DanJW Posted June 10, 2007 So what do we think about this here? Is it disrespecful? Or were the devs justified in trying to express the tragedy of the situation by placing it in a venerated space? Will the Church "take this further" as they have threatened, or will the fuss all peter out as usual? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Salka Posted June 10, 2007 Fuck off, The Church of England. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Roderick Posted June 10, 2007 David Wilson, who provided Sony's reply, needs to fuck off himself too though. Whining about the world's children 'sadly not interested in religion anymore', while he's the guy that's setting a gunfight in a cathedral. I say; they're all a bunch of pretentious wankers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanJW Posted June 10, 2007 Heh, Rodi, you're right. this reminds me of the tagline for AvP. Whoever loses, we win Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elmuerte Posted June 10, 2007 sony should call the churches bluff Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marek Posted June 11, 2007 The church may be offended (fine, tell us what you think) but it's wrong of them to demand anything let alone claim that Sony had to get permission. That has no basis in actual law for that and they probably even know this. It's also totally slanderous to claim that the game encourages people to have real gun battles inside their church. But I'm more disappointed with the news media. You can clearly tell that no one has actually played the game. Granted there are only a few factual inaccuracies in their stories but add them up to all the omissions they've also made and it paints a completely wrong picture. They make it sound like there's a game set entirely inside the church of Manchester where you have shootouts (aka "bloodbaths") with real people, who one must imagine are probably innocent churchgoers who are there praying, and it's all totally realistic and also deliberately designed to be as shocking as possible. Bad Sony! Blarrrrghhhhhhhh :gaming::gaming::oldman: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nachimir Posted June 11, 2007 Yeah, terrible press coverage. Unfortunately predictable. Rockstar got sued by the PlayPen club in East LA on grounds of trademarks, after they parodied it as the PigPen in East Los Santos. PlayPen lost. Actually using the likeness of a cathedral could open up some interesting new precedents. Most devs (such as Rockstar) have so far had the fear/tact to just build approximations of real places, but the idea that people don't have to ask permission to simulate something is an interesting one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpiderMonkey Posted June 11, 2007 I'm still waiting to read an explanation of what charges the church would actually bring, if they were to go ahead with their legal action. Any quarter given by Sony will set a terrible precedent for all sorts of people whining about all sorts of free-roaming, real-world-ish games, so I'm with Sony on this one. What I heard from the Bishop sounded pretty uninformed - he was talking about the game as if it was something other than trite sci-fi aliens being shot at. He didn't have an answer for why it was okay for Doctor Who, but not for Sony. He was clearly talking from his own old man "video games rrrr a plague on youth today" prejudice. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elmuerte Posted June 11, 2007 I'm still waiting to read an explanation of what charges the church would actually bring, if they were to go ahead with their legal action. Any quarter given by Sony will set a terrible precedent for all sorts of people whining about all sorts of free-roaming, real-world-ish games, so I'm with Sony on this one. nah... not only games, but also movies, TV series, news reports, etc. and ultimately... your brain.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanJW Posted June 11, 2007 Yeah, the same thoughts as spidermonkey and elmuerte have crossed my mind as well. In the end art (or even a Video game approximating it) shouldn't have to apologise for referencing the real world within fiction, at least not when it's as completely un-malicious as this. A win for the church here would be bad for other people and projects in the future. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpiderMonkey Posted June 11, 2007 nah... not only games, but also movies, TV series, news reports, etc.and ultimately... your brain.. I'm not sure that's strictly true, because if someone wanted to film a war movie inside the church, they would've required the church's permission. What the church seems to be doing is making a landgrab for the virtual rights to any literal likeness of their building too. I'm no lawyer, so I've no idea whether there are precedents for this. Overall, I agree with you, it does cover other media. I think, though, that my second point stands here - the church didn't see it that way, and so belied their "games rrrr toys for misguided youth, they are not valid equivalent media forms" attitude. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brkl Posted June 11, 2007 A win for the church here would be bad for other people and projects in the future. That's the church (any church) for ya. It's not about the future, it's about the past. Tradition. You do what you are told to do, and you pay any generic damages any generic lawsuit by the church tells you to pay. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elmuerte Posted June 12, 2007 I'm not sure that's strictly true, because if someone wanted to film a war movie inside the church, they would've required the church's permission. What the church seems to be doing is making a landgrab for the virtual rights to any literal likeness of their building too. I'm no lawyer, so I've no idea whether there are precedents for this. They need permission to set up shop inside the church. Because basically the church will have to be closed while the film crew is busy. Anyway.. the church is playing the copyright and terrorism game. And for copyright they have no legally valid basis. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nachimir Posted June 13, 2007 I'm no lawyer, so I've no idea whether there are precedents for this. I think the Rockstar case I mentioned above is the only one related to video games using likenesses of places so far. but people are indeed making a landgrab for virtual rights. the church is playing the copyright and terrorism game. Indeed, and I expect to see more of this kind of thing and related (e.g. that kid who got arrested for making a level of his school). Photography has suffered a similar struggle since the death of princess diana and 9/11, with a tainted public perception and people thinking they have the right to forbid photography when a lot of the time they don't. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderPeel2001 Posted June 13, 2007 Didn't The Getaway reproduce the whole of London down to the tiniest detail? (I've not played it, so if I'm wrong don't kill me.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanJW Posted June 13, 2007 Yeah but from what I've read on this case, in the UK copyright does not apply to the exterior of buildings, only the interior and then only for the architect during the duration of his life. It lapses upon death. This is one area of copyright law that still seems sane, and I wish the same rules applied to other creative areas like music and film. As someone once said "copyright was introduced to protect the artist, not so the company that owned him can get rich off his work for the rest of eternity". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nachimir Posted June 14, 2007 More on the potential for legal shenanigans here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toblix Posted June 14, 2007 only the interior and then only for the architect during the duration of his life. It lapses upon death. [...] "copyright was introduced to protect the artist That's like being rich in order to not get murdered. Like in murder mysteries? Hello? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elmuerte Posted June 14, 2007 Hello? To quote Ziggy: toblix> hello? Hello. > Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toblix Posted June 14, 2007 That's a false quote, you bastard! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elmuerte Posted June 14, 2007 I adapted it to fit the context Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanJW Posted June 14, 2007 Ziggy does Lionel Ritchie... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elmuerte Posted June 16, 2007 http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6713047,00.html what the hell... ``It was not our intention to cause offense by using a representation of Manchester Cathedral in chapter eight of the work,'' the letter said. ``If we have done so, we sincerely apologize.'' Well.. it's opinionated in a way that is different from me... but I think it would have been better if Sony's reply was more along the line of: "Its fiction, lighten up" Govender said the cathedral would accept the offer. He thanked Sony for the apology, but underlined the church's opposition to violence, ``and especially the gun violence seen in this portrayal of the cathedral.'' You know what... FOAD! give back our artistic freedom. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brkl Posted June 18, 2007 Well.. it's opinionated in a way that is different from me... but I think it would have been better if Sony's reply was more along the line of: "Its fiction, lighten up" They did: In its letter, Sony said it did not accept ``that there is any connection between contemporary issues of 21st-century Manchester and a work of science fiction in which a fictitious 1950s Britain is under attack by aliens.'' ``We believe a comprehensive viewing of the work will make its content and context clear,'' Sony said, adding that ``Resistance: Fall of Man'' has sold more than 2 million units around the world. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites