Can TV stations be held liable for logo burn-in? (1 Viewer)

[John_Berger]

Here a partially-legal/partially-philosophical question. We all know that TV stations have implanted their logo somewhere on the screen, supposedly to make it easy to figure out which channel it is when surfing. (I don't buy that analogy 100%, but I'll let that slide for now.)

I know that others on HTF have said that watching their favorite TV-recorded shows have caused burn-in. (Hi, Mark!) Personally, my daughter loves Noggin. So, we generally leave it on for her. Unfortunately, most of the times their logo is 100% opaque.

There is absolutely no excuse for any station to have an embedded logo at 0% transparency on our screens. So, for those people who have burn-in due to station logos, does that not constitute damage to our personal equipment caused by actions of that station and is therefore the liability of the station?

Yes, the other side of the coin is that we can change channel. But if the station has shows that we enjoy and are not available on another channel, there's no other option. We have to deal with the station logo.

Some might also argue that the contract/brightness is not set appropriately. But I find the concept of diminishing the picture quality to compensate for a 0% transparency logo that doesn't need to be there to be repulsive, frankly.

Just looking for thoughts on this.

 

[Carl Johnson]

I'd put that idea on par with holding McDonalds liable for making you fat. Anyone who chooses to watch the station without taking reasonable precautions shouldn't be able to claim after the fact that they didn't know any better.

 

[John_Berger]

Yes, I will agree that there are many similarities - they're not mandatory, there are other options, and so forth.

But I look at it a bit differently. First off, the effects of burn-in are permanent. Burn-in cannot be reversed. The results of eating at McDonald's too often can be recified by increased exercising. The results of burn-in is the need to purchase an entirely new TV.

Additionally, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for stations to provide their logos at the contrast and opaque levels that they do - no reason. Fast food places, such as McDonald's, could face a major loss in revenue if they changed their menu items or ingredients to be less damaging (and more often than not less flavorful) by lost customers. There is a very real threat of significant financial loss. There is absolutely no financial loss for a station to put their logo at 50% (or more) transparency, yet many refuse to do that.

Again, this is just for some discussion; but I don't see this as cut-and-dry as the McDonald's analogy.

 

[Ken Chan]

there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for stations to provide their logos at the contrast and opaque levels that they do - no reason

If only the simple act of writing something in bold actually made it true High-contrast and opaque maximizes the visibility of the bug, plain and simple. On second thought, they can go even further: (1) make it in color (VH1 recently switched to this), (2) animate it, (3) have sounds go along with the animation. (#2 would help with the burn-in issue, but is that cure worse than the disease?)

Can they go too far and have a backlash? Possibly. But it's sorta like we're all in a pot of water being brought to a boil slowly. And until and unless the networks feel some pain, they will continue to do this. You might have better luck lobbying the sponsors, but it seems like you'd need a lot more people to give a flying fig, and they just don't.

To be clear: I hate the bugs and intrusive promos. But I don't see a free-market, strict liability response here, other than change the channel.

//Ken

 

[Glenn Overholt]

I don't think McDonalds is anywhere close to this.

I'd really like some attorney to try that one out. I think if you could get it in writing from a station that the logos are there so we know what we are watching, then the logos should be there 100% of the time, and they are not, because as we all know, they are gone for commercials.

That makes up about 30% of their air time too, and it would be interesting to have a court force a station to show it 24/7 - just to see what their advertisers would do.

That might be negative thinking, but the advertisers are god, so to speak, and they could lay it down. Get rid of them or we will go elsewhere!

Gllenn

 

[John_Berger]

But for the "free" cable and satellite channels, and especially for stuff over the air, take it or leave it.

There's no such thing as a "free" cable channel. We pay for the channels that we cannot receive over the air - satellite broadcasts notwithstanding.

 

[VicRuiz]

Some might also argue that the contract/brightness is not set appropriately. But I find the concept of diminishing the picture quality to compensate for a 0% transparency logo that doesn't need to be there to be repulsive, frankly

Adjusting brightness and contrast is not "diminishing picture quality"! On the contrary, it is bringing your display to the optimal settings for the different sources you watch. It is your uncalibrated settings what's diminishing your picture quality.

 

[MarkHastings]

I know that others on HTF have said that watching their favorite TV-recorded shows have caused burn-in. (Hi, Mark!)

My big mistake was not realizing that I had to calibrate every input on the tv separately. I had my Ant A fixed, but my AUX input was still set to factory defaults.

After my Fox logo got permanently burned into my tv, I emailed my local Fox station. He said they were not responsible. I then asked what their policy was about showing their logo at 100%, he responded that they "never" show their logo at 100% for long periods of time. I then responded that I was currently watching their station (some movie) and their logo had been on 100% throughout the entire time of the movie...He basically responded and denied any of my allegations, so I ended up telling him that I will never watch thier station again. Here in CT I get both the local Fox and the NY Fox channel. I always tune to the NY station and avoid the local one.

I never got a response back and frankly, I could give two shits about the local Fox station here in CT. I've seen many times when their logo is at 100% and feel that any legal action I take will just end up in more of their legal mumbo jumbo. It just isn't worth it. :frowning:

Yes, it sucks! And since I know that part of it was my fault, I'm not about to persue it. It does suck to know that you can easily get burn-in from these TV's and even someone who knows about calibrating thier tv can get into trouble, so I don't know how the average person can easily avoid this...I highly doubt that everyone who buys a RPTV, is going to go through all of the menus and change the settings away from the damaging 'defaults'. Perhaps we should sue the TV manufacturers for setting the 'defaults' at levels that can easily cause damamge???

Oh well, it's not worth looking into legal actions, but I did learn a hard lesson . About the only thing that makes me happy is everytime I write my Comcast bills out, I put a little note in the comment section of the check that says "Fox SUCKS!" - I know it won't do anything, but it makes me feel good


p.s. I hope someone does try to take some legal actions. There should be no reason to constantly have a tv stations logo on the screen at all times during a show.

 

[Jeff Jacobson]

But I look at it a bit differently. First off, the effects of burn-in are permanent. Burn-in cannot be reversed. The results of eating at McDonald's too often can be recified by increased exercising. The results of burn-in is the need to purchase an entirely new TV.

I also agree that this is not the same as the McDonald's situation. It is common knowledge that if you eat junk food, you will get fat. But I'm sure that there is a great number of people who don't even know what burn-in is.

 

[Dustin Wind]

Legal action? rofl thats the funniest thing i have ever heard.
Thanks for giving me a laugh on Monday.

Turn the channel lol.

 

[MarkHastings]

Thanks for giving me a laugh on Monday.

and thank you for the thread fart

It's obvious why "change the channel" arguments are ridiculous so I won't even comment on it.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

After my Fox logo got permanently burned into my tv, I emailed my local Fox station. He said they were not responsible. I then asked what their policy was about showing their logo at 100%, he responded that they "never" show their logo at 100% for long periods of time. I then responded that I was currently watching their station (some movie) and their logo had been on 100% throughout the entire time of the movie...He basically responded and denied any of my allegations, so I ended up telling him that I will never watch thier station again. Here in CT I get both the local Fox and the NY Fox channel. I always tune to the NY station and avoid the local one.

My suggestions are:

1) Make a tape of a movie with 100% logo time.
2) Take pictures of your burn in.
3) Send the tape, photo, and a letter to your local Fox affiliate, Fox corporate, your local paper, the NYT, WSJ, and USA Today. Also, to the FCC.

If a movement started doing this, change would likely occur, IMO.

 

[Tony Whalen]

I agree with Michael. Take it further. Emailing some poor support guy will do nothing... so move up the chain.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Oh, Ralph Nader should be on your list as well.

 

[David Baranyi]

I really hate it when people claim an "inalienable right" on things that are really not. Is watching television program a right or a privilege?

 

[Will_B]

Complain to whoever made the television set. Perhaps it was defective. It should take years for a screen to get burn in unless the contrast is wildly off the mark.

I can't imagine any other course of action that would get you any cash at all.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

I really hate it when people claim an "inalienable right" on things that are really not. Is watching television program a right or a privilege?

Is being given free broadcast spectrum a right or a privilege?

 

[Francois Caron]

Here's a way to approach the situation.

- If you decide to watch a station with a high contrast logo, your TV set will be damaged. Even with the contrast level properly adjusted, burn-in will still occur; it will just take longer for the effects to become visible.
- If you decide to stop watching a particular station because you fear the logo will damage your TV set, then you will end up missing the shows you want to watch.
- If you're prevented from watching television because it may impose on you a financial hardship (reparing/replacing the TV), then this could be viewed as an infringement on your freedom of speech.

TV stations should be held liable for their business practices and the physical effects of their broadcasts on your personal property. This is not a problem involving the content itself, it involves the effects that prevents you from enjoying the content altogether.

 

[VicRuiz]

Complain to whoever made the television set. Perhaps it was defective. It should take years for a screen to get burn in unless the contrast is wildly off the mark.

That is exactly right! All TV sets come out of the factory in "torch mode" i.e. contrast at 100%. High contrast is what causes burn-in. If anyone should be liable it's the manufacturers. Of course, they shielded themselves by putting disclaimers on the user manuals that warn you about watching static images for too long, and therefore shifted the burden to the consumers. Bottom line, inform yourself about the proper settings and calibrate your set.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Most of today's TV manuals mention burn-in, and that they are not responsible for it, so that idea is out.

Sending FOX a tape isn't going to do any good. They'll just toss it out (along with all of the other complaints that they have received).

As for right or privlege - it depends on who you ask, but the bottom line is the advertisers. They pay the station's bills because you buy their product. It might be interesting to see what would happen if you send them the bill, just to see how they would respond.

Yeah, we already know that the commercials are bug free, so they have already spoken, so that was why I mentioned getting an attorney.

Glenn