Sony Pisses Off the English

[Griking]

LONDON (AP) - The Church of England accused Sony Corp. (SNE) on Saturday of using an English cathedral as the backdrop to a violent computer game and said it should be withdrawn from shop shelves.

Full Story (http://apnews.excite.com/article/20070609/D8PL8PP80.html)

Sony just can't seem to catch a break.

[FantasiaWHT]

It is well known that Manchester has a gun crime problem.

Gee, and I thought that banning guns completely was supposed to solve Britain's gun problems.

/sarcasm

This is stupid. Unless they've somehow copywritten the image of their church, how can you possibly bring a legal action for that?

[heybtbm]

Sony just can't seem to catch a break.

:deadhorse:

[Iron Draggon]

Gee, and I thought that banning guns completely was supposed to solve Britain's gun problems.

/sarcasm

This is stupid. Unless they've somehow copywritten the image of their church, how can you possibly bring a legal action for that?

that's what I wanna know... who the hell does the Church of England think they are? you have to get their permission to put their Cathedral in a game? I hope they release an addon that lets you kill all the guys wearing robes there

[jajaja]

Its a pretty stupid case indeed. I do understand their point of view to a certaint point tho, but to sue over something like this is pretty strange in my opinion. Its not the first game who use accurate models of something that excist in real life. And why do they take this up now? The game have been out for like half a year (almost 3 months in England tho, but still). And why isnt Insomniