Church of England vs Sony

Mongrelman

The church isn't too happy with Resistance Fall of Man featuring Manchester Cathedral as a level.

http://www.anorak.co.uk/twitterings/174104.html
http://www.totalvideogames.com/news/Sony_Resists_The_Church_of_England_11687_4828_0.htm

Saw it on the news about half an hour ago on tv, these a couple of the first links that showed up.

KeyserSoze

This should fall under fair use, shouldn't it? If film makers can use footage of buildings without permission (can you imagine having to get permission for every building in a helicopter shot of NYC), why can't the same be done in a video game? If I can see your building from the public street, then I have the right to photo it, paint it, sculpt it or whatever else, don't I?

Daz

There's a movie of the bbc's covering of the story here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/6736809.stm

Im not sure of the specific definitions of the fair use clause, but the Church of Englands particular beef is that their cathedral should be perceived as a sanctuary, and isn't an appropriate setting for a gun bloodbath.

Obviously Sony aren't going to comply with the Church's demand to pull the game, so it'll be interesting to see where this one goes. It seems to carry the potential to open a highly complex can of worms.
I'm fairly certain that EA had to get permission to virtually fuck up Big Ben when we made From Russia With Love, but I could be smoking crack.

Tulkamir

Whee! Typical religious zealots over reacting.

Ruz

its just a shame that the church of England hvae discovered morality so late, if you were a witch back in the day, then things weren't so easy:)

Mongrelman

Sony should just say the cathedral is a setting for humanity's fight to save itself, so a house of god was a fitting scene.

Or some shit like that to placate them.

Asherr

yeah they should just get over it. it's not like it's a holy place or anything....

Ferg

I think this falls into the "boo hoo, they're not hurting anyone, not everybody has the same values as you, get over it" category

snap.crackle.pop

Im pretty sure it as to do with the church looking for a place in the modern digital medium.

Jesse Moody

and this is why i dislike religion and the people that push it like it's the only way to live.

Mongrelman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_Museums#Works_in_the_Vatican_museums

SELL SELL SELL!

Asmuel

I've qued up in that line before lol.

Pretty amazing, millions of dollars worth of art in the vatican and there are disabled people out on the streets just outside it. Nice one

Daz

[ QUOTE ]
and this is why i hate religion and the people that push it like it's the only way to live. The church is hurting for money so they thought this would be an easy win. haha Good luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm neither a) religious nor b) in support of Manchester cathedrals wishes but that is just completely asinine.
Read the story. The Cathedral has an issue with what they see as the desecration of their place of worship, in the backdrop of Manchester being a city with high gun crime. They're not seeking money of any kind. They're seeking the game being pulled. This isn't US evangelism, it's a church in the north of England. Priests don't drive around in Rolls Royces.

Steve Schulze

While the suggestion that the game should be pulled is a little extreme and rather silly given that there are loads of copies of the game laready sold, it does seem like Sony are in the wrong here, or should be. If you have to get permission to use a real car or a real celebrity likeness, why not a real building?

Alternatively, maybe they're just pissed off because they've been affiliated with a really lousy FPS.

Asherr

God hates the PS3.

Jesse Moody

This whole permission thing is ridiculous. I can understand the likeness of a person or car design but let's say someone used the Grand Canyon for a game for some reason. Does the developer have to pay the department of whatever it is to use it? The church wouldn't have a problem with it if it was a game that portrayed god in it. There are tons of movies that show holy type places and I'm not 100% sure but I wouldn't think they have always had permission to show them in the scene.

I don't know. Wanting money or not asking to have the game pulled is ridiculous and a little far fetched.

And as far as it's not US evangelism or not I don't know anything more corrupt than the church. BUT I am not going to get into that debate.

Tulkamir

Unless the architect/designer remains alive, no structure which is also a landmark should require permission in my opinion.

When something has been around for long enough to become a landmark like that I think it's getting ridiculous to force people to ask permission to use it.

Jesse Moody

[ QUOTE ]
Unless the architect/designer remains alive, no structure which is also a landmark should require permission in my opinion.

When something has been around for long enough to become a landmark like that I think it's getting ridiculous to force people to ask permission to use it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. It was used as a landmark to establish the environment and the area this took place at. The white house has been in a few games I am pretty sure of but I don't think our government has given permission for it to be used.

If this was the case then why would people that draw, paint, sculpt or depict any other landmark including the church be safe? There has to be limits.

Is Hillary Clinton a member of this church?

almighty_gir

not to mention, the only reason that church was built, was in effort to break the rules anyway.

Lol @ henry VIII and his purging =]

Tully

"Is Hillary Clinton a member of this church?"
I'm not sure why it's even remotely relevant as this is a story about something happening in England, but wikipedia says Clinton is a methodist. The Church of England is most closely related to the Episcopal Church in the US. As far as I know, they were the same organization before the american revolutionary war, though they aren't affiliated anymore. Though I'm not a christian or an american, so what do I know? :P

As to the story... if it were a game about racing cars I don't think you'd have heard a peep out of the Manchester Cathedral. It's not terribly surprising that the developers would've thought to make a game with guns set in a place that has a lot of gun crime, though I can see how a few people directly affected by manchester gun crime might be a bit unsettled by it (the correct action in this case would be -- NOT TO PLAY THE GAME ). I don't think they have any real cause to be personally affronted unless the game were depicting actual events in which people were killed.

Until "Mother's Against Violence" or whoever else can come up with a lot of data that strongly suggest a causal link between playing violent video games and actual violence, they need to work against the actual concrete causes of violent crime. Namely poverty, poor education and general economic oppression of certain segments of the population.

almighty_gir

thing is though, it's not as if it's a modern set, gangster toating GTA wanabe gun crime game.

it's a friggin (twisted, albeit...) WW2 set game!

Tulkamir

Tully, I think the Hilary Clinton thing was meant sarcastically, not literally. Because Hilary Clinton is known for being VERY uptight, against games, and is more than that known to blame games without actually researching (ala Jack Thompson).

As to the rest, good points.

Rhinokey

I'm pretty much anti religion, but i'm 100% behind the church on this. it was their building you should get permision before making it a major part of a game, specialy if the way you are using it goes against the wishes of the owners. i don't see anyway to argue on the side of sony in this instance.

almighty_gir

i'm now 100% anti-Rhinokey.

acc

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in that level don't you fight... aliens?

Jesus was abducted! They're just trying to cover up the conspiracy!

AstroZombie

[ QUOTE ]
There are tons of movies that show holy type places and I'm not 100% sure but I wouldn't think they have always had permission to show them in the scene.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read the article? The inside of the church is rendered as part of a level where a battle occurs. I am 99.9% positive that if a film depicts the interior of a building, they would need to get permission to go in and film. I'm not quite as positive but I would think that a film maker would attempt to get permission to create a CG render of a building interior whether permission was needed or not. Also, if the building is owned by the church of England it is private property. IMHO the church is 100% in the right on this.

Thegodzero

Just so you know you technically have to get permission to take pictures of any building if you are going to use it. So basically any tie you are going to use a real place in something that you intend to make money off of you have to ask permission to use first. The only reason people dont sue all the time is they dont care as 90% of the time its used in a way that helps exposure.

I question how they were able to recreate the inside of the church. I would think that someone had to go in there and take pictures of the place so they could recreate it, if so that person should have asked for permission to do so. If they did not then the dev's are in the wrong 100% on this one.

Daz

[ QUOTE ]
I question how they were able to recreate the inside of the church. I would think that someone had to go in there and take pictures of the place so they could recreate it

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily

Thegodzero

wow, hmmm

Still the same rules apply though, if they were planing on using that building then they still should have informed them. Any time you bring money into the game you always have to cross your t's and dot your i's, and that is why.

Daz

No, I actually agree with you. I was making the point that the fact that they could have made the level from the comfortable distance of LA, without even having to visit the cathedral could mean that there was even *less* incentive to seek permission.

I think you're right. I'm confident that as far as the law goes, Sony require permission to depict the interior in a videogame.

However, If you read the bbc article, Sony say they got all the permission required, which Manchester cathedral denies. So clearly the full facts are not yet known. I'm sure the story will unfold after the two parties meet.

Thegodzero

Agreed, my guess is that they did get the ok but didn't say what they were going to use it for. So when the church saw what it was used for and didn't like it they pulled out the papers, saw that it didn't specify the use so are saying they didn't give permission to use it in that manner.

almighty_gir

in which case sony can just laugh at them. I already am

Jesse Moody

Either way I don't see this game getting pulled off shelves. We can fight about who owns what for the rest of eternity and whether or not bob the dirty priest gave ted the lying developer permission.

I just think everyone is getting to damn sensitive in this world. You can't even tell someone to fuck off any more without them shedding tears.

ElysiumGX

Let's keep the church out of video games, mmmkay?

Designing a fictional church (does anyone care?) would have solved this conflict, but that would require Sony to use one of their rare "good idea" tokens.

aesir

Personally, if they were recreating an area, I would definitely prefer they remain true to what the area actually looked like. But thats just me.

Jesse Moody

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, if they were recreating an area, I would definitely prefer they remain true to what the area actually looked like. But thats just me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly! This is a fictional WW2 story that never existed. What if it was a book? Sure it's not visual but same context. I could see if the game was based off some type of truth but it's not. I just can't believe something that has led to war for thousands of years is worried about how a video game depicts one of their buildings.

arshlevon

nothing to see here folks.. move along..

TomDunne

Real world reproductions are a waste of energy anyway. Look at the shit storm from this, when it's a minuscule number of gamers would even recognize the Manchester Cathedral, much less know if it's accurate or not. I've been in the London Underground and am familiar with the signage and things like that. Would I know if the routes are correct or if specific stations are spot-on replicas? Of course not, so why blow development resources on it?

aesir

Thats true verm, however, do you really think that some concept artists would be be able to make something as realistic as something that actually exists?

TomDunne

I don't think it matters. Like Arsh said, they had to redo the Underground so it wasn't exactly like the real thing. It's no big deal to get source material and generate a seemingly authentic environment, and certainly easier than trying to directly model real-world places.

Jesse Moody

I think another growing issue with re-creating things like the London Underground and say the New York subway system to the exact detail is starting to become more of an issue with national security and to try and prevent terrorism and like acts.

If it was made exactly how it is then they could and would use it like blueprints. So I am sure there is more to it than we are seeing.

These days you aren't even supposed to photograph public landmarks and areas. I know when I was in San Diego I got asked why I was taking so many photos of Balboa Park and weird things like the sewer grates and access points. I didn't think about it until they asked me but it would look rather strange to see a guy snapping photos of fences and sewer access points. At least the security guy was doing his job...

Asmuel

Cathedrals have the most cookie-cutter layout possible, If they didnt call it Manchester catheral you probably wouldnt even notice. All this fuss has made me want to play it about 300% more than I did a week ago lol.

Mongrelman

Just on the news here:

Church is asking for-

Apology
Game pulled from shelves
Monetary donation

Also said the copyright thing is for the life of the architect + 70 years, the cathedral was made about 800 years ago.

I guess it boils down to more of a moral argument than legal if this is the case.

Tulkamir

[ignore me!]

TomDunne

It's a donation to a charity, not to the church itself.

Jesse Moody

Is it a donation in the "Church's" name?

I guess I don't get the big fuss. I could see if it was some gangsta type game or some game like GTA but this was a fight for man kind. For our survival.

So what happens if someone makes a mod based off one of these places? No profit is made. Just made for fun.

snemmy

Hrmm.. I see a lot of opinions being coloured by their hate of organized religion.

All implied motivations(money) aside..

This place is SACRED/RESPECTED(a concept *quite foreign to some people) to a lot of people and they do not want it to be associated with blood bath game play, even if it is to save humanity.

Anti-religion thumping is just as bad as bible-thumping and only serves to muddle the details even further.

Now if Sony didn't get permission or the church is fibbing, either way someone is in trouble.

Mongrelman

That's one of the points; is it actually 'trouble'? It's a bit sketch at the moment as to whether permission is legally required. Though it's obviously curteous to ask at least.

ElysiumGX

[ QUOTE ]
Hrmm.. I see a lot of opinions being coloured by their hate of organized religion.

Anti-religion thumping is just as bad as bible-thumping and only serves to muddle the details even further.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed and agreed.

Honestly, I've never heard of this building killing anyone. So don't be childish and label it as something that's caused death throughout history. That's the fault of human beings.

It wasn't necessary for Sony to use this exact structure for gameplay. And honestly, churches are not a setting for gun battles, much like schools.

IronHawk

speaking of guns and churches.

KeyserSoze

[ QUOTE ]
Honestly, I've never heard of this building killing anyone. So don't be childish and label it as something that's caused death throughout history. That's the fault of human beings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the building also isn't the one who's filing the lawsuit, and the building isn't what's being criticized here... and to be fair, I don't think anyone was blaming the building for the crusades, inquisition, etc, etc. They were blaming a particular religion, the representatives of which are the one's filing the lawsuit.