The ruling was published by Ofcom, the regulator for the UK's
communications industries, yesterday. Sony Computer Entertainment
UK Ltd had complained that Ian Wright's Unfit Kids, a Channel 4
show presented by the former footballer, made Sony the target for
unfair, one-side and pejorative comment.
Sony also argued that its privacy was "unwarrantably infringed"
when footage of the company's offices and logo were used and a
confidential email from the company was included in the
programme.
In the programme, Ian Wright explored some of the reasons behind
childhood obesity. In the first show, Wright selected overweight
13–14 year olds who did little or no exercise and devised an After
School Fitness Club programme for them. He tried to extend the
project and the second episode of the series, broadcast on 20th
September 2006, showed his attempt to secure funding.
He arranged to meet representatives of Sony to seek sponsorship
from them. Sony decided not to sponsor the scheme. Sony was
referred to in the programme which also showed an email from the
company in relation to sponsorship and footage of the exterior of
the company's offices.
Sony complained to Ofcom.
Sony said that Wright's comments created an erroneous and unfair
impression of the company, which was disproportionate in the
context of the refusal of a request for sponsorship. In particular,
Sony complained about Wright's remark, "Fuck Sony, man. Sony's not
gonna stop this from working".
Sony also argued that the programme implied wrongdoing on Sony's
part, alleging that it failed to sponsor Wright's project and
unfairly contrasted this with a statement about the firm's
worldwide turnover of $8.6 billion from video games. Wright also
said that there is a Sony PlayStation game for "every single thing
that a child can go out and exercise [for]."
Sony also claimed that the programme makers did not explain the
nature and purpose of the programme to them and that they did not
inform Sony that its refusal to have the meeting with Wright filmed
would be referred to negatively in the programme. It complained
that Sony's positive views about Wright's project and the company's
involvement in other sports-based initiatives were omitted.
Channel 4 countered that it was "perfectly reasonable" for
Wright to express his frustration at the company's decision. It
also said that Sony was made aware from the outset the nature and
purpose of the programme.
Sony said its privacy was infringed when its offices and logo
were filmed without permission and it pointed out that the email
used in the programme was confidential correspondence intended for
the addressee only. Channel 4 countered that the programme makers
did not need permission to film Sony's offices "as the programme
makers were filming openly from a public highway." It added, "All
company emails are routinely accompanied by confidentiality
wording," but said that there was express authorisation from a Sony
representative to use the email.
Ofcom found that the inclusion of Wright's reaction to the news
that Sony was not going to provide funding was "reasonable as a
reflection of his disappointment." This did not amount to an
allegation of wrongdoing to which the programme makers should have
given Sony an opportunity to respond, said Ofcom.
Ofcom said it was "entirely acceptable" for the programme makers
to film and broadcast footage recorded from a public place. Ofcom
added: "Such material was firmly in the public domain and did not
require consent from the company."
Ofcom noted that there was a clear conflict between Sony and
Channel 4 as to whether the broadcaster had permission to use the
email. It concluded that it was for the courts to determine the
question of any misuse of confidential information.
However, Ofcom was able to consider whether there had been an
infringement of Sony's privacy under Rule 8.1 of the Broadcasting
Code which states: "Any infringement of privacy in programmes, or
in connection with obtaining material included in programmes, must
be warranted."
Ofcom said it considered both the subject matter and content of
Sony's email and ruled that the parts used did not contain any
information that was inherently private to Sony, such as exposing
the inner workings of the company.
The regulator also said it was foreseeable that the programme
would wish to make reference to what Sony had said in the email and
there was no evidence Sony had specifically asked for it not
to be included. Ofcom ruled that Sony did not have a legitimate
expectation of privacy.
Ofcom's ruling concluded: "The complaints of unfair treatment
and infringement of privacy were not upheld. Accordingly the
complaint was not upheld."
