Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Church Threatens Legal Action Over Sony Game

Posted by Zonk on from the hot-under-the-collar dept.

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.'"

7 of 244 comments (clear)

  1. bang bang by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First off, I am Christian and do not care for Sony.

    The game is art. There should be no legal repercussions for Sony choosing to tell a story a certain way. If you do not like it, do not buy it. Protest if you want, so others know you do not like it. But, every adult should be free to choose for themselves if shooting in a church is inappropriate in a game.

    1. Re:bang bang by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have a point however, unless I'm mistaken, a Church is private property and there are some laws having to deal with using private property items without the owners permission in a video/game.

      Either way Sony really should have asked for permission, if only to be kind. You can be sure that, if any game included a model of, say, the White House, without permission it would be attacked venomously. Why should a church be denied that? I'm not saying that Sony should pull the game back or that churches should have special rights in cases like this, only that, if you're going to use a famous religious site in your violent FPS, you should at least ask for permission.

      - Plays lots of FPSes and is religious, also doesn't care for Sony, has nothing against violent ones, recognizes that many people, and even more religious people, do have something against them.

      --
      There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
    2. Re:bang bang by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How old is this church? Odds are it's imagery is public domain. Besides, it's the Lord's house, let him go down to the courthouse and file Himself if he cares so much.

    3. Re:bang bang by Original+Replica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Bishop of Manchester called the game 'highly irresponsible' due to the history of gun crime in the city.

      I call the Church of England "highly irresponsible" due to the history of gun crime in the city. After all which entity has had a greater influence ove rthe citizens of Manchester, this video game which has been out of less than a year, or the Church of England which traces roots back to the 3rd century at least. Maybe the Bishop should tend to his violent flock instead of abdicating responsiblity to a video game.

      --
      We are all just people.
    4. Re:bang bang by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Either way Sony really should have asked for permission, if only to be kind. You can be sure that, if any game included a model of, say, the White House, without permission it would be attacked venomously.

      Let's explore that a bit. Is a video game different from a movie? Did 20th Century Fox get permission to simulate the destruction of the White House for Independence Day? I think the White House was "destroyed" in Amerika too, but I don't remember any legal wrangling. One key difference is that the White House is government property, and government property is often not given intellectual property rights in the same way private enterprise might. Intellectual property of a centuries-old building basically doesn't exist that I'm aware.

      I can see why people don't like it and might complain about it, but it sounds to me that the validity of a legal case is shaky. I think it's possible to derive the interior of a building from photographs without any sort of invasive acquisition methods, and as far as I know, in most cases, the photo belongs to the photographer.

    5. Re:bang bang by blahplusplus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Either way Sony really should have asked for permission, if only to be kind. You can be sure that, if any game included a model of, say, the White House, without permission it would be attacked venomously."

      Wrong games *have modelled the whitehouse* and many other landmarks (or pieces of them) without reprocussions, even if only in parts or in 2D, take the old 2D game "Bad dudes" for instance, the whitehoue was featured there. I think people take the whole "private (and/or) intellectual property" law regarding monuments and such way too seriously.

      Are we goingto start to sue for road modelling textures, some random pictures of someones house or cities downtown skyscrapers and trees? At some point the whole property thing is out of control, private property is there for convenience of solving complex problems, it's not there to abuse the public with silly crap like this.

  2. Just to get a word in... by GammaKitsune · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is one article in which I'll be irritated if someone tries to make it a religious thing. IANAC (I am not a Christian), but this is really no different than any other, non-Christian group complaining about the use of their building for an ostensibly violent purpose. Whether or not it's right for this Church to go after Sony, it would be nice if this weren't turned into a religious issue.

    I'm not holding my breath, though.

    --
    Gamertag: WyleType