Seems someone with more legal knowledge than us has blogged this incident. It's most important citation is from the Copyright Designs and Patent Act of 1998.
" 62. Representation of certain artistic works on public display.
(1) This section applies to
(a) buildings, and
(b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.
(2) The copyright in such a work is not infringed by
(a) making a graphic work representing it,
(b) making a photograph or film of it, or
© broadcasting or including in a cable programme service a visual image of it.
(3) Nor is the copyright infringed by the issue to the public of copies, or the broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme service, of anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of the copyright."
As I suspected, in terms of copyright infringement, it doesn't appear that the church has much to stand on. Hence, I suspect their hesitance toward their legal standpoint ("Maybe we'll press charges") is what spurred their guilt trip, since they had to do something after some idiot blurted out that legal action was on the way.
The blog entry is quite interesting. It's worth reading. Oh, if it turns out that the church was in the wrong and has no case, the media will be sitting there with egg on its face for the umpteenth time while everyone sits around and tries to blame the evils of the world on a hobby.
" 62. Representation of certain artistic works on public display.
(1) This section applies to
(a) buildings, and
(b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.
(2) The copyright in such a work is not infringed by
(a) making a graphic work representing it,
(b) making a photograph or film of it, or
© broadcasting or including in a cable programme service a visual image of it.
(3) Nor is the copyright infringed by the issue to the public of copies, or the broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme service, of anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of the copyright."
As I suspected, in terms of copyright infringement, it doesn't appear that the church has much to stand on. Hence, I suspect their hesitance toward their legal standpoint ("Maybe we'll press charges") is what spurred their guilt trip, since they had to do something after some idiot blurted out that legal action was on the way.
The blog entry is quite interesting. It's worth reading. Oh, if it turns out that the church was in the wrong and has no case, the media will be sitting there with egg on its face for the umpteenth time while everyone sits around and tries to blame the evils of the world on a hobby.