied to a programme about a specific company.
>
>[1] In ITV it involved in turning jars and packets around away fro
>camera so that the names weren't prominent. The BBC went one further by
>actually producing it's own "brand" labels. The one I remember was Glen
>Emma whisky! Pubs in soap operas on both sides had their own brand beer
>clips on the hand pumps and keg taps. I believe the pub in Coronation
>Street actually had its own beer specially brewed by a local brewery.

Is it correct that sponsorship and product placement rules have
largely been relaxed for commercial TV but not for the BBC?

What are the rules for channels from outside the UK that are licensed
by Ofcom?

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 10:58:24 +0100, Graeme Wall
> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 02/09/2023 10:40, Chris J Dixon wrote:
>>> Certes wrote:
>>>
>>>> Some channels consistently blur out names and logos. I assumed, perhaps
>>>> incorrectly, that this is to avoid product placement, either to comply
>>>> with regulations or simply because the owner of the brand declined to
>>>> pay up.
>>>
>>> What really puzzles me is, usually on C5, when there is a whole
>>> programme about a named company, but occasional examples of the
>>> logo are blurred. Do they have a quota?
>>
>> There used to be a fairly strict set of rules about showing brand names
>> on TV programmes[1] but that went by the board in 1992. Even then it
>> wouldn't have applied to a programme about a specific company.
>>
>> [1] In ITV it involved in turning jars and packets around away fro
>> camera so that the names weren't prominent. The BBC went one further by
>> actually producing it's own "brand" labels. The one I remember was Glen
>> Emma whisky! Pubs in soap operas on both sides had their own brand beer
>> clips on the hand pumps and keg taps. I believe the pub in Coronation
>> Street actually had its own beer specially brewed by a local brewery.
>
> Is it correct that sponsorship and product placement rules have
> largely been relaxed for commercial TV but not for the BBC?

One thing I've noticed lately is that with sponsored programmes they now
sometimes use the distinctive voice of someone who appears in the programme
itself, so you could be fooled into thinking the sponsor's ad is part of
tge programme. I don't think that was previously allowed. For example,
David Coulthard's voice is used in the HSBC sponsor's ad before and after
Channel 4 F1 programmes. Not only is he the lead commentator in those
programmes, but his company makes them!

On 02/09/2023 11:09, Scott wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 10:58:24 +0100, Graeme Wall
> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 02/09/2023 10:40, Chris J Dixon wrote:
>>> Certes wrote:
>>>
>>>> Some channels consistently blur out names and logos. I assumed, perhaps
>>>> incorrectly, that this is to avoid product placement, either to comply
>>>> with regulations or simply because the owner of the brand declined to
>>>> pay up.
>>>
>>> What really puzzles me is, usually on C5, when there is a whole
>>> programme about a named company, but occasional examples of the
>>> logo are blurred. Do they have a quota?
>>
>> There used to be a fairly strict set of rules about showing brand names
>> on TV programmes[1] but that went by the board in 1992. Even then it
>> wouldn't have applied to a programme about a specific company.
>>
>> [1] In ITV it involved in turning jars and packets around away fro
>> camera so that the names weren't prominent. The BBC went one further by
>> actually producing it's own "brand" labels. The one I remember was Glen
>> Emma whisky! Pubs in soap operas on both sides had their own brand beer
>> clips on the hand pumps and keg taps. I believe the pub in Coronation
>> Street actually had its own beer specially brewed by a local brewery.
>
> Is it correct that sponsorship and product placement rules have
> largely been relaxed for commercial TV but not for the BBC?

Basically, the BBCs's not allowed to have commercial sponsorship for
programmes (yet!). Product placement rules are slightly more relaxed in
that no-one at Ofcom really cares.

>
> What are the rules for channels from outside the UK that are licensed
> by Ofcom?

Like everything, it depends…

I was watching a French Sci-Fi series (Missions) on the BBC and they all
use Apple phones!

