06-12-2007, 01:02 PM
Herr Mullen Wrote:Copyright law in the UK works even if it isn't filed.
What you are calling for is the reveiw of a legal system you are not a part of.
Canada, the US, and the UK are all signatories of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. Copyright law works the same almost totally internationally.
Quote:It is common practice for artists to burn music on a CD...
I was thinking about patents and not copyright. My bad.
Quote:It's coypright infregment and not even a small one either. Don't act holier than thou, you'd probably be pissed if some foreign idiot would make money by showing something, like Lincoln monument being showered by diarrhea? Yeah, a game focusing around shooting projectile diarhea at the statue.
It's copyright infringement only if the building was faithfully recreated in terms of its dimensions and appearance. Even subtle differences could very well invalid the church's claim of copyright infringement on its architecture. It's bitPick a US monument if you want, I couldn't care less. I'm not from the US. Similarly, drop the bad attitude, hmm? We're being perfectly civilised here.
Quote:There's difference between suing for being harmful for children and with using a famous landmark in negative light.
If it's negative light they're worried about, then this case is a slander and libel one, not a copyright one.
Quote:Acoarding to my memory, Duke Nukem 3 D gave a person the killing style, location, etc.
And gotten it banned? Noper. There are lots of games that cause public outcry, but they are very rarely banned because of it.
Quote:That's like saying it's only effective to file the case about murder before the murder was even comitted. Do you think the church had some insight information on the game or something?
If Sony asked and the church gave them permission without asking about the game's content, it's their own stupid fault. If Sony didn't ask, then obviously they're at fault. But, like I said earlier, when it comes down to "He said, She said," I'd take the word of the industry over the word of a group of social alarmists anyday.
Finally, here is the most important point of all: How faithful a recreation of the cathedral is portrayed in the game? Down to each facet of stained glass? If there are any architectural differences and the virtual cathedral differs from the real world one, the virtual version is merely a re-imagined cathedral. It differing even slightly from the original may very well exclude this case from the bounds of copyright law, turning this into a slander and libel case that a church (pardon the pun) doesn't have a prayer of winning.
The church can prohibit the propogation of photography of the inside of the cathedral, but if it's different in-game and just has "Manchester Cathedral" plastered on level name, then that isn't the theft of the church's architecture.