Customers sending plastic turds, the media laughing them off, and now God threatening to sue. Seems like the only things still to beat Sony down are the forces of nature themselves!
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC News
The Church of England is considering legal action against entertainment firm Sony for featuring Manchester Cathedral in a violent computer game.
Sony Playstation's 'Resistance: Fall of Man' uses the interior of the cathedral's nave without permission.
The Church said Sony did not ask for permission to use the cathedral and it has demanded an apology and the removal of the game from shop shelves - otherwise legal action will be considered.
"It is well know that Manchester has a gun crime problem ... We are shocked to see a place of learning, prayer and heritage being presented to the youth market as a location where guns can be fired."
To be fair, the game was developed by Insomniac and not an internal studio.
You shoot monster soldiers in an alternate reality world war 2 setting! That is... AGH! I really get tired of this stuff.
The article also seems to give no benefit of the doubt to Sony other than that no one could be reached about it.
It is well know that Manchester has a gun crime problem ... We are shocked to see a place of learning, prayer and heritage being presented to the youth market as a location where guns can be fired.
Because everyone knows that gunpowder doesn't work on holy ground.
__________________ City of Heroes: Virtue
WoW: Cenarion Circle
Gamertag: Heretic Machine
Currently Playing: Castle Crashers, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, Beyond Good & Evil
Personally I'm rather sad at Manchester Cathedral's attitude here as a Mancunian, Christian and of course - gamer. Surely rather than condemning the game it would have been an excellent opportunity to discuss Manchester Cathedral on the world stage, using the church's inclusion in this science fiction game as a contact point with the young - who sadly are less interested in spiritual matters these days.
Instead the quotes I see in the papers give the impression of a church not being very well informed about this game or the culture surrounding it - and in effect will only serve to further alienate a young adult audience from the established church. I also wonder at the church's attitude in general - no criticism of seeing Manchester in ruins, just the Cathedral itself, as though it is separate from the city and the community. Perhaps these days this is the case, but it is sad to see this attitude.
The cynical might think it's just a way to drum up some more money through the Cathedral gift-shop cash register.
I've written to Canon Denby and about the issues the church has raised and hopefully I'll have a reply to post eventually.
I've also just phoned the BBC to complain as their radio news keeps repeating nonsense about "killing hundreds of people" to get to this Cathedral level. When of course you fight against alien creatures. It seems the BBC fact checking is as crap as usual.
The nation of Germany has sued Activision Games for creating violent video games that take place within the country during a period Activision claims to be "World War II." Their "Call of Duty" franchise has sold millions of copies and the government of Germany is looking to prevent any further injustices to their image as a nation. Germany's Chancellor of Litigiuos Affiars Albert Schwinzinoff had this to say about the suit:
Quote:
We, ze German people will not stand for such an offense anymore! It has simply become too much to take and we will not allow the Americans to cast Germany in such a light! Nazis? Who were this Nazi peoples?! I know nothing of these thigns you speak of now, I was not a member of the German People's Party, I was also a democrat! Und kinre ire!!
Its okay to kill Muslims in the name of Christianity but not Aliens?
That's not a profoundly stupid comment at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancalagon
Do people have control over whether a place can be depicted in the media or not? could I set a movie in the whitehouse without bush's permission?
Actually, that's an interesting question. Sony certainly doesn't think so. Under American law, you can prohibit photography as a rule of access to a site: basically, you can post a sign saying, "Anyone who takes a photo while in the cathedral will be expelled." In other words, Bush can refuse to let you into the White House, or he can let you in but refuse to let you film a movie in the White House, and he can let you into the White House only on the condition that you don't take photos. But you can construct a White House set and film your movie there. I think that the owner of the site doesn't even necessarily have control over the use of photographs: unless there's a specific agreement otherwise, if Bush lets me snap photos of the Roosevelt Room, I'm allowed to use those for any purpose.
This site suggests that, even if the original photography was illegal, publication would not be. Thus, even if the Church of England has a policy against allowing photos of the cathedral, and Sony violated that by sending photogs in so its art designers would know what was inside, the Church's only legal remedy would be under trespass -- not something that could plausibly result in significant legal damages.
