Open Caption Law in DC

[Martin McCaffery]

Any other places have these laws? How are they working out?

Washington City Paper
https://washingtoncitypaper.com/arti...is-it-working/

D.C.’s Open Caption Law Went Into Effect in October. Is It Working?

Most theaters in D.C. must now have a certain number of open caption screenings for new films. How and when the city will monitor and enforce that law remains an open question.

Credit: Darrow Montgomery

Karen Quinones, the deputy director of the Mayor’s Office of Deaf, DeafBlind, & Hard of Hearing, used to have a hard time when she went to the movies. As a deaf person, she was sometimes forced to use a “Rear Window Captioning System,” which projects captions backward onto the rear of the theater and then reflects them onto a personal panel mounted in the viewer’s cup holder.

“With [rear window captioning], I could only sit one way in my seat,” Quinones tells City Paper over Zoom (with an assist from her interpreter Robert Rhoads Jr.). In other words, because of the set placement of the movie screen and the caption device, she (and other deaf and hard-of-hearing moviegoers who are forced to use rear window captioning) would often lose key dialogue when she shifted their head, like when taking a sip of her drink or a bite of popcorn. “[Going to movies] is much more enjoyable when captions are on the screen,” she says.

Open captioning (on-screen text of dialogue and other sounds such as music), rather than captions projected through cumbersome optics or closed captioning glasses, has become the gold standard in moviegoing for deaf and hard-of-hearing people, as well as those who simply prefer the assist. (Quinones points out that younger generations are more pro-caption.)

Last summer, that standard was finally enshrined into D.C. law and officially went into effect Oct. 1—two years after Ward 6 Councilmember Charles Allen first introduced the legislation to regulate open captioning in the District. The law, according to the Office of Human Rights’ website, requires theaters with three or more screens to provide open captioning for at least three screenings within the first two weeks of a film’s release, including at least one during “peak weekend hours” (defined as a showing that begins Fridays between 5:59 and 11:01 p.m., and/or on weekends between 10:59 a.m. and 11:01 p.m.). After those initial two weeks, at least two weekly screenings must include open captions, with one scheduled during peak weekend hours.

The requirements are a bit more lax for small cinemas. Those with one or two screens “must offer open captioning within a reasonable time frame after receiving a request,” according to OHR. Management could choose, however, to follow the same conditions as larger theaters. There are exemptions based on showings per week, or screenings of films that were made without open captioning. Mount Pleasant’s Sun Cinema, for example, is mostly exempt since it primarily shows repertory cinema with few repeat screenings.

Although the law went into effect in October, the city gave theaters an additional 18-day grace period to comply. Three months later, however, there are still some outstanding questions about whether theaters are following the law and its impact on the local Deaf community.

According to an Oct. 1 press release from OHR, the agency will enforce the law by “conducting compliance checks” and following up with consumer complaints shared directly with the office. Those checks may happen randomly, but OHR “will always perform at least three compliance reviews annually for theaters with three or more screens.”

Cinemas are also required to provide OHR with showtime information as requested. If a theater violates the law, it will be required to offer an additional open-captioned screening within a week of receiving a notice of infraction; it will also be subject to additional compliance reviews. “Repeated violations may lead to additional showing requirements and further oversight by OHR,” states the release.

The city, despite an Oct. 18 start date cited in OHR’s release, treated the final months of 2024 as an extension of that early October grace period, with a more official launch planned later this month, Quinones and OHR’s Ellie Sung tell City Paper during a joint interview. The two are optimistic about the new law and hope that the city’s upcoming awareness campaign engages D.C’s 20,000 Deaf and hard-of-hearing constituents. But the campaign isn’t just to educate residents, it’s also targeted at “movie theater operators and owners,” Quinones says. “We are in the planning stages for the campaign, so we have yet to see [any community response].”

Citing feedback on OHR’s social media posts about the new law, Sung says, “The reaction from the community has been positive.” To field public complaints, OHR has created a dedicated email account for folks to share noncompliance issues. It’s also the account OHR is using to communicate with local theaters about the law and what it entails. As of our Dec. 4 interview, Sung says they’ve already received a few complaints, though she did not specify which theaters they were attached to. “We have not gone into the field yet,” she says.

Details about more practical aspects of the law’s enforcement, including the frequency of theater visits to investigate complaints, whether the city will dedicate a team to focus on compliance, and penalties for noncompliance are still being finalized by OHR and its team of lawyers. The Mayor’s Office of Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard of Hearing is still developing signage for theaters to display, like what you might see in a restaurant that passes sanitation or food safety standards.

D.C.’s Deaf community feels a similar mix of excitement with hesitant, “wait and see” optimism. Erik Nordlof, a Deaf advocate and founder of DC Deaf Moviegoers & Allies, sees the law as a “a step in the right direction toward a more accessible world,” he says. “But I could never say that it is enough.”

Via email, Nordlof describes the law as “wonderful” for its ability to ensure open caption options exist for all opening films “on a consistent basis and at convenient times.” Previously, theaters often programmed open caption screenings during less desirable hours, including weekday afternoons, which are inconvenient for everyone who works a 9-to-5 day job. The new law, Nordlof says, means Deaf moviegoers will not have to count on sharing information among themselves just so they can enjoy a night out at their favorite theater.

In November, Nordlof contacted the members of DC Deaf Moviegoers & Allies to get a sense of how folks were feeling about the law’s potential to increase access to the city’s theaters. Many expressed a frustration with rear window projection or closed captioning glasses, which only emphasized their enthusiasm for the new law.

For now, advocates, Deaf movie fans, and city officials are united in their hope that the law will provide greater, more accessible open caption screenings. On the business side, the National Association of Theater Owners, which represents large theater chains such as Regal and AMC, provided background on the state of open captioning in D.C. According to a March 2024 report on the law, before it passed and developed by the D.C. Council’s Committee on Public Works and Operations, NATO estimated there were 3,900 open caption screenings in 2023; that’s about 5 percent of all screenings. The Council estimates that the new law will more than double that number to 12 percent. Read more News stories


Whether those additional screenings translate to ongoing satisfaction among the city’s Deaf residents remains an open question, but there are signs of optimism. The State Association of the Deaf for the District of Columbia planned an Open Caption Movie Celebration event, which was recently postponed, according to Instagram. DCAD is working on rescheduling the celebration. Like the mechanisms in place to make sure theaters follow the law, exact details about the event are forthcoming. Read more Arts stories

[Steve Guttag]

Maryland New York and Hawaii also have Open Caption laws. NYCs laws are the most drastic, in terms of forcing shows during peak hours where it is possible to lower attendance. Honestly, I think they should sweeten the pot a bit...let exhibitors trade CC devices for OC shows. I also think that a 1-size-fits-all approach is not a good one. I would encourage all cinemas to give OC shows a try and to start by clearly advertising them at a common time slot each week (e.g. Sundays or Tuesdays and particular hours). This would let you find your audience (if it is there) and hear from THEM as to when the shows would best capture that audience. What business would want to not try and increase their audience? I think people also need to be mindful that open caption shows will deter some audience as well, particularly in peak hours. There should be a means to strike the balance for all.

[Lyle Romer]

Since technology is available via AR glasses and things like that, I strongly believe that exhibitors should have a choice that they can either offer open caption or offer closed captioning devices for use. What's next, a requirement for shows with the descriptive audio played over the sound system for all to hear?

The vast majority of people who do not need captioning do not want to see captioning. If it wasn't possible to provide closed captioning for the people who need it that would be one thing but since it is technologically possible to provide closed captioning in a relatively affordable manner, that option should exist.

Then, an exhibitor is free to choose whether the cost is higher to lose sales on open captioned shows or to purchase the devices required for closed captioning.

[Ryan Gallagher]

The problem with time-slotted OC shows i feel is that the audience who needs that is just like any other audience member, they have their best times to see movies relative to their work/life schedule just like anyone else. Relegating them to a specific screening at a specific time, perhaps not in the best room technically... is doing a dis-service to that community. But from their feedback they seem to prefer that option to the current status-quo/captioning systems.

OC has it's place for sure, like when festivals want to take the easy road to compliance, or special events where the number of audience members in need exceeds the number of CC devices available.

For CC, AR glasses will definitely feel like the next "wave" of tech that will be applied to this problem, and hopefully give a seamless experience... except maybe for 3D or people who already wear glasses. You'd unfortunately have to keep some handheld or alternative methods around for those situations. So yeah, there is no one size fits all here. Pros and cons of every approach. Legislating "something" is good, but saying it has to be OC is a bit of flawed logic. OC is just the easiest for venues to implement, the lowest bar to achieve... but with current tech, perhaps the best viewing experience too.

[Ryan Gallagher]

Aside, coming from a live theatre/opera background. It's amusing how this problem has been "addressed" for eons in Opera. Super-titles, on their own dedicated screen above the artistic "frame" of the proscenium opening. Even english language operas have english super-titles, cause yeah, hard to understand all the singing.

Personally I'd be much more prone to purchasing a OC ticket if the captions themselves fell outside the picture area. Below probably makes more sense than above in cinema world depending on the design of the cinema. It's a bit more neck craning for those that NEED them, but i imagine they would prefer always having them that way versus only getting a couple showings a week as OC.

I mean once you've "decided" to show them to EVERYONE via OC, why not move them outside the picture area? They don't have to be projected either, it could easily be a strip of direct-view, but now you are getting into $$ and renovations.

[Philip Jones]

In the UK a product called WatchWord has been launched recently after a few years of testing and development. They're basically epson glasses connected to a receiver which is getting the captions wirelessly on the cinema network. Simple interface to drag and drop the pair of glasses into the required auditorium.

We've got some at my cinema and whilst not perfect, they are pretty good. Audience feedback is excellent. I am a glasses wearer already and they work fine for me.

I just wish the lenses were a bit bigger

More details here WatchWord Closed Captions for Cinema - Home

[Ryan Gallagher]

In the UK a product called WatchWord has been launched recently after a few years of testing and development. They're basically epson glasses connected to a receiver which is getting the captions wirelessly on the cinema network. Simple interface to drag and drop the pair of glasses into the required auditorium.

We've got some at my cinema and whilst not perfect, they are pretty good. Audience feedback is excellent. I am a glasses wearer already and they work fine for me.

I just wish the lenses were a bit bigger

More details here WatchWord Closed Captions for Cinema - Home

Do they head-track and keep the captions near the screen? Or are they just more like a HUD and always render in the same part of the field of view? I like that they have text sizing options... I've always thought with an AR approach it would be good to size the captions appropriately to where you are sitting... that is one advantage over OC, which has huge captions you have to spin your head to read if you sit in the front rows.

[Philip Jones]

Do they head-track and keep the captions near the screen? Or are they just more like a HUD and always render in the same part of the field of view? I like that they have text sizing options... I've always thought with an AR approach it would be good to size the captions appropriately to where you are sitting... that is one advantage over OC, which has huge captions you have to spin your head to read if you sit in the front rows.

It's just a HUD really so the captions move with you as you turn your head.

[Steve Guttag]

I think anything that involves cinema supplying technology to patrons is a bad one. It is one thing to have open captions, it is another thing to have a BYOD with regulations/standardization for the signals (IR and/or RF). It is absurd that cinema have to supply headsets (which is gross, by the way...who wore those last?) or CC devices. You don't provide corrective eyewear for people that are nearsighted, you don't provide wheelchairs for those that are physically disabled.

With a BYOD approach, the device works for ALL venues that serve the public, not just cinemas. The quality is maintained by the user and it will better suit their particular disability than a 1-size fits all. Clearly, the cell phone is the first step towards this since everyone has one and it is possible to link them up to personal listening devices and display closed, captions, or sign language, as desired/needed. There is the issue of stray light but, if this was adopted more universally, suitable screen covers could be made to make them more directional plus theatre seats could have suitable holders built into them.

