Slashdot Mirror
Defending Sony Against the Church Of England
Ian Bogost writes at Gamasutra about the (now quiet) controversy between Sony and the Church of England. You may recall the religious organization's objection to the use of the Manchester cathedral in Insomniac's alternate history WWII shooter Resistance. The result of this objection was a weak-kneed apology from Sony, and an attempt to push the whole thing under a rug. Bogost notes that never once did the company try to defend itself on artistic merit, simply capitulating to the objections of the church. That, he has decided, leaves the job up to him: "For my part, I think the cathedral creates one of the only significant experiences in the whole game, one steeped in reverence for the cathedral and the church, rather than desecration. Resistance is not a game richly imbued with wisdom. It's a first-person shooter, and it is a pretty good one. It's beautifully rendered, taking apparent advantage of the advanced graphical capabilities of the PlayStation 3. The game is very linear, both in its plot and the paths through each level, but that linearity allows it to focus the player on a smaller, more tightly crafted environment. Resistance takes up a common theme in science fiction: an ultimate test of humankind against the Other."
Why do they have to get permission? For a movie where it's done on location, that's understandable. But if it's done completely through CGI?
two heavyweights of their genre (fantasy, magic, talking animals vs video games) stand toe to toe, and Sony pussies out instead of bringing the fight.
That's from the Gospel of Luke, one of the canonical Gospels. What you cite is from the Gospel of Thomas, which is considered to be a gnostic gospel. Seeing as how the CoE uses the canonical gospels only, Luke is more appropriate than Thomas here.
That was a good scene in Resistance. The cathedral and the hospital beds were a good counterpoint to the alien attackers. And the layout really worked to focus the action.
I'm not sure why anyone needs permission to copy something like that in a game or a movie. It's been there for a while now, so the design can't be copyrighted any more. The Church of England seemed to just want money.
Some people might have been "offended" by a shooting game in the church, but people who are "offended" need to be told their choice to take offense is theirs alone. If you start empowering people based on their choices to take offense or not, then they'll eventually have 100% total power over you.
Church fails to spot the difference between fact and fiction.
So what's new?
The church asking sony to apologize for doing something bad
;-)
I'm still waiting for the church's apology for everything bad thing it has done
I love how the argument is always made that 'If I can photograph it, they should be able to create a three dimensional replica for use in a for-profit video game that the church may or may not like'. The two aren't the same at all*. Now then, the law may or may not have supported Sony, that depends on a huge number of factors and, in the end, a single judge's decision. Either way the nice thing to do is ask for permission, Sony didn't do that.
Here's my POV. It is entirely possible to trademark a building's appearance, at least in the US, I don't know where the argument that that's not possible came from. Now then, in this case, the Church was probably not trademarked (unless the view is taken that any distinctive looking building is trademarked, which is a possible view). The inside of the Church, however, is private property. Unless I'm mistaken (having never played the game, I'm not a big horror person) Sony did model the inside of the Church. That is questionably legal without permission. In the US you're allowed to model (photograph, actually, but I'm extending it to modeling for this example) any non-trademarked buildings that can be seen from public property. Since the inside of the church can't be seen from public property...*cue drum roll*...that means that Sony was using private property in their for-profit game without permission. Whether or not that is legal, since the Church probably lets anyone in, is unknown but it's wrong to just say 'Yeah, that's legal' when it may or may not be.
If I'm wrong on anything please point it out to me. Personally I think Sony should be able to do what they did, they should have asked for permission but it should be legal. Whether or not it is legal is something I believe to be unknown.
There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
Idiocy.
The building is over 700 years old, and its interior is well documented. What law, exactly, requires them to get permission before they model it in a videogame?
Kids these days... sheesh. They have no disrespect for whiny, illegitimate authority.