Here, the videogame representation of the cathedral is obviously a mock-up rather than the physical cathedral itself. Even if the programmers used photos of the inside of the cathedral, I'm dubious that that would be very problematic. This is just a gut-call rather than a really solid analysis, especially since I have no idea if English law is the same.
__________________
Your ability to pick out the most inane details of everything never ceases to amaze. -- Slack3r78
The nation of Germany has sued Activision Games for creating violent video games that take place within the country during a period Activision claims to be "World War II." Their "Call of Duty" franchise has sold millions of copies and the government of Germany is looking to prevent any further injustices to their image as a nation. Germany's Chancellor of Litigiuos Affiars Albert Schwinzinoff had this to say about the suit:
That's the kind of thing that happened over there before they got a system (no Nazi symbols, no blood, etc.) running.
The church will win.
You would be surprised at how many different company's freak out if you use the likeness of their building in a game. If any building in a game looks like the real thing, they have to ask for permission and usually PAY for the right to use it. This is standard practice.
Isn't it the same reason why we're fighting in fakey casinos in Rainbow Six?
Don't things get a little sticky when we're looking at public buildings? I mean no one can stop me from depicting the Statue of Liberty or use New York or Washington in a game or movie (right?)... My opinion is that any major landmark would fall under the same category, so casinos are a no go because they are privately owned and the names and buildings belong to individuals/corporations, landmarks and public buildings are fair game.
As for the pictures the in game mock up is based upon, well those could have been taken from a book picked up from the church's gift shop. No harm, no foul.
Anyhow, this seems completely ridiculous and I can't see the Church winning.
There are millions of hoops to jump through if you want to depict a public place in a videogame. Particularly in europe. Listed buildings require explicit permission to use their likeness.
Other things: You need the architects permission to alter the appearance of a building if the architect is still alive.
You also need permission if you want to put a bullethole in a wall of a real-life building nevermind causing explosions or wrecking bits of it.
The church doesn't need to take the moral high-ground (and would be better if they hadn't) as they have a legal right to prevent sale of the game as it doesn't have permission to use the likeness of the cathedral in the game.
This is why you end up with alot of games using mash-ups of real-world buildings to create the stereotype of that building rather than an exact replica of a specific building. It is in fact a legal minefield.
It would be cool to see some comparison pictures of the church in-game, to the real thing. I think I played through the level in game (is it the one where you fight off tons of the 'face hugger' type aliens in the big room right at the start of the level?).
I have no idea what the church looks like in real life, but I can't imagine it looks too much like it did in game. It was more or less a big empty room with some benches in it, if I'm thinking of the right level. I don't recall even seeing it from the outside.
There are millions of hoops to jump through if you want to depict a public place in a videogame. Particularly in europe. Listed buildings require explicit permission to use their likeness.
Other things: You need the architects permission to alter the appearance of a building if the architect is still alive.
You also need permission if you want to put a bullethole in a wall of a real-life building nevermind causing explosions or wrecking bits of it.
The church doesn't need to take the moral high-ground (and would be better if they hadn't) as they have a legal right to prevent sale of the game as it doesn't have permission to use the likeness of the cathedral in the game.
This is why you end up with alot of games using mash-ups of real-world buildings to create the stereotype of that building rather than an exact replica of a specific building. It is in fact a legal minefield.
QFT - they are in a world of trouble if the church is taking a hard line on this. (and they probably are) If it was a corporation they would probably settle for money. In this case you're negotiating with people who morally oppose to the violence in their building.
I'm shocked their legal team let the likeness slip.
This site suggests that, even if the original photography was illegal, publication would not be. Thus, even if the Church of England has a policy against allowing photos of the cathedral, and Sony violated that by sending photogs in so its art designers would know what was inside, the Church's only legal remedy would be under trespass -- not something that could plausibly result in significant legal damages.
Here, the videogame representation of the cathedral is obviously a mock-up rather than the physical cathedral itself. Even if the programmers used photos of the inside of the cathedral, I'm dubious that that would be very problematic. This is just a gut-call rather than a really solid analysis, especially since I have no idea if English law is the same.
This isn't photography and therefore photography law isn't applicable.