The approach of supplying devices just hasn't been a good one and the complaints never stop coming in about device failure. I think, given the option of Open Captions as a means to ditch supplying a closed caption device, theatres will give it more consideration. As for not enough time slots, there is the reality of how much imposition should the accommodation entail? An Open Caption, as they currently exist, alters the experience for everyone. A business should also not have to ensure a net-negative in attendance for an accommodation. As I said, I think there is a balance to be found and I think it will vary by population and even the typical fare a theatre plays. I don't think there is a one size fits all out there. That sort of thinking is how theatres are supposed to have an absurd number of hearing assistance receivers, even in areas where zero people ask for them. And, no doubt, when that one person comes up, glory be, they don't work because they haven't been used...the batteries are dead or leaked...etc. I know of some sites, where they have regular users of said devices and the theatre just bought them their own receivers/headsets so they didn't have to share with anyone and they wouldn't be destroyed. In return...loyal customers. A win-win.

[Leo Enticknap]

NYCs laws are the most drastic, in terms of forcing shows during peak hours where it is possible to lower attendance.

That, IMHO, is a problem. There is a compromise that has to be struck between helping people with disabilities and not imposing regulation that hurts businesses, especially ones that are hurting already, such as the movie theater industry. Most customers do not want OCAPs, and many will decline to attend a show that has them. If you legally force one screen in a 4-plex (for example) to run a loss-making show in a time slot that it could have been used profitably, that will have an negative impact on jobs, the ability of the theater to invest in infrastructure, taxes received by the city and county, etc. etc.

I am allergic to cheese. I cannot force a local pizza restaurant to make me one without cheese on it. If they say "sorry, we can't do that," I have to accept it and eat some place else. I therefore don't think it's unreasonable to ask the small minority of customers who need or would like OCAPs for a movie in their own language to see that movie on a midweek evening or weekend morning.

But in terms of captioning more generally, I agree wholeheartedly that the long term solution is to come up with better closed captioning technology than is currently available and in widespread use (including, I have to admit, our own offering). Specifically, what we need is an AR glasses-based system that can display captions from a DCI cinema server. It would be a win-win, enabling those who want captioning to have it available at any and every show the theater plays (unless it's an obscure arthouse movie with no captioning data on the actual DCP), and those who don't want to be bothered by it.

[Ryan Gallagher]

(unless it's an obscure arthouse movie with no captioning data on the actual DCP)

Hell even that problem is mostly "solvable" now. I've worked a number of live/streamed events that used AI speech to text to generate real time CCAP data, and it works quite well in isolation. All you would need to do it for cinema is have a somewhat isolated dialog audio track. Center might work in "most" cases lacking that. Most people are already, if not will soon be carrying a device capable of running those AI models too. Then it just becomes an issue of how to best display them, which is the original issue.

I mean even 18 year old twitch streamers have access to better targeted audience CCAP tools than the Cinema industry is presenting to their audiences. Many of them rolled their own using 3rd party AI APIs before it became a standard offering.

I've not tried any of the current generation of AR glasses to know if we are "there" yet, but the Ray Ban ones seem pretty comfy. A couple IR tracking markers in the theatre, or really good inertial head tracking, and the captions could be fixed in space... or fixed in viewport if that is the user preference (for when they are digging in their popcorn bucket), or dynamically switch... fixed in space while generally looking at screen, but fixed in viewport if they get distracted and are looking elsewhere. It definitely seems like the zeitgeist of technology is available now to make a really good solution.

Whether they are audience provided tools adhering to some industry standard, or venue provided hardware is a worthy debate though. Until those standards exist they have to be venue provided.

[Steve Guttag]

I'm good with the AR glasses thing...so long as it is patron supplied. Again, do you want to put something on your face that was worn by something else? Do you want to wear glasses over glasses or get prescription lenses in your AR system, that could work for areas other than cinemas? What we need is standardization on getting the signals/text to those devices and get the cinema from supplying technology devices.

[James Gardiner]

This is a topic of opposing positions. As a coder myself, I have watched on for years as competing positions have struggled with this issue, typically resulting in no progress. Unfortunately, that has been the aim for some in my opinion.

The ISDCF plug fest and the discussions that followed did give us a clearer picture of the situation.