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 02/09/2023 11:09, Scott wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 10:58:24 +0100, Graeme Wall
>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/09/2023 10:40, Chris J Dixon wrote:
>>>> Certes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Some channels consistently blur out names and logos. I assumed, perhaps
>>>>> incorrectly, that this is to avoid product placement, either to comply
>>>>> with regulations or simply because the owner of the brand declined to
>>>>> pay up.
>>>>
>>>> What really puzzles me is, usually on C5, when there is a whole
>>>> programme about a named company, but occasional examples of the
>>>> logo are blurred. Do they have a quota?
>>>
>>> There used to be a fairly strict set of rules about showing brand names
>>> on TV programmes[1] but that went by the board in 1992. Even then it
>>> wouldn't have applied to a programme about a specific company.
>>>
>>> [1] In ITV it involved in turning jars and packets around away fro
>>> camera so that the names weren't prominent. The BBC went one further by
>>> actually producing it's own "brand" labels. The one I remember was Glen
>>> Emma whisky! Pubs in soap operas on both sides had their own brand beer
>>> clips on the hand pumps and keg taps. I believe the pub in Coronation
>>> Street actually had its own beer specially brewed by a local brewery.
>>
>> Is it correct that sponsorship and product placement rules have
>> largely been relaxed for commercial TV but not for the BBC?
>
> Basically, the BBCs's not allowed to have commercial sponsorship for
> programmes (yet!). Product placement rules are slightly more relaxed in
> that no-one at Ofcom really cares.
>
>>
>> What are the rules for channels from outside the UK that are licensed
>> by Ofcom?
>
> Like everything, it depends…
>
> I was watching a French Sci-Fi series (Missions) on the BBC and they all
> use Apple phones!
>

At least Apple is a leading smartphone maker, so that's not unrealistic. I
remember when Sony Studios made the Bond films, with Ford support. So,
every electronic item (even phones) was a Sony, and every car was a Ford
brand (including Aston Martin).

On 02/09/2023 10:56, Scott wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 22:03:19 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>> Might an AI blurring bot in the video editing package be doing it
>> automatically to anything that looks like a number plate or phone number?
>
> I have noticed it on Google Earth for street names, which is
> particularly perverse and irritating.

Yes it is annoying that the numberplate-blurring algorithm on Google
Streetview also blurs out street names and, even more irritating, house
numbers on gateposts/front doors.

When I need to go visit a client, I usually try to find their house on
Streetview before I set off so I know what to look for once my satnav
has got me to the centre of the postcode. Sometimes you have to go up
and down the street, looking for a house number that has escaped
blurring and then work back from there, hoping that the houses are
either numbered consecutively (eg a cul-de-sac) or else all the odds
consecutive on one side and all the evens consecutive on the other.

Working it out in advance saves having to crawl along a road, looking at
the real house number signs when there is traffic behind me.

On 01/09/2023 22:51, Adrian wrote:
> I can't remember what the programme was, but something I caught earlier
> in the week had blurring.  The thing being blurred was clearly a Red
> Funnel ferry, but in some shots the company name was clearly visible (no
> attempt at blurring), in others completely blurred.  I assumed poor
> editing, but with a distinctive livery, why bother ?

There is no consistency to blurring.

I watched a programme recently that had a small rural company and they
went to a lot of trouble to blur the name. Yet they are quite happy to
advertise multi-million pound football clubs and multi-million pound
sports events.

On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 13:54:13 +0100, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>On 02/09/2023 10:56, Scott wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 22:03:19 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>> Might an AI blurring bot in the video editing package be doing it
>>> automatically to anything that looks like a number plate or phone number?
>>
>> I have noticed it on Google Earth for street names, which is
>> particularly perverse and irritating.
>
>Yes it is annoying that the numberplate-blurring algorithm on Google
>Streetview also blurs out street names and, even more irritating, house
>numbers on gateposts/front doors.
>
>When I need to go visit a client, I usually try to find their house on
>Streetview before I set off so I know what to look for once my satnav
>has got me to the centre of the postcode. Sometimes you have to go up
>and down the street, looking for a house number that has escaped
>blurring and then work back from there, hoping that the houses are
>either numbered consecutively (eg a cul-de-sac) or else all the odds
>consecutive on one side and all the evens consecutive on the other.
>
>Working it out in advance saves having to crawl along a road, looking at
>the real house number signs when there is traffic behind me.

Could they not set up a process that only blurs recognised number
plate formats?

On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 22:54:40 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 01/09/2023 22:51, Adrian wrote:
>> I can't remember what the programme was, but something I caught earlier
>> in the week had blurring.  The thing being blurred was clearly a Red
>> Funnel ferry, but in some shots the company name was clearly visible (no
>> attempt at blurring), in others completely blurred.  I assumed poor
>> editing, but with a distinctive livery, why bother ?
>
>There is no consistency to blurring.
>
>I watched a programme recently that had a small rural company and they
>went to a lot of trouble to blur the name. Yet they are quite happy to
>advertise multi-million pound football clubs and multi-million pound
>sports events.
>
Could this be contractual, that the BBC is requred to acknowledge the
name of the sponsor?

On 03/09/2023 09:58, Scott wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 22:54:40 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On 01/09/2023 22:51, Adrian wrote:
>>> I can't remember what the programme was, but something I caught earlier
>>> in the week had blurring.  The thing being blurred was clearly a Red
>>> Funnel ferry, but in some shots the company name was clearly visible (no
>>> attempt at blurring), in others completely blurred.  I assumed poor
>>> editing, but with a distinctive livery, why bother ?
>>
>> There is no consistency to blurring.
>>
>> I watched a programme recently that had a small rural company and they
>> went to a lot of trouble to blur the name. Yet they are quite happy to
>> advertise multi-million pound football clubs and multi-million pound
>> sports events.
>>
> Could this be contractual, that the BBC is requred to acknowledge the
> name of the sponsor?

Is it the BBC that we are talking about? If it is a bought in programme
it could be the production company's idea.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 11:15:53 +0100, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 03/09/2023 09:58, Scott wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 22:54:40 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/09/2023 22:51, Adrian wrote:
>>>> I can't remember what the programme was, but something I caught earlier
>>>> in the week had blurring.  The thing being blurred was clearly a Red
>>>> Funnel ferry, but in some shots the company name was clearly visible (no
>>>> attempt at blurring), in others completely blurred.  I assumed poor
>>>> editing, but with a distinctive livery, why bother ?
>>>
>>> There is no consistency to blurring.
>>>
>>> I watched a programme recently that had a small rural company and they
>>> went to a lot of trouble to blur the name. Yet they are quite happy to
>>> advertise multi-million pound football clubs and multi-million pound
>>> sports events.
>>>
>> Could this be contractual, that the BBC is requred to acknowledge the
>> name of the sponsor?
>
>Is it the BBC that we are talking about? If it is a bought in programme
>it could be the production company's idea.

I assumed from context that it was the BBC. Also, it is the most
regulated so perhaps the best example. No - the production company
cannot decide whether to include or exclude (for example) the adverts
at a football stadium. There must be clear rules about what is allowed
(eg, no tobacco) and clear rules in the BBC about identifying of
sponsors for sporting events.

On Sun, 03 Sep 2023 09:56:57 +0100, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 13:54:13 +0100, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>On 02/09/2023 10:56, Scott wrote:
>>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 22:03:19 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>> Might an AI blurring bot in the video editing package be doing it
>>>> automatically to anything that looks like a number plate or phone number?
>>>
>>> I have noticed it on Google Earth for street names, which is
>>> particularly perverse and irritating.
>>
>>Yes it is annoying that the numberplate-blurring algorithm on Google
>>Streetview also blurs out street names and, even more irritating, house
>>numbers on gateposts/front doors.
>>
>>When I need to go visit a client, I usually try to find their house on
>>Streetview before I set off so I know what to look for once my satnav
>>has got me to the centre of the postcode. Sometimes you have to go up
>>and down the street, looking for a house number that has escaped
>>blurring and then work back from there, hoping that the houses are
>>either numbered consecutively (eg a cul-de-sac) or else all the odds
>>consecutive on one side and all the evens consecutive on the other.
>>
>>Working it out in advance saves having to crawl along a road, looking at
>>the real house number signs when there is traffic behind me.
>
>Could they not set up a process that only blurs recognised number
>plate formats?

That's probably what the bot is trying to do now. Remember that there's a huge variety of licence plate formats around
the world, and it's probably designed to blur anything that might be a number plate.

On Sun, 03 Sep 2023 14:39:19 +0100, Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 03 Sep 2023 09:56:57 +0100, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 13:54:13 +0100, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 02/09/2023 10:56, Scott wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 22:03:19 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>> Might an AI blurring bot in the video editing package be doing it
>>>>> automatically to anything that looks like a number plate or phone number?
>>>>
>>>> I have noticed it on Google Earth for street names, which is
>>>> particularly perverse and irritating.
>>>
>>>Yes it is annoying that the numberplate-blurring algorithm on Google
>>>Streetview also blurs out street names and, even more irritating, house
>>>numbers on gateposts/front doors.
>>>
>>>When I need to go visit a client, I usually try to find their house on
>>>Streetview before I set off so I know what to look for once my satnav
>>>has got me to the centre of the postcode. Sometimes you have to go up
>>>and down the street, looking for a house number that has escaped
>>>blurring and then work back from there, hoping that the houses are
>>>either numbered consecutively (eg a cul-de-sac) or else all the odds
>>>consecutive on one side and all the evens consecutive on the other.
>>>
>>>Working it out in advance saves having to crawl along a road, looking at
>>>the real house number signs when there is traffic behind me.
>>
>>Could they not set up a process that only blurs recognised number
>>plate formats?
>
>That's probably what the bot is trying to do now. Remember that there's a huge variety of licence plate formats around
>the world, and it's probably designed to blur anything that might be a number plate.
>
It is possibly set to recognise the font rather than numberplates
themselves hence the blurred road names. 99.x per cent of numberplates
in a particular country are likely to be the resident style so you
just set the recognition appropriately for the batch of images being
processed.

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Sep 2023 14:39:19 +0100, Recliner
> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 03 Sep 2023 09:56:57 +0100, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 13:54:13 +0100, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 02/09/2023 10:56, Scott wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 22:03:19 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>> Might an AI blurring bot in the video editing package be doing it
>>>>>> automatically to anything that looks like a number plate or phone number?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have noticed it on Google Earth for street names, which is
>>>>> particularly perverse and irritating.
>>>>
>>>> Yes it is annoying that the numberplate-blurring algorithm on Google
>>>> Streetview also blurs out street names and, even more irritating, house
>>>> numbers on gateposts/front doors.
>>>>
>>>> When I need to go visit a client, I usually try to find their house on
>>>> Streetview before I set off so I know what to look for once my satnav
>>>> has got me to the centre of the postcode. Sometimes you have to go up
>>>> and down the street, looking for a house number that has escaped
>>>> blurring and then work back from there, hoping that the houses are
>>>> either numbered consecutively (eg a cul-de-sac) or else all the odds
>>>> consecutive on one side and all the evens consecutive on the other.
>>>>
>>>> Working it out in advance saves having to crawl along a road, looking at
>>>> the real house number signs when there is traffic behind me.
>>>
>>> Could they not set up a process that only blurs recognised number
>>> plate formats?
>>
>> That's probably what the bot is trying to do now. Remember that there's
>> a huge variety of licence plate formats around
>> the world, and it's probably designed to blur anything that might be a number plate.
>>
> It is possibly set to recognise the font rather than numberplates
> themselves hence the blurred road names. 99.x per cent of numberplates
> in a particular country are likely to be the resident style so you
> just set the recognition appropriately for the batch of images being
> processed.

Why such complications? Google would probably rather play safe, and
automatically blur anything that looks like it might be a licence plate.
It's cheaper to be over-zealous than have to deal with privacy complaints.

