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.


RE: Extortion
By masher2 (blog) on 6/12/2007 5:15:01 PM , Rating: 1
The Church's opinion as to whether this depicts them in a good light or not is irrelevant. What mattes is whether or not they own the rights to the appearance of their property. Under US law, they do not. Images of specific people are protected, as well as artworks such as paintings and statues....but buildings are not protected. Nor should they be.


RE: Extortion
By Black69ta on 6/12/2007 5:33:24 PM , Rating: 2
Then why do some museums have sign banning and photographs to be taken? Is it the artifacts that they are protecting? I thought it was the entire Building and its contents.


RE: Extortion
By youdosuck on 6/12/2007 6:01:39 PM , Rating: 2
They ban cameras because of the Flash, some people are retarded so they ban the whole camera.


RE: Extortion
By youdosuck on 6/12/2007 11:00:41 PM , Rating: 2
Light is a paintings worst enemy. They mostly ban Flash Photography, but I guess it could be to protect their copyrights too.


RE: Extortion
By OxBow on 6/13/2007 4:42:28 PM , Rating: 3
Not completely true.

Flash photography releases an ungodly (pun intended) amount of UV that can cause measurable damage.

However, we also limit photography for security concerns and copyright issues. Many of the works of art in a Museum have some form of copyright in place, allowing unsanctioned photography opens the potential for abuse of this copyright. It's also bad from a security standpoint, since someone can use film of a gallery to plan a heist or snatch & grab.


RE: Extortion
By masher2 (blog) on 6/12/2007 7:33:40 PM , Rating: 2
> "Then why do some museums have sign banning and photographs to be taken?"

Works of art *are* protected under copyright law. A photograph of a painting is another copy of the painting, which is specifically disallowed. By the way, even if you own the painting, you can't give someone permission to photograph it...only the copyright owner (usually the original artist) can do that.

A second point. If you own a building, you can prevent people from taking photos of the interior. Just don't let them inside. But if you do let them in, and allow them to take photographs, you don't own the result, and cannot stop them from using them how they will.


RE: Extortion
By Puddleglum1 on 6/12/2007 8:14:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But if you do let them in, and allow them to take photographs, you don't own the result, and cannot stop them from using them how they will.
... in the US.


RE: Extortion
By DamnBrit520 on 6/15/2007 12:52:56 AM , Rating: 2
I think the case might turn not on any copyrights or anything like that, but perhaps the people who took the high-resolution photos in the church came to the church and entered not on tourist purposes or private purposes but on commercial purposes and the church might then try to go for trespassing or unauthorized access or mis-representation.

But in any case, the Church most likely is just trying to raise the profile on youth violence and obviously this statement makes that point. Besides lawsuits in England are generally more expensive and harder to initiate.


RE: Extortion
By Clienthes on 6/14/2007 7:47:40 AM , Rating: 2
That's the legal issue, and its pretty clear, and I don't really see too many people questioning it. I think the moral issue is more interesting. Whether they are legally compelled to seek permission or not, they should have.

A game depicting a massacre in any building without regard to the owner's wishes is disrespectful. The fact that it was a building that millions of people still see as a symbol of their belief system just adds to the disrespectful attitude on display here.

Is there anything left that people will do out of decency rather than legal obligation? Is there anything left in the world that people respect enough to not make it the scene of a fictional enactment of man's inhumanity?

Huh, just read my post and I think it reads a little stronger than I actually feel about the subject. Anyway, this incident really isn't all that important, but I think it demonstrates social attitudes that deserve a closer look.


RE: Extortion
By Mako2u on 6/26/2007 4:03:24 PM , Rating: 2
Since it is a work of fiction why the need to use detail images of an actual church? Create a fictional church and this all goes away.

What, they created a fictional game but could not take a few more man hours to create a church, give me a break.


Virtual Masacres
By InternetGeek on 6/13/2007 12:42:04 AM , Rating: 2
These days not everyone likes their property being displayed as the site of a massacre. I don't even want to think of this situation had Sony used a Muslim Temple.

But in any case, sensitive or not, you should request permission before using other people's property (or related), and make clear what your intention is. It's only common sense, and it takes into account the other person's rights over their property.

If Hollywood has to request permission to shoot footage anywhere, why not Sony?




RE: Virtual Masacres
By masher2 (blog) on 6/13/2007 9:44:48 AM , Rating: 2
> "you should request permission before using other people's property "

Sony didn't use their property. They used the appearance of their property. A vast difference.

> "If Hollywood has to request permission to shoot footage anywhere, why not Sony? "

The Church gives a blanket permission to publicily visit the interior of their cathedrals, and to take photographs if desired. That's equivalent to allowing Hollywood in to shoot a movie there.

What they're asking for is different, and is equivalent to, after having allowed a studio to shoot a film inside, to then dictate how and where the studio uses that footage.


RE: Virtual Masacres
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 6/13/2007 12:42:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Church gives a blanket permission to publicily visit the interior of their cathedrals, and to take photographs if desired. That's equivalent to allowing Hollywood in to shoot a movie there.

I'm not so sure this is the case (it might be I didn't look into this specific church).

Granting permission for photography may be on the clause that it must not be republished for commercial uses. You can be damn sure you can't go and make a movie depicting the characters shooting up Disney World, even if you happened to have visited there once and taken pictures of it.

Now if it's parody, that's one thing. I think this clearly isn't though.


RE: Virtual Masacres
By masher2 (blog) on 6/13/2007 12:59:50 PM , Rating: 2
Consider this. What if Sony had not taken the photos themselves, but simply purchased any number of commercially-available books and prints of the interior of the Cathedral? It is, after all, one of the more photographed sites in England.


RE: Virtual Masacres
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 6/13/2007 1:19:19 PM , Rating: 2
See my example below about Disney World.

By the way, whenever we buy stock photography there is always a transfer of media clause -- i.e., I cannot put a random image I purchased of "The Mona Lisa" into a movie without getting a different agreement for that.


RE: Virtual Masacres
By masher2 (blog) on 6/13/2007 1:27:39 PM , Rating: 1
> "whenever we buy stock photography there is always a transfer of media clause..."

Because that image-- that particular representation-- is protected under copyright law, as a creative work of art. So are paintings, statues, and even monuments. Buildings, however, are not so protected....nor are works of art for which copyright protection has expired, such as the Mona Lisa. So while a particular photo of the Mona Lisa may be protected under copyright law, the image itself is not.


RE: Virtual Masacres
By James Holden on 6/13/2007 3:52:46 PM , Rating: 2
How sure are you about buildings not being protected?


RE: Virtual Masacres
By masher2 (blog) on 6/18/2007 10:00:42 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.kantor.com/useful/Legal-Rights-of-Photo...

quote:
If you can be there, you can photograph there: streets, malls, parking lots, office buildings. You do not need permission, even on private property....if a place is open to the public, permission to enter is assumed (though it can be revoked).

Photographers can publish any photos they take, provided those photographs do not violate the privacy of the subject. This includes photographs taken while trespassing or otherwise being someplace they shouldn't be. Trespassing and photography are two separate issues...


RE: Virtual Masacres
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 6/14/2007 10:00:58 AM , Rating: 2
Right. I'm not real clear on european copyright laws but I know in the U.S. you can certainly petition to have the likeness of a building copyrighted no matter what media -- barring parody clauses of course.

Like I said before, if Sony put that scene in Disneyworld, you can be pretty certain Robert Iger would have something to say about it.


RE: Virtual Masacres
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 6/25/2007 4:44:02 PM , Rating: 2
Disneyworld is a bad example I think. Disneyworld is privately owned and operated, with an admission fee, and the ability to deny admittance to anyone they want to. The church has an open door policy.


Out of Respect
By Clienthes on 6/12/2007 3:40:58 AM , Rating: 3
If you're going to use someone else's property as a setting for your fictional work, you should probably make sure it's OK with them, especially if the content of the fictional work is objectionable to the owners (and you know that ahead of time). Ubi may have no legal vulnerability, but it is pretty ...immoral isn't the right word...rude maybe?

Church, school, hospital, even private property, whatever; its just the sensitive thing to do. If it is something based on history, I don't think you'd need to. Clearly, though, this is not historical.

If restriction of creative license is your issue with this, If its a creative work to begin with, it shouldn't require much more creativity to change the venue. If the location is absolutely vital to the plot maybe there is a gray area (I doubt that's the issue here), but being respectful vs. being creative shouldn't need to become a legal issue.

I also think that the church demanding a "donation" is out of line. I think that not only does it make them look bad to a generation that believes that religion is just a political tool, but it is contrary to Christian doctrine.




RE: Out of Respect
By wordsworm on 6/12/2007 6:04:31 AM , Rating: 1
Where in the Bible doth it say, "Thou shalt not sue"? And does this mean that the Red Baron ought to be able to sue because his aircraft and likeness are copied by the games industry?

Creative expression ought not to be hindered by the Bible thumpers. A building isn't a person that has rights. This kind of move would bring into question the ability of games where twin towers are being defended from airplanes (who remembers that game?)


RE: Out of Respect
By mircea on 6/12/2007 9:21:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Where in the Bible doth it say, "Thou shalt not sue"?


No where!! There are 2 remarks in the bible related to this. One is the nineth commandement "Thou shalt not bear false witness"
The other is when Jesus is talking about judging someone and it sais something along don't judge unless you are willing to be judged by the exact same measure you do. So for example if you criticize somoene for playing cracked games cuz you buy all your games and know the developers deserve the money, you are still in the same pearson's position since you watch movies that you have downloaded without paying for them.

Now internally (and to most extent) externally anything christian related should not need resolve trough the court. There are cases where things can't be solved in that manner.

Now on topic, I think both sides went wrong on this, especially the church. I understand their complaint, but it shouldn't have been resolved trough mediatization and court action. Unlees it's the last resort, and they have found it imperative to do so (which I think it's not). I don't like that simbolical buildings or anything simbolic fo that matter, are used in this manner in games especially when they contradict so fundamentally with what it reprezents.
So using Red Barrons plane in a battle is quite within it's place, instead of using a church in battle.


RE: Out of Respect
By sortitus on 6/13/2007 6:16:02 AM , Rating: 2
How about a kids game where you grow a garden in the Red Baron's rusting plane? ;) Sounds like fun to me, but would the Red Baron object to having his plane depicted in such a cheerful and productive manner?

And as to how the Red Baron could sue anybody, I would have to check the law of the underworld regarding temporary release... There is also the fact that his plane was in no way a unique work of art. Umm, a red plane with the iron cross on it does not qualify under any artistic restrictions, whereas the cathedral could be considered a work of art, but images would remain the property of its original architect and artist.

Really this should never have happened. Getting the general feel and design cues from a building is one thing, but to represent it in near-photographic quality is uncreative at very least. I think that ownership doesn't relate to this at all. This is an issue because disturbing and violent acts were portrayed in someone's place of worship, which strikes close to home. Any semi-realistic violence-based game should not have an accurate depiction of accessible real-world locations featured in any way, as it could possibly lead unbalanced individuals to do similar things in real life.

I favor the likes of the Unreal series, which takes place in an imaginary place, with imaginary weapons, and imaginary and generally "unreal" gameplay. The franchise states that it is in no way close to real life fighting, but it achieves excellent gameplay and feel nonetheless. I always did prefer MechWarrior battles to realistic depictions of violence. Too tired to write any more... probably getting like 12 wpm here.


RE: Out of Respect
By Moishe on 6/12/2007 11:25:25 AM , Rating: 3
This has nothing to do with "bible thumpers" this has to do with an entity considering it's private building interior to be something that should be respected and licensed.

Religion makes the problem more heated because it's considered irreverent to hack and slash in a holy place. This could be any religious group from a church to an indian tribe. Their request for "respect" of the "holy place" (to me) isn't too much to ask. The money aspect I do find to be a little much, but that's really a legal point.

Personally I don't think they should be legally allowed to sue for the money because even if the building is private, it's a church and most churches are commonly open to the public most of the time. Although privately owned it's sort of a quasi-public place.

If you want to turn it into a reason to bash the religious, I think that's a sad statement about you more than about them.


RE: Out of Respect
By Clienthes on 6/14/2007 7:24:33 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure how that was a reply to my post.

Is there anything that ought to hinder "creative freedom?"

Respect? Even if you don't agree with people's beliefs, its not right to disrespect them.

How about private property? Even if its open to the public, shouldn't you respect the owners wishes about what you do with their property? There's that pesky "R" word again.

This is just another sign of a generation whose concept of respect only goes as far as the self, and that holds cynicism to be among the highest of virtues.

The church can't and shouldn't sue. Ubi shouldn't have used the site without permission.


R-E-S-P-E-C-T
By sortitus on 6/13/2007 6:32:32 AM , Rating: 2
I think it all boils down to respecting peoples' beliefs and property. It is not polite to depict anyone's place of worship with a bloodbath inside, no matter how much it is said that it isn't real.

If someone lived in a home that was open to the public for any reason and someone duplicated the interior exactly in a game and portrayed a scene of massive violence inside, they would have every right to take legal action against Ubi. I am just trying to say that some people consider their church to be their number two safe place, after their home.




RE: R-E-S-P-E-C-T
By ElectricMayhem on 6/13/2007 6:52:43 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed.

If I was a headmaster of a school or college, I would also try to stop "my school" from being used as the scene for shotgun-sniper killing spree madness, or gang-rape, or demonism.

Whether there is a legal case - I'm not sure. But there is a moral and ethical case.


RE: R-E-S-P-E-C-T
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 6/13/2007 11:23:44 AM , Rating: 2
Morals and Ethics have no place in a court of law. Thats why we have Laws.


RE: R-E-S-P-E-C-T
By masher2 (blog) on 6/13/2007 11:36:25 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Law trumps the morality of any particular religion. The Church of England may not appreciate the depiction of their cathedral, but legally I don't see where they have a ground for complaint.

If we attempted to base a code of laws around barring all acts which offended someone, somewhere, at some point...why everything whatsoever would suddenly be illegal. No one would be able to do anything.


RE: R-E-S-P-E-C-T
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 6/13/2007 12:39:36 PM , Rating: 2
Ah but in the U.S. we have parody, fair use and copyright infringement laws.

<jack mccoy>I think, if anything, the Church might have a copyright infringement case. In many cities in the U.S., for example, you must obtain permission from the city government to depict the city for commercial purposes. </jack mccoy>

Although, copyright works funny in England and I'm not quite sure if they're as exacting with their clauses.


Ok....
By SniperWulf on 6/12/2007 11:48:11 AM , Rating: 3
So basically they are saying... you pictured our church in a violent video game!!! How dare you!!

<whispers> but if you say your sorry and give us a lump sum of money, its ok</whispers>

what the hell is that???




RE: Ok....
By Clienthes on 6/14/2007 7:52:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
what the hell is that???


Sad. It is sad.


By knowyourenemy on 6/12/2007 1:41:56 AM , Rating: 2
I am sure that this location in question has seen bloodbaths taken place in it with other works of fiction, no matter what medium that fiction came across as.

Piggybacking off the point made by the author and as stated by Ubisoft, shouldn't those pieces get the same treatment, also? Not to say I disagree with the church, I can understand their feelings about this, but for the love of their own holy institution, will they seriously tackle this medium just because (I think) it has a grander audience (especially to children)?

Stupid. Ubisoft should be able to sneer away from this one with their tongue out.




Episcopalian Sony Fanboy
By OxBow on 6/13/2007 5:12:55 PM , Rating: 2
I am Episcopalian and a PS3 owner who has played through this part of the game (several times, it's a tough fight).

The storyline leads up to Cathedral, through the Cathedral, and out the Cathedral. It sets the Cathedral up as a place of hospice and care, the last bastion before the hordes of apocalypse. After the battle, the Cathedral is effectively reclaimed, delivering a story of renewal through sacrifice (hmm, where have I heard that theme before?).

The battle is intense, jumping and quite visceral, it really gets your blood pumping. Being set in a Cathedral truly adds to the experience. Have the local a recognizable place that carries with it a sense of place lends the scene exceptional gravitas. This would not be possible in some other local, a Cathedral is really usefull in setting the stage and building the mood. Since the game is based on real locals with real histories, and the Church of England being the primary owner of Cathedrals in England, any religious institution depicted would almost have to have been just that, Anglican.

I think that the Church of England has a legitimate beef here. Permission was not asked. Then again, I can't blame Sony for not aking, since the answer probably would have been no. I'd guese (not knowing a lot about English copyright) that Sony has a pretty good legal position. Sony claims that this is an "alternate history" so it's clearly a work of fiction. In addition, while they built the image of the Cathedral up from high res photos, there is no way that they could depict the Cathedral in greater than 90% accuracy (the threshold in American copyright law).

As an Episcopalian, I can say that we tend to view these things through very tight blinders. While the Church promotes openess and generally liberal ideas, we're also quite finicky about protecting our interests, especially financially. Since my wife is on our parishes vestry, I hear about all the fun details of how hardnosed some of these bishops can be when it comes to money. They are also never shy when it comes to asking for it.

I really enjoyed Resistance, although I hated the Cathedral level (since I died so often). Since the level does play a critical roll in the begining storyline, I think that Sony should have asked up front. Even if it meant allowing the Anglicans some say in how the Cathedral was used. Such a move would have promoted good will and positive publicity for Sony. Since Sony shy's away from any good publicity whenver it can, I can see why they wouldn't have wanted to do this. oh well...




They just want money.
By chick0n on 6/14/07, Rating: -1
"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments
Latest By Christopher Jennings
Office 2010 Technical Preview - The Suite
October 10, 2009, 6:01 PM
Windows 7 RTM Out of the Box
August 10, 2009, 8:00 AM
Windows 7 Features -- XP Mode
May 11, 2009, 7:26 AM
Windows 7 Release Candidate - Out of the Box
May 6, 2009, 8:35 AM
Windows XP within Windows 7
April 28, 2009, 8:48 AM
Windows Migration -- The Corporate Dilema
April 28, 2009, 7:54 AM
Windows 7, Out of the Box
January 13, 2009, 3:00 PM
Windows 7, a Look at the Initial Install and Setup
January 12, 2009, 7:07 AM
Sometimes Even the Good Games Die Young
January 11, 2009, 2:29 PM
Companies Continue to Push the Envelope of Work Life Balance
September 16, 2008, 9:30 AM
botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki