Slashdot Mirror


Church Threatens Legal Action Over Sony Game

An anonymous reader writes "The Church of England is threatening legal action against Sony over the game Resistance: Fall of Man. The game features a shootout in Manchester Cathedral, and the Church claims that Sony did not ask permission to use the interior of the Cathedral in the game. The Bishop of Manchester called the game 'highly irresponsible' due to the history of gun crime in the city. Sony denies the charge — a spokesman said 'We believe we have sought and received all permissions necessary for the creation of the game.'"

10 of 244 comments (clear)

  1. This is a major news story in the UK by Gossi · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've no idea why, but this is the lead front page story on news.bbc.co.uk, and was the lead news story on the last summary I saw on TV! I can't even figure what what law the church could sue Sony with in the UK.

  2. Re:Better submission by Marcion · · Score: 2, Informative

    >When it comes to opposing gun safety laws or gun control, the Bible is invoked without hesitation.

    You are mixing up your countries. This is not America, this is a Church of England Cathedral. The Church of England is very much in favour of gun control, indeed as an Anglican myself I think one of the few great things Tony Blair did was outlaw handguns entirely (even the Olympic shooting team have to train abroad). Those who live by the gun, die by the gun.

  3. Re:Better submission by ls+-la · · Score: 2, Informative

    A few things:
    1. Thanks for doing the research, I hadn't actually looked into it, but I hadn't heard of any school shootings.
    2. Only 2 of those are shootings, it would be unreasonable to ban knives, and the explosives were probably illegal anyway.
    3. Are there more, or were there only 9 incidents in the last 7 years outside the US? I believe there have been more school shootings within the US during that time frame.
    The article seems say that because violence exists where guns are banned, we shouldn't ban guns. That's a ridiculous and valid argument. Banning guns obviously wouldn't stop all violence, but it would likely reduce weapon-based violence and fatalities.

    I would guess that a statistical analysis would show a reduction in the number of injuries and fatalities per student where gun control is much more strict.

  4. Re:Better submission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    ... considering that the UK is about a fiftieth of the size of the US... in the next 20 years or so, I'm sure I'll hear about a school shooting in the UK.

    Are you seriuously suggesting that the population of the US is 3 billion!?

    How many crimes could have gotten stopped in the UK if the person attacked had a gun?

    None. As a crime prevention measure they're about as much use as those cameras.

    How many crimes in the US are stopped because the person attacked had a gun?

    I don't know. What are the statistics for gun related crime prevention in the US?

  5. Re:As a Freethinking Christian by Yahweh+Doesn't+Exist · · Score: 2, Informative

    How many books have been burned or banned by Christians?

    How many hospitals have been attacked by anti-abortionists? How many people died by praying instead of seeking help? How many people dying in Africa from AIDS because Christians tell them condoms don't prevent the spread of disease, God does? How many people killed in the various inquistitions and crusades?

    More people have been fed by a single scientist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug) than the entire history of religious charity.

    Mother Teresa was an evil bitch. It's well documented that she thought ill people SHOULD suffer as a means of getting closer to Christ. And she took money from murderers.

    No Christianity, no KKK.

    Just something to think about.

  6. Sony used Times Square too... by Mr_Blank · · Score: 3, Informative
    Sony has been sued for similar things before, and won. Remember the Times Square was used in the first Spiderman flick? http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/04/14/203207

    The verdict...

    From http://news.com.com/2100-1023-948441.html

    "Spider-Man" can alter Times Square
    By Lisa M. Bowman
    Staff Writer, CNET News.com
    Published: August 5, 2002, 12:28 PM PDT

    Upholding the rights of filmmakers to superimpose digital images on real-life buildings in their movies, a federal judge in New York has thrown out a suit filed by billboard and building owners against the creators of the "Spider-Man" movie.

    In a three-page ruling issued last week, Judge Richard Owen questioned claims that altering the billboards in the movies violated trademarks and amounted to trespassing.

    Several billboard and building owners, including Sherwood 48 Associates and Super Sign, filed suit in April against Sony and other companies involved in making and distributing "Spider-Man," claiming their prime Times Square space becomes less valuable if they can't guarantee customers exclusive rights both on and off screen. In the "Spider-Man" movie and trailers, ads for companies such as Cingular Wireless and USA Today have been superimposed over those of Samsung and NBC.

    The judge disagreed with the billboard owners' claims, however, saying the digital alterations are protected free speech. "What exists here is for artistic purposes a mixture of a fictionally and actually depicted Times Square...this has First Amendment protection," Owen wrote.

  7. Re:bang bang by Original+Replica · · Score: 2, Informative
    http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/history/

    "The early Christian writers Tertullian and Origen metion the existence of a British church in the third century AD and in the fourth century British bishops attended a number of the great concils of the Church such as the Council of Arles in 314 and the Council of Rimini in 359."


    No it wasn't titled "The Church of England" but they claim their roots go back that far. Maybe the Archbishop of Manchester would like to edit the Church of England website while he's rethinking his responsibilty in influencing the social standards of Manchester.
    --
    We are all just people.
  8. Wrong POV by Timotheus04 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Does anyone else realize the motives in game for "shooting in the church" in the Manchester level? You are wiping out the aliens that had taken the church and were using it as a stronghold to launch attacks against the human race. The player character is sent in to kill all of the alien troops so the surviving humans (esp. local English troops) could take cover there and set up a base of operations. Sony was using that particular church in that particular location as a bastion of safety for a mostly English group of survivors. It would become and icon of protection and victory in the storyline of the game! If anything, I'd think the Church would be proud to have their building defended from harm . . to have civilians and troops rallying within . . . just my opinion, but it sounds like the Church is pointing their finger at Sony for designing a level in which their church was destroyed or sacked or desecrated, but it's the exact opposite!

  9. Re:Wrong on so many counts... by iapetus · · Score: 2, Informative

    Did the photographer need permission to take that photograph? Does he/she have the right to release it under such a license?

    No. The church has the right to make agreement not to take photographs a condition of entry to the cathedral, but as far as I know it doesn't, which means there's no restriction on taking such photographs. Even if it did, photographs could be taken from outside the private area.

    Is there a U.K. law violated in any of that?

    No, and the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988 is quite explicit about this.

    --
    ++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
    Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
  10. Re:bang bang by Rasgueado · · Score: 3, Informative

    From my understanding, Sony did not design this game. Everyone likes to blame Sony for all the problems in the world (including myself), but this game was made by Insomniac. Sony did approve of the game for distribution, but they certainly had nothing to do with the creative process. Comments such as "What were Sony thinking when they made this" are quite irresponsibe in my opinion...