On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 23:31:56 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 Sep 2023 14:39:19 +0100, Recliner
>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 03 Sep 2023 09:56:57 +0100, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 13:54:13 +0100, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 02/09/2023 10:56, Scott wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 22:03:19 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>> Might an AI blurring bot in the video editing package be doing it
>>>>>>> automatically to anything that looks like a number plate or phone number?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have noticed it on Google Earth for street names, which is
>>>>>> particularly perverse and irritating.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes it is annoying that the numberplate-blurring algorithm on Google
>>>>> Streetview also blurs out street names and, even more irritating, house
>>>>> numbers on gateposts/front doors.
>>>>>
>>>>> When I need to go visit a client, I usually try to find their house on
>>>>> Streetview before I set off so I know what to look for once my satnav
>>>>> has got me to the centre of the postcode. Sometimes you have to go up
>>>>> and down the street, looking for a house number that has escaped
>>>>> blurring and then work back from there, hoping that the houses are
>>>>> either numbered consecutively (eg a cul-de-sac) or else all the odds
>>>>> consecutive on one side and all the evens consecutive on the other.
>>>>>
>>>>> Working it out in advance saves having to crawl along a road, looking at
>>>>> the real house number signs when there is traffic behind me.
>>>>
>>>> Could they not set up a process that only blurs recognised number
>>>> plate formats?
>>>
>>> That's probably what the bot is trying to do now. Remember that there's
>>> a huge variety of licence plate formats around
>>> the world, and it's probably designed to blur anything that might be a number plate.
>>>
>> It is possibly set to recognise the font rather than numberplates
>> themselves hence the blurred road names. 99.x per cent of numberplates
>> in a particular country are likely to be the resident style so you
>> just set the recognition appropriately for the batch of images being
>> processed.
>
>Why such complications? Google would probably rather play safe, and
>automatically blur anything that looks like it might be a licence plate.
>It's cheaper to be over-zealous than have to deal with privacy complaints.
>
If it doesn't care what the font is then you will have plenty of
shopping areas with much of the shop fronts blurred out.

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> I assumed from context that it was the BBC. Also, it is the most
> regulated so perhaps the best example. No - the production company
> cannot decide whether to include or exclude (for example) the adverts
> at a football stadium. There must be clear rules about what is allowed
> (eg, no tobacco) and clear rules in the BBC about identifying of
> sponsors for sporting events.

It seems to be a common trope now that a footballer / manager / film
director / pop star is interviewed in front of a wall covered in sponsor
logos. I wonder how that works with the advertising rules.

Theo

On Fri, 08 Sep 2023 03:25:50 +0100, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 23:31:56 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
><recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 03 Sep 2023 14:39:19 +0100, Recliner
>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 03 Sep 2023 09:56:57 +0100, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 13:54:13 +0100, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 02/09/2023 10:56, Scott wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 22:03:19 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>>> Might an AI blurring bot in the video editing package be doing it
>>>>>>>> automatically to anything that looks like a number plate or phone number?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have noticed it on Google Earth for street names, which is
>>>>>>> particularly perverse and irritating.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes it is annoying that the numberplate-blurring algorithm on Google
>>>>>> Streetview also blurs out street names and, even more irritating, house
>>>>>> numbers on gateposts/front doors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When I need to go visit a client, I usually try to find their house on
>>>>>> Streetview before I set off so I know what to look for once my satnav
>>>>>> has got me to the centre of the postcode. Sometimes you have to go up
>>>>>> and down the street, looking for a house number that has escaped
>>>>>> blurring and then work back from there, hoping that the houses are
>>>>>> either numbered consecutively (eg a cul-de-sac) or else all the odds
>>>>>> consecutive on one side and all the evens consecutive on the other.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Working it out in advance saves having to crawl along a road, looking at
>>>>>> the real house number signs when there is traffic behind me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Could they not set up a process that only blurs recognised number
>>>>> plate formats?
>>>>
>>>> That's probably what the bot is trying to do now. Remember that there's
>>>> a huge variety of licence plate formats around
>>>> the world, and it's probably designed to blur anything that might be a number plate.
>>>>
>>> It is possibly set to recognise the font rather than numberplates
>>> themselves hence the blurred road names. 99.x per cent of numberplates
>>> in a particular country are likely to be the resident style so you
>>> just set the recognition appropriately for the batch of images being
>>> processed.
>>
>>Why such complications? Google would probably rather play safe, and
>>automatically blur anything that looks like it might be a licence plate.
>>It's cheaper to be over-zealous than have to deal with privacy complaints.
>>
>If it doesn't care what the font is then you will have plenty of
>shopping areas with much of the shop fronts blurred out.

Fonts are a poor way of distinguishing vehicle registration plates from other signs such as on shop fronts or
advertising posters.