backtop

Blog: Software Church of England vs. Sony
Christopher Jennings (Blog) - June 11, 2007 1:21 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 56 comment(s) - last by Mako2u.. on Jun 26 at 4:03 PM
The separation of Church and Games?

In an interesting article over on CNN it seems the Manchester Cathedral was the site of an outstanding gun battle in the game Resistance: Fall of Man. The church is demanding a patch be created to remove the visual of the inside of the cathedral in the blood bath that takes place in it, as well as an “unspecified” large donation to the church.

The Church of England says Sony did not seek permission to use the Manchester Cathedral in the game, and is demanding an apology and a large donation to be used in its work with young people.

The Church has weak legal legs to stand on here. It’s not as if they went into the church and filmed a live action movie. They just had some photographers take some high resolution pictures of the interior and exterior and then had some modeling and texturing artists build the cathedral from the ground up virtually.

The Church has yet to receive contact from Sony since the matter was first raised on Friday.

Sony’s legal department seems to be mulling over the complaint and list of demands, but even I have to note that this likely wouldn’t hold water in an American court, however this is in the EU. I was unable to find any specific law that might give the church leverage to sue Sony for the depiction of the Cathedral in the game, but who knows, lawsuits don't necessarily need to make any sense these days.

Apparently there was another instance of this with the Rainbow Six: Vegas release. The Las Vegas governor didn't like that his city was featured. Long and the short of it being that they complained, but the game was released on time and on target. Afterall as Ubisoft stated, these games are all stories, they are fiction, and should be treated no different than a fiction book or film.

On that note however, should owners, officials or builders of public establishments be allowed to demand royalties for public locations and buildings that are used in countless games and movies?

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
What?
By therealnickdanger on 6/11/2007 9:02:21 PM , Rating: 3
So would I be allowed to paint the likeness of the cathedral and sell it?




RE: What?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 6/11/2007 9:47:49 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see why you wouldn't. It would be no different than sitting on a hill and painting a picture of anything you see with your eyes and then selling it.... What difference would it make if it's a cathedral?


RE: What?
By Spivonious on 6/12/2007 9:28:03 AM , Rating: 2
I think the problem here is that they took professional quality photos of the interior and modeled the game after them. I can't go to Paris, go inside Notre Dame, take super high quality pictures, and then sell them without first getting the church's permission. I'm sure the church owns the rights to its interior. Also, a church is going to be upset if a game depicts ultra-violence taking place inside of it.


RE: What?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/12/2007 10:12:00 AM , Rating: 2
For a private home or office, you have a point. But public buildings are a different matter. A Church, open to any and all certainly seems to be a public facility.


RE: What?
By Spivonious on 6/12/2007 11:42:19 AM , Rating: 2
Churches, while open to the public, are not publicly-owned buildings. My taxes do not go towards the building of a new addition to the local chapel. According to Wikipedia, the Church of England receives no financial support from the government, so that would make them privately-owned as well.

The bottom line is they should have gotten permission.


RE: What?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/12/2007 12:49:36 PM , Rating: 3
I'm not familiar with British law, but in the US, the copyright of a building's architecture does not include photographic depictions of such. You are free to take photographs of the outside of any building you wish and-- if you're allowed inside to photographs-- you can use the interior depictions as you wish as well.

In any case, any intellectual property covering the building's look and feel is certainly within the public domain by now. The Church of England may own the property, but they don't own the appearance of the property.


RE: What?
By Mako2u on 6/26/2007 3:57:26 PM , Rating: 2
The key point here is "if you are allowed inside". I'm quite sure that if you were to state your intentions, that you want to take detail pictures of the interior of their church to use in a video game which depicts violence, you would not be allowed inside.


RE: What?
By OxBow on 6/13/2007 4:34:21 PM , Rating: 2
Is the Church of England a private, independent organization. While the Bishop of Cantebury is technically the head, I believe that he still answers to the Queen.


RE: What?
By DamnBrit520 on 6/15/2007 12:28:31 AM , Rating: 2
I think he answers to the Queen in the same sense that the Prime Minister still answers to the Queen. The Prime Minister technically forms his government with the consent of the Queen and then it's her government as well.


RE: What?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/12/2007 10:18:26 AM , Rating: 3
> "I can't go to Paris, go inside Notre Dame..."

I'd like to point out that the interior of Notre Dame has been featured in several different video games (Onimusha 3 portrayed it as demon-infested), as well as the animated Disney movie 'Hunchback of Notre Dame'. I don't believe permission was sought for any of these depictions.


RE: What?
By Pythias on 6/12/2007 11:26:30 AM , Rating: 3
Quite frankly, having to defend Sony burns my buns. However, I cant see where they've done anything wrong in this instance. According to the chuirch itself, the property belongs to GOD, and I dont see him/her/it listed as a plaintiff. Do they have GOD's power of attorney?


RE: What?
By ElectricMayhem on 6/13/2007 6:45:49 AM , Rating: 2
Remember, their complaint is not the "use" of the church... but the depiction of the blood bath, etc.

Much like if there was a game with a mosque with muslims at prayer being slaugthered by Israeli mossad. It was cause a bit of a stir, wouldn't it?


RE: What?
By MADAOO7 on 6/14/2007 10:15:11 AM , Rating: 2
How ironic is their complaint seeing that Christianity is built upon years and years of bloodshed. The bible is one of the most grusome and horrifing books in history; plagues, starvation, cruxifiction, murder, death of children, and demons are all part of the Church's history. Not to mention the Crusades....


RE: What?
By bkm32 on 6/14/2007 3:27:08 PM , Rating: 2
You're mistaken. Have you ever read the Bible? It's a love letter from God to His creation, Man. It is also a book of consequences and redemption of those consequences. It's ironic how we don't want to see the results of our ill behaviors. It's also a book of life.

Don't make the mistake of being one of those people who comment on things they know very little to nothing about.

Moreover, don't make the mistake in believing that the Bible is a book written by men alone. If it were, then it would be one of the most gruesome books in Human history. Instead, the Bible is written by God through men so that men might might believe in a all-powereful, loving God Who wants a restored relationship with His children.

Don't take my word for it, read it yourself. It's the Word of God and will change your life.

BTW, I'm not offended by your misunderstanding of the Bible, either. People misunderstand the Bible all the time (even believers of the Bible, myself included). Besides, I didn't write it; I don't own the rights to it, but imagine yourself in the hands of an angry God, who was offended by your attitude towards Him and His Word. That's the true meaning of fear.


RE: What?
By DamnBrit520 on 6/15/2007 12:38:05 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with you that I haven't read the Bible and so will not comment on what's in it

BUT... (come on it had to be coming)

Remember what Muslims always criticize about the Bible... written by a lot of different men as their recollections of events WHILE their book, the Koran, was handed down from God directly to Muhammad who wrote it all down himself.

Not that I agree with either side in a fight about something no-one will one ever be able to answer in this world but I felt the need to throw that $.02 in.


RE: What?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 6/15/2007 10:14:52 AM , Rating: 2
I would argue that the entire concept of god, and jesus as some sort of king is little more than a human heirarchy and creation. The church has a very rigid hierarchical structure. The concept of a living or loving god is also a human creation. In fact, if you whip out your history books and go back, way back to the dawn of civilization you can see that there have always been god(s). The gods were worshiped, and believed to be the cause for just about everything. As time went on and people developed math, science, education, and higher thinking, the concept of god was fundamentally altered. The concept had to be altered because things that were once associated with god are now predictable, are now explainable using modern methods and theories. I am willing to bet you that in roughly 500 years, the concept of god will further shrink until it is only believed by a small minority. We are seeing this now, fewer people believe in god than ever before and there is a strong correlation between higher thinking and higher education and the lack of belief in god(s).

But back on topic, this is a tech forum, not the place to discus the pro's and con's of religion itself. We are talking about the church of england (Manchestor Cathedral) in a peeing contest with Sony over a game.


RE: What?
By CollegeTechGuy on 6/15/2007 4:51:39 PM , Rating: 2
If you take pictures inside Notre Dame, then you can do whatever you want with them. They are your pictures, and they are like art. You took them, so they are yours to do with as you please. If the people who run/own Notre Dame wish you not to do this, then they will not allow photography inside the building. That is the only way anyone can stop something like that. It doesn't matter if its a high res or low res picture, thats like the difference between a bad painter and a good painter, they are both still painters and their art work belongs to them.


RE: What?
By mars777 on 6/12/2007 2:45:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They just had some photographers take some high resolution pictures of the interior and exterior and then had some modeling and texturing artists build the cathedral from the ground up virtually.


GROUND UP us the key.
Picasso did the same things. It's what artists do.


Extortion
By SmokeRngs on 6/12/2007 12:44:02 PM , Rating: 2
The fact that the Church of England is trying to extort a "donation" tells you all you need to know about this situation.

The fact that the game is a work of fiction should be enough to protect it from a lawsuit I would hope. There is precedent set for something like this.

My personal opinion is that a request should have been made to use the depiction of the church since it was used for something other than the purpose of the building. I'm assuming there was a battle in the game inside the church since I've never played the game. If an outdoor shot of the church was used as a backdrop, then I don't see there being any type of problem.

I see no reason to make it required to ask permission for something like this but it would be a courtesy. It's obvious that it's unlikely a religious institution would allow a bloodbath to be portrayed inside a real church even if it's for a game or movie which is probably why no permission was asked here.




RE: Extortion
By Puddleglum1 on 6/12/2007 2:56:49 PM , Rating: 2
Extortion brings about illegal or unethical reasons to establish a demand, or simply the act of compelling somebody. Not everybody is going to completely see your viewpoint and label this an "extortion".

The facts are that Sony did not request permission for photographs of the Church, and that the Church sees a problem with what they have done with the photographs they took.

There seems to be this feeling amongst commenters that because it was a fictional game, then Sony did nothing wrong. The entire law stating that you can't take a picture of something is sometimes confusing, because it's not directly harming anything. But that doesn't mean that the rule is without purpose. If the Church sees the video game as bringing attention to violence in Manchester, or depicting their Church as an interesting place for a shooting, then they have the right and the reason to ask Sony to take down the pictures they took without permission.

Here are two vastly different perspectives, if taken by their true character:
quote:
David Wilson, a Sony spokesman, told The Times: "It is game-created footage, it is not video or photography. It is entertainment, like Doctor Who or any other science fiction. It is not based on reality at all.
quote:
The Bishop of Manchester, the Rt. Rev. Nigel McCulloch, said: "It is well known that Manchester has a gun-crime problem.
One person says the game isn't even real, so this shouldn't be an issue. The other person says that this game hits home, which affords their energy in taking this as far as they have.

The Church has not sued Sony, nor have they demanded money (which would be taking court into their own hands). They see that violence by youth is a problem, and since Sony has seemingly made an exciting game about it, they decided to use their rights and ask Sony to not use what they obtained without permission.

I short, I agree with the Church, but I think that by saying that are asking Sony for a donation to help their youth program, they have totally neutered their credibility.