Firstly, my standpoint based on what I consider technically possible.
Those who need accessibility in a cinema should have the ability to bring in a (BYO) device that supplies the assistance they need, as long as it is not distracting to other patrons. They can bring in a device they are comfortable with and ensure it is operational. As technology improves, AR and other innovations can be introduced to the market, letting the end user chose what best suits them. Upgrade them with a high cadence as these technologies improve.

Audio track based synchronisation can have an offset/error issue, but is good enough (And will probably improve). The end user will have tools to minimise any issues. (accessibility tools can offset audio just like a DCI player can) We need to remove the need for a cinema to have to install any equipment. This removes the need for limiting session to certain screens, no training, no extra equipment to buy and service. We can treat an accessibility user like any cinema patron. Removes expensive to implement requirement due to laws for cinema operators.

The studios need to make tools available for producing the audio sync map securely, and all accessibility AUX media that is then used by the personal device to implement the required behaviour.

We must stay away from any requirement that requires a cinema to implement/spend implementing the solution.

The above is very possible, so why have we not done it already?
DCI has been very particular about making sure cinemas implement their theatres in a way to best reproduce the producer's intent. Everything needs to come from the DCP and the standards it is based upon.
Based on this, previous accessibility technology is very much driven from the capability of the DCI equipment, with vendors building "custom" expensive tools that are then certified by the studios. These tools have then been sold into the market.

Unfortunately, these tools are too inconvenient and over time they have languished and are mostly only purchased to comply with regulations.

Due to this, the rest of the world has been working on side loading technologies like described above with BYO devices. The plug fest has a large amount of BYO device app demonstrations.

I have always been frustrated by this topic as, from my standpoint, larger companies with deep relationships with the studios have a strong interest in keeping the situation the same in that any solution needs to be driven by expensive custom equipment they supply. The use of personal devices is just not good enough from their perspective.

Ultimately, it is the consumer who should make this decision, and not these companies. Especially if these devices do not interfear with the general patron they may be siting next to.

This topic has been stalled for years in Hollywood while the rest of the world has moved on and developed these obvious applications, we are now in a position where the studios, in my opinion, will be forced into going down this path. As if they don't, the rest of the world will anyway. Which is basically happening, and forcing their hand.

Saw this coming about 7 years ago. And now we are here...

[Steve Guttag]

I've been pretty consistent with my position that cinemas should not be in the business of supplying technology devices to patrons...and that is from the get-go. James, I think an issue we have here, in the USA (and I'm sure it varies around the world) is our ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) that has the most horrible of verbage to go into a law..."reasonable accommodation." What is "reasonable" is not a uniformly applied measure and depending on where one is on the situation (accommodating or being accommodated) will change your perspective. It turns it into a legal quagmire where businesses get sued until the judicial system ends up sorting it out...case-by-case.

To head it off, they (industry and government) do what they do best...come up with solutions that pleases almost nobody aside from the industry (hey, we have rules and so long as we follow them, we're in the clear...and the government gets to say they have a regulation that fixed the problem). So, now, even if better solutions come out or are used...that does not relieve the business, theatres in our case, from their obligation to keep supplying or having, at the ready, the prescribed number of devices. There is no end-date or a re-evaluation date to see if what was done was effective/meets the needs.

Furthermore, as it has been shown, nothing stops state/local jurisdictions from adding on (e.g. require open caption shows and are able to dictate the time ranges, quantity...etc.). At least with the OC shows, the theatre isn't having to supply/maintain equipment to the public. Then again, they are, in some jurisdictions, being compelled to endanger their business profitability. Is that a "reasonable accommodation?"

And, we're just at the tip. At one time, it was just hearing assistance. Then it was Hearing Assistance with rear window captions (remember those with DTS players and LED boards in the back of the theatre?) DTS also had their on screen caption system. Some jurisdictions compelled some form of open captions on films too. For Digital Cinema, I'm stlll amazed that we are devoting two wide-band PCM tracks to those. Those should be on some form of band-limed track leaving 1-16 strictly for audio...DTS got that right back in the day too. So, now we have HI, VI-N (AD is the newer term) and Captions.

But, we're not done, the next one up and already in use in some parts of the planet...sign language.

So, I come back to, the industry should push to revamp our position and just provide the signals via RF or IR. The government should regulate them/protect those frequencies and there needs to be standardized meters to measure compliance (for both a regulating agency as well as the business). Let the patron supply their own hardware that suits their particular needs that they can maintain. In fact, I think we could start stepping it up some in how many languages could be supplied in textual form so that these devices could also handle translation or, if the portable technology is fast enough, let it translate on-the-fly.

But, the bottom line is...any solution that involves the cinema (or other business) handing out equipment to patrons is a bad solution that will end in disappointment for the maximum number of people.

[Harold Hallikainen]

I, of course, have been following this issue for about 15 years. For reference, a summary of each of the comments received by the DOJ in the rulemaking establishing the current closed caption and audio description (VI) requirements are at https://hallikainen.org/org/DojNprm/ .

I really like everything being in the DCP. The auditorium audio sync systems seem pretty clunky and complex to me. The studio has to deliver soundtrack audio or run their own sync fingerprint for each of the competing systems out there. They have to supply the full audio (if this is also for HI/VI) plus the captions to the vendor. The user then has to download the HI/VI/CC content they want to see. When in the auditorium, they have to open the application, select the content, and hit start. The system does not show captions or HI/VI for any preshow, including trailers since they were not downloaded, and the systems do not identify which content is which, they just sync with already identified content.

ISDCF held a plugfest last week. I was not able to attend, but heard the report at the Thursday meeting. From what I heard, there were sync issues. This can probably be improved, but I think the consensus was this is not ready for prime time.

MANY years ago, I attended a Regal Closed Captioning event in Washington DC. They had a deaf audience and had them evaluate the different systems. The deaf clearly preferred open captions with caption glasses a second choice. So, Regal bought the Sony system (now discontinued). That was an expensive system. I think the glasses were over $1k per pair.

I agree the BYOD is a good approach. However, lit screens in an auditorium are extremely distracting. PERHAPS a theater can provide privacy filters for users' phones. But, you'd have to stock a bunch of different kinds. They probably also do not block the light from a person behind the device user. By the way, years ago I saw a great ad for 3M privacy filters. It showed a couple people on an airline One was working on a laptop. The one next to him said "You misspelled confidential."

Back to DCP delivery, everything is there! The user need not download anything. Sync is provided over Ethernet (not audio). (Immersive audio sync is provided as either an FSK track in the DCP for SMPTE FSK/Atmos or as a server generated binary signal on an AES audio output for SMPTE binary sync). Sign language video IS on an audio track.

The Doremi/Dolby closed captioning system had a very low infrastructure cost by using a standard USB 802.15.4 dongle as the transmitter. All the captioning software was built into the server. A similar approach could be taken using a WiFi dongle instead. However, for a more universal system, a box with Ethernet and AES3 and probably analog audio would need to be made. Most of this could be done with standard single board computers like the Raspberry Pi. A separate I/O board would be required for the AES3 input (for sign language video).

Use of consumer devices, whether BYO or theater supplied, vastly reduces costs due to production volumes. Looking at consumer devices, they have WiFi, Bluetooth, and a microphone (and a camera, but we would not use that). I believe it is possible to transmit the captions, sign language video, and low latency HI/VI over WiFi (but I have not done it). Consumer devices also often have a way of getting video out of the device (perhaps USB) that could be used to drive AR glasses. These devices do not have IR receivers. So, I think we need to use an RF (WiFi) link. Also, without a LOT of work, getting the bandwidth required for sign language video over IR is difficult due to reflections around the room. The USL/QSC/MIT closed captioning system sends 10 kbps data over IR (frequency shift keying a 1.8 MHz carrier on the IR).

Finally, at the ISDCF meeting, it was mentioned that AR without head tracking was bothersome. We are used to things like captioning staying in the same place and not moving when we turn our heads. Without head tracking, the captions move around the screen or off it as you turn your head. Also, with them on the screen, they can be wiped out by a bright scene.

So... lots of stuff to consider.

Harold