Tell viewers what was changed, and why, when a work is altered for another country
Steps to make it happen
- When movies, anime, games, or manga go to another country, scenes or lines are sometimes changed.
- The company that brings the work to that country keeps a record of what it changed.
- The company writes down whether each change came from a national rule, an age rating review, or its own decision.
- The work's info page or end credits say, "Some parts were changed for this country.".
- The company tells the original creator what was changed, and the creator can add a comment.
- Viewers and players can learn how the version they see differs from the original.
- People everywhere come to expect to enjoy a work knowing it has been changed.
Water so far 💧 0
The proposal in detail
This proposal covers works made for a mass audience in one country and then streamed, sold, or shown in other countries or regions, such as movies, dramas, anime, games, and manga. It does not cover work that is naturally needed to deliver a work, such as translating words or adjusting phrasing to fit the length of subtitles. It covers changes that alter the content itself: cutting scenes, redrawing images or the look of characters, changing the meaning of lines, changing the plot or ending, and removing parts of a game. The duty to record and show the changes falls on the distributors, publishers, and streaming services that deliver the work in that region. They give a rough indication of where the changes are, and show the reason using shared categories such as "required by that country's law," "result of an age rating review," "sales decision," and "the creator's own wish." The notice goes where people naturally see it when they pick up a work, such as the info page, the end credits, or the packaging. The original creators and rights holders are told what was changed and, if they wish, can add a short statement. Industry groups and the businesses that run streaming platforms set the standards as shared guidelines across countries, and take steps such as requiring a notice for works that do not follow them. There is one exception: if a country's law forbids even stating that a change was made, the notice is left out in that country, and the record of the change is kept with an independent archive outside the country.
BenefitsAudiences can know a work's true form and judge for themselves
The biggest effect is that viewers and players can enjoy a work knowing how what they are receiving differs from the original. Once they know a change was made, they have a reason to look for the original version and compare, or to think about why it was changed, which also helps them learn about the values and rules of other societies through the work. Showing the reasons in shared categories separates changes required by national law from changes made by a company's decision, so people outside can see where expression is being narrowed. This works as a quiet brake on restrictions on expression that tend to spread without being noticed. For creators, there is less worry that their work will be turned into something else without their knowledge, and they get a chance to explain the changes in their own words. Records of the changes also make it easier for libraries and researchers who preserve works to pass on to later generations how versions differ from country to country. Because the proposal does not reject consideration for the culture of the receiving country, and simply asks that such consideration be shown honestly, it also helps keep trust between makers and audiences while works continue to circulate internationally.
DrawbacksNotices could invite censorship and shrink how widely works circulate
The biggest worry of opponents is that requiring a reason for changes could end up reducing how widely works circulate. In particular, if a notice states that a change was made because of national law, that country's government may take it as criticism of itself and refuse to allow the work to be released at all. Companies, too, may decide it is easier to stop selling in that region than to stir up trouble, and as a result people there may lose the chance to experience the work. Also, because notices are required only for changes made at the release stage, companies may start making works that avoid risky expression from the beginning, and invisible self-censorship could grow stronger. Adjusting a work for its destination can also be a legitimate effort to respect local culture, and some criticize that listing every change as a change makes that consideration look like something bad. Moreover, for games and streaming works that keep being updated, it is hard to draw a line on which changes must be recorded, and the burden of effort and cost weighs most heavily on small companies. There is also the concern that a notice could act as advertising that sends people out to look for the cut version.
Learn the background
Popular works now reach the whole world as soon as they are released. At the same time, countries and regions differ greatly in their rules on expression, their ideas about age ratings, and their feelings about religion and history, so works are often altered to suit where they are sent. Blood is changed to another color, maps and flags are erased, romantic scenes are replaced with a different kind of relationship, and sometimes whole parts of a game are cut. Most of these changes have been made without telling the people who watch or play. As a result, people watching a work with the same title can end up receiving different stories depending on their country. Since streaming has become the main way to watch, works are also more often quietly replaced after release, making it hard to trace what the original form was. Sometimes even the creator does not know what was changed or how. Nowhere in the world is there yet a shared approach that respects the circumstances of the receiving country while also letting audiences know the true form of a work.
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-15d) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes