It's not like Sony hasn't been under fire from
outlets in America and
abroad before, but the latest quibble is coming from none other than the Church of England. Turns out that Sony reportedly took it upon itself to recreate the historic interior of Manchester Cathedral in Resistance: Fall of Man without first asking permission, and now there could be
hell heaven to pay. Currently, the Church has asked
Sony to "apologize and contribute a large donation from the game's profits as it did not pay a commercial fee to use the cathedral as a backdrop." Additionally, Sony could face two other demands -- one that requests the withdrawal of the game altogether, and the other to modify the section of the cathedral's interior. Notably, it's been no secret that certain sects of the
UK have been
dealing with rashes of gun crime, and while Sony hasn't succumbed to paying up or recalling all copies of the game just yet, it did say that it would "contact the cathedral authorities to understand their concerns in more detail."
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Paul @ Jun 10th 2007 8:19PM
you're in that church for no less than like 3 minutes
Zelatio @ Jun 10th 2007 8:24PM
Yea I was gunna say the same Paul. You fight like 20 guys and then you are out. I think the Church should stick with their spiritual matters and stop trying to make a quick buck.
Jypson @ Jun 10th 2007 8:28PM
Is't that what church is all about? Making a quick buck?
Seth @ Jun 11th 2007 12:15AM
well jypson... if that's what they're asking for... then that's what it seems
James Sonne @ Jun 10th 2007 8:30PM
The church vestry owns the rights to the building's semblance and architecture. It is a legitimate case of copyright infringement.
L @ Jun 10th 2007 9:25PM
I agree with you James. The church has a case. It's only made worse by the fact that it's supposed to be holy place. To put it in a game and have a bunch of gunfire going on in it is just tacky and disrespectful to the parish and their religion. But really, if the church owns the likeness, then Sony needs to pay up. No matter what building or structure stands there, Sony, as a multi-billion doller conglomerate, should've had to forsight to ask for permission. Simple as that.
Gregory Kimball @ Jun 10th 2007 9:48PM
That's the real issue.
If the Church wasn't so concerned with getting media attention, they would ask Sony for a small amount of compensation and end the matter completely.
jg @ Jun 10th 2007 9:47PM
"The church vestry owns the rights to the building's semblance and architecture. It is a legitimate case of copyright infringement."
Does it? The last major architectural work on the Cathedral was about 150 years ago, so I doubt they have a valid objection on the basis of copyright. The church does have the right to restrict commercial use of the photography etc it permits on premises, but I'm not sure if that is involved here or not.
Andir3.0 @ Jun 10th 2007 10:23PM
Sweet. The next time someone makes a building that slightly resembles this new cube shaped building I'm making, I can sue them and I'll be rich!!
thomas_malkin @ Jun 10th 2007 10:31PM
Sorry, no. You cannot copyright a view of something. You can copyright a photograph, a sound recording, a video, a piece of writing. A work. You cannot copyright the grand canyon, or the view from the Golden Gate Bridge, or your dog.
And the Church of England is funded by taxpayer dollars, as England is a theocracy with the Queen as head of the church. Bad form to try to wring money from people for nonsensical claims of copyright when you haven't had to work for a living in four hundred years because people are forced to give your cult money on pain of imprisonment.
carlo @ Jun 11th 2007 3:17AM
Now *this* is a reasonable thread. I agree that copyright isn't quite the best fit, it sounds more like defamation.
Craig @ Jun 11th 2007 5:28AM
And the Church of England is funded by taxpayer dollars...
It's funded by donations, investments and a few other sources, but thankfully not my taxes.
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/funding/#where
Oh, it's Pounds not dollars.
Alex Jacobs @ Jun 11th 2007 5:53AM
Should half of europe complain about the war games they feature in? many levels in Call of Duty / Medal of Honour feautre town sections and i can remember shotting a gun in a church.
Sony just needed a church to moddel theres on to make it realistic graphics. they must have taken lots of photos in the church to moddel on, how would they do that without church permission???
Andrew Mills @ Jun 12th 2007 7:19AM
I've posted an article on our blog looking at the legal issues. It's at http://impact.freethcartwright.com/2007/06/church_of_engla.html. Section 62 of the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988 will be a problem for the Church if it brings a claim.
John @ Jun 12th 2007 11:11AM
Well, considering the Anglican church basically just stole the Cathedral from the Catholics, they're one to talk. Maybe Sony can donate the money to the Catholics instead.
Tyson @ Jun 10th 2007 8:40PM
Shouldn't the church be going after the Chimera? It was those scum who invaded the church in the first place. Our hero, Nathan Hale was just trying to clean them out of it.
Seth @ Jun 11th 2007 12:22AM
LOL... i got that,,, clever
Jypson @ Jun 10th 2007 8:43PM
I was reading another article about this, GameSpot I think, and Sony claims that they DID get all the permissions neccesary to use the cathedral in their game. My guess is someone in the church was out of the loop and looking to pull a jack thompson.
byaah @ Jun 10th 2007 9:00PM
I read a similar one, except on BBC. Sony does actually claim to have asked for permission.. but who knows which one is telling the truth..
Doomed Planet @ Jun 10th 2007 9:05PM
I don't see how the church couldn't know about it, I assume the developers would have had to spend a fair amount of time in there getting pictures and such stuff?
Joseph @ Jun 11th 2007 4:44PM
How did they find out that the church was in the game in the first place?
I work for a church and we play 360 and Wii. PS3 is just trash and way below our standard. As a church they should hold themselves to a higher standard and not play crap like PS3.
--Fanboy
Bennett @ Jun 10th 2007 9:10PM
All else aside, there's something wrong about demanding a donation.
wabguard-email @ Jun 10th 2007 9:29PM
At least they are not suing straight out, and at least willing to negotiate a fair price for using the churches property. It has nothing to do with religion, its about fairness and following the law. How many fortune top 100 would "ask for donation" instead of sending a "cease and desist letter". Exactly...
Seth @ Jun 11th 2007 12:25AM
I agree that asking for a donation is bizzar... it's NOT because they're willing to negotiate though LOL- they just dont have a case
Apothus @ Jun 11th 2007 8:35AM
The problem with sending a donation is that once you have sent it to one you set a precedent for many private businesses and city councils to follow.
Personally i feel that with the building being a notable icon it should expect this. How many games have you seen structured in and around the white house? granted it is a little different but the under lying principle is the same
Dan @ Jun 16th 2007 10:47PM
If the church sues, they have to hire/pay their lawyers for the legal proceedings. Doing it this way, they avoid the extra costs, and instead threaten Sony with distaste from anyone in the public that would support them (and I'm willing to [demand donation] that any good Anglican(?) would throw away their Sixaxis for their faith).
kingofwale @ Jun 10th 2007 9:23PM
lol, demanding large donation?? it sounds awfully like "extortion". :)
hangfire @ Jun 10th 2007 9:25PM
wasn't the church of england formed because a certain king couldn't get head, so he chopped off his wives head instead, one by one, then set up the church to be allowed to get a divorce, ALL religion is crazy, oops i think i may have started a storm here.
wabguard-email @ Jun 10th 2007 9:34PM
Nice to know you lump billions of people in the world into a groups that are ALL CRAZY...
Hmm.. I think someone was slapped to hard on the hands in catholic school :)
j/k, but really let people believe what they want to in a religion as long as its not hurting other people.
Cupajo @ Jun 10th 2007 9:44PM
If you believe in an invisible sky-wizard who watches everything you do and will send you to an underground lake of fire if you ever touch your private parts (and yet, professes to "love" you), then yes indeed you are crazy.
The Pope @ Jun 11th 2007 4:04AM
"let people believe what they want to in a religion as long as its not hurting other people. "
That's the trouble. It DOES hurt people.
And yes - everybody who believes in religion is crazy.
David @ Jun 10th 2007 9:42PM
It is ironic that Sony, who's so concerned with people ripping of their DVD's and music (rootkit anyone?), is faced with a copyright lawsuit. God does have a sense of humor!
Then again, there is nothing like a little Plenary Indulgence... tithe Sony, TITHE!!
hemmy @ Jun 11th 2007 1:36AM
The rootkit was Sony BMG's doing, and Sony as an entity only owns 50% of it. The rest of Sony didn't know what was going on. In any event the effect was minimal. The rootkit was on shitty music, and on a small quantity at that. They pulled it quit and paid the price for doing it.
carlo @ Jun 10th 2007 9:48PM
Sony should have TOTALLY seen that one coming. They should pay for their stupidity.
Dilbert @ Jun 11th 2007 2:48AM
no no, if everyone had to pay for being stupid, he whole world would be on bankruptcy...
carlo @ Jun 11th 2007 3:10AM
Well, it'd give an incentive not to do stupid things, stupid.
It doesn't matter what you're doing in the church. The fact is that it's there, it's an OBVIOUS representation and there's no proof that permission was given to use it in a game that blatantly promotes violence.
Everybody knows that in 2007, if you do something like that you're asking for trouble. Put the controller down and read a newspaper or have a conversation with someone--keep up with the rest of us out here in reality.
hangfire @ Jun 10th 2007 9:54PM
yeah i got allot of hits from teachers at school, but worse than that my mother always scared the life out of me, always saying that the devil will suck me down to hell every-time i was a bad boy, talk about messing with a kids mind, i think i need to see my head shrink again
Samuraidino @ Jun 10th 2007 10:10PM
The church should be happy,at least now if ever someone who goes to that church travels back in time to an alternate dimension theyl know the perfect tactics for dealing with the chimera.....
Dima @ Jun 11th 2007 3:41AM
"Sorry, no. You cannot copyright a view of something."
This is sort of true... First of all, they did not use the outside of the building but rather the interior. Once inside you are bound under the rules of the establishment.
Also, while I do not know UK laws, there are countries where commercial use of landmarks is prohibited without express license.
see Greece vs. Verizon lawsuit where verizon used images of the Parthenon in an ad.
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200706071411DOWJONESDJONLINE000904_FORTUNE5.htm
zacius @ Jun 10th 2007 10:53PM
As an elf I consider Azeroth to be my holy land. WoW owes me big.
lee @ Jun 10th 2007 10:54PM
I wonder what the financial status of the cathedral is... in no large secret that cathedral cost large amounts of money to maintain, take Lincoln cathedral, that has something like a week running and maintenance costs of ~£50,000.
It seems that this apparently unfortunate and disrespectful state of affairs would appear to be blessing some might say.
I'd be surprised as Jypson said, that someone wasn't just out of the loop. I expect we'll never know since this story is getting such hyped media attention, would certainly be humiliating to the church if this was the case
However this is mere speculation ;>
I just can't help feel there is something dubious about this whole thing.
Baby Crock @ Jun 10th 2007 10:59PM
I hope the Sony sue the church lol
Tubal @ Jun 10th 2007 11:35PM
Church of England?
Sony should just get on some ships and try to find a land where they won't be persecuted, and where they will be allowed to live their lives like they want to. Without being forced to succumb to the wishes of the Church of England.
Michal G @ Jun 10th 2007 11:47PM
How did the church find out anyway? Wouldn't playing a game where the objective is to kill somewhat of a sin?
BobTurbo @ Jun 10th 2007 11:48PM
I guess we can add creativity to the list of things that the church wants to hold back.
Seth @ Jun 11th 2007 12:05AM
the church is the heritage of everyone in England and everyone who's ancestors built / contributed to through tithe or whatever else and it is the right of everyone to use the image of it in any artistic or otherwise way that they please and the church is not only overlooking this but also has no case as your CAN'T copyright copyright the idea of a historical place... AND all they're asking for is money to use it... which means they're simply looking to profit from this
Derek Duvel @ Jun 11th 2007 12:51AM
I'm going to go get a copyright on plywood crates tomorrow, and sue every developer of every first-person shooter game that has ever been made.
Shaylon Clark @ Jun 11th 2007 1:07AM
Wait a minute. What's the church doing playing video games?
barnz2k @ Jun 11th 2007 1:59AM
church thinks should they have a say in everything. Now theyre trying to get a dollar.
I love that everyone here is backing sony and sees how stupid it is.
zeroKnots @ Jun 18th 2007 12:50AM
Just to split the atoms within hairs for fun:
Artistic depictions that are way more offensive than this have been defended.
I hope artists take issue with this, but show integrity by not demanding defamation damages from the church.
The church ends up turning on artists. That's philosophical infighting, there.
This is a fun can-o-worms. :)
I've never liked some of the church's commissioned depictions of Christ, if you want to go THAT far. Too violent a focus for such a peaceful man.
Then of course the end of the world prophecies. They've screwed up many a kid's outlook on humanity, and they claim absolute validity! Not sci-fi license over already past events.
Sony should apologise out of pure politeness, but refuse to back down on the principle of artistic freedom.