A church sues Resistance

[MISTER BIG T]

It doesn't sound winnable to me.

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.

Churches seem to have a relatively poor track record of performing well in court, largely because of their penchant of bitching and moaning about every little thing that displeases them. The public is getting sick of hearing about it, the gaming industry is getting sick of having fingers pointed its way, and the courts are getting sick of video game related cases coming through their doors.

There's difference between suing for being harmful for children and with using a famous landmark in negative light.

If there is a law somewhere written down that explicitly says that one cannot electronically reproduce another structure and use it in a video game as they see fit, then that should far supercede any lack of written consent that the church may or may not have given Sony to use the church's likeness.

I don't think you can really use landmarks on any sort of electronic media for profit without consent.

Freedom of expression > a church's desire to not be turned into a virtual battleground.

There's limits where freedom of expression carries you to.

P.S. When has a game or movie's violence based on realistic locations or scenarios ever gotten it in trouble?

Acoarding to my memory, Duke Nukem 3 D gave a person the killing style, location, etc.

Such a copyright will only be effective if it was filed before the game was made.

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?

Also, it's dissapointing that the church is jumping on the Jack Thompson bandwagon by saying that it's irresponsible of the industry to posit scenarios of gun violence in a city plagued by gun violence, as if there is some kind of correlation between violence of any kind and video games.

Err, they never said there was connection. HOWEVER! If there's lots of shooting IN THE GAME and lots of gun in the area, the whole thing may come off to some people as OMG I'LL BE SHOT AT THE CHURCH!! And that's what this is all about.

[Colt]

Lmao the Lincon memoral showered in diarrea.I'd buy a game for the soul purpose of seeing that

[MISTER BIG T]

Lmao the Lincon memoral showered in diarrea.I'd buy a game for the soul purpose of seeing that

I'm tempted to make a mini game like that for one of my games now actually...

[senjuro]

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.

It is common practice for artists to burn music on a CD...

I was thinking about patents and not copyright. My bad.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Psycho333]

I think just baout anyone would

by the way not sure if any of you played it but the church in the game is run down has a huge hole in a wall and several in the roof....if that's how the real church looks then they got bigger problems

[UnknownH]

Next week, we look at American dubbing of Anime.
Manchester Cathederal is a public place where people actively worship, as well as a tourest destination for some. They wouldn't ban pictures, and I doubt anyone imagined that it might become part of a computer game.

Sorry forget you're around there. But we both have the same background so we both have a lot of lawsuits.

[senjuro]

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.

[Psycho333]

[quote=senjuro]
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.

"

[senjuro]

Well it's not settled yet, but it looks like it will be shortly if this really is the case.

[Psycho333]

it's just the church bitching whinning and moaning