Church in trouble over PS3 attack?
The controversy over Manchester Cathedral's begs the question; What would Buddy Christ do?
The Church is essentially more than a little angry that Sony used a likeness of Manchester Cathedral for its PS3 shooter, Resistance: Fall of Man. While Sony has wisely chosen not to comment on the situation at all and is dealing with representatives from the Cathedral directly, the Church has taken a slightly different tactic; asking for a 'large donation', that the game be pulled from shelves and that Sony offers a public apology.
However, it seems as if the church may not have a legal leg to stand on and GamesIndustry.biz recently did some research into the legal background of the case with help from Alex Chapman of Campbell Hooper Solicitors.
"The Church will have an uphill battle in a legal claim against Sony, and indeed it is likely that there is no basis for a claim." Began Alex as he talked about the case. He went on to explain how Sony is protected by copyright law via a provision in the 1988 Copyright Designs and Patents act;
"It explicitly states that it is not copyright infringement to represent certain artistic works that are on public display. This includes buildings and sculptures which are 'permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public'. Therefore, the inclusion of the Cathedral in the game could not be considered to be an infringement of any copyright in it."
Not only that, but under UK law a copyright claim on a building only lasts for seventy years after the architect's death. Manchester Cathedral, which truly is a very beautiful building, was built over eight hundred years ago. Sony has meanwhile issued a comment re-affirming that it is in direct contact with the Church but that it is not commenting to the media.
Given that the game has been out since late last year and has already shipped over a million copies, some are critical of the Church for being so late to file a case and of being out of touch with modern youth culture. As Alex Chapman pointed out; "there is no law against insensitivity and as with many matters of this kind, it is the public reaction that might be more damaging than the legal one."
So, today's question is this: Which is more important to you, your religious beliefs or your game? Should you be made to choose at all? Answers can be submitted on a postcard... or you could just drop your thoughts in the forums.
Previous Article
43 Comments
Discuss in the forums ReplyErm whats the Pope got to do with it, it's the Church of England that's complaining.
And as to the game being released last year, it wasn't in the UK, where last time I checked the Church of England is based.
Does it normally take them that long to ask for a donation? ;)
Erm did you quote the wrong part of my post? If not how does the fact that the Pope is not the head of the C of E show that the religious community is behind the times?
And actually having witnessed a few church meetings, their coming to a decision in less than a year is quite a miracle.
I've also added a link indicating who exactly is critical of the church for being late on this issue.
On that point though, i'd imagine that the church would have known about it before the game was released anyway. Sony has attempted to get all possible permissions apparently and would have had to get detailed source photographs at least, either of which would have involved letting someone in the church know.
That said, it is a rather presumptive move to use the inside of someone else's building, regardless of the public nature of it or the copyright situation, as part of a commercial product without either asking or paying. Filmmakers have these sorts of problems quite frequently.
Phil
That being said, I am a devout Christian and I personally have no problem with the use of the Manchester Cathedral in Resistance. The Church is a body of people, not a building, so I think Church of England just needs to get over it.
Yours do?
I was stating my religious orientation, which happens to be very pertinent to the discussion at hand, not my views on religion.
Fair does - just in a grammar nazi move, not really having a go :D
Harsh but I have to agree.
But, each to their own I say.
As to the matter of CoE having a hissy fit, what's their problem?
I've not played the game or anything but unless demons are de-flowering virgins on the altar with a crucifix then pissing in the holy water, I can't see what the problem is.
A church isn't in theory a posession of the CoE anyway, its a 'house of the lord'.
So they should maybe try the 'thou shalt not judge' line and let the fish & loaf specialist upstairs pass judgement on these 'sinners'?
So was I.
I've lived my whole life with my views, which are based on reason and logic, being seen as less valid than yours, which are probably based on what your parents told you to believe when you were too young to scream "bullshit". I'm not about to sit back and let it happen on some internet forum.
If the CoE complaint is taken seriously, it'll be another example of this sort of mentality. I am not into cultural relativism, sorry.
Phil
However, the essence of religion is true, to be a good person, to not harm others
I personally find is so f*in stupid that Roman Catholic Vs CoE is some sort of problem, FFS people is all Christianity
Whatever your views are, i don't think it really effects what should happen in the outcome of this case
---
---
Commenting on the discussion, whether people agree with religion or not, arguably we still need to respect a place of 'worship' as it is in some peoples words. Although, on the other hand the law seems to agree with Sony, perhaps Sony are not wrong but in future may be more considerate?
However legally, they seem to be quite safe
I think peoples beliefs are irrelevant to this fact, i think whatever you choose to believe, that is still the truth
1) I think you're missing the meaning of religious views as opposed to the meaning of religious orientation.
2) As a matter of fact, I wasn't religious until the year before I went to college.
Yay for assumptions!
Basically you fight a massive swarm of enemies in Manchester Cathedral, from what I can gather. The Church is angry because they don't condone violence and needless death. Except for religious causes, apparently.
Kill 'em all let God sort 'em out... ;)
Or as the senior drill instructor might say...
Sorry if you felt I was forcing my view on you though, we're only attempting to cover the story in full detail as it develops for those who, like me, may be interested in the wider effects it may have. :)
Well in that case perhaps your summary would have been better stated as
Church is angry because a company has used an exact copy of the interior of their building without seeking permission. They are further aggravated at the use of guns in copy of building which runs contra to their current anti-gun program in the city of Manchester and their belief that the use of guns inside the building promotes an acceptance of guns in Manchester by the church.
Would you be so quick to condemn the case if it had been for instance Manchester childrens hospital raising the complaint? Take the fact that its a church complaining and see it as an organisation and is their complaint wrong.
Oh and the physics and chemistry I studied at a-level also had holes, these were filled in with further study. :D
...but that just doesn't sound as cool
And, honestly, I would complain if it were manchester childrens hospital if they too had no legal basis for the complaint. Legal grounding? Fair enough, otherwise unless the player was gunning down patients in the hospital it's fair game to let us kill aliens to save the world. Freedom of speech says we can do that wherever we want.
A commenter on Kotaku changed my stance from "Don't care":
And that is pretty much the way it should be, respect other peoples beliefs and property. If you're unsure check, then double check.
That said, I wouldn't care if it was in a kids hospital, an old folks home, a school, a monastery or my own flat.
Its a game, Its not real.
Lets not forgte that a great number of wars have been started and/or fuelled by religous beliefs and the Christian faith is not blameless in this.
In reality, Sony can perhaps be accused of in-sensitivity in light of the anti-gun sentiment in Manchester, but that's about it.
I spent my youth under the small but real threat of death at the hands of Irish terrorists.
I'm going to spent the best of my adult years under the small but real threat of death at the hands of middle-eastern terrorists.
In fact, I don't believe I've ever been threatened with death by anyone who wasn't at least in part motivated by religion.
Phil
First down to the C of E!
Hatred knows no bounds, and some people will use any justification necessary to act out their aggression on others; it can be religion, skin color, even for no reason at all. Some people are good, others are just plain rotten, most are somewhere in between. While some people may use religion as their modus operandi, we should be able to see past all that nonsense, and see that behind the curtain of religion is just an emotionally empty man telling others what to do.
The Irish terrorists don't embody Christianity any more than Muslim terrorists embody Islam.
-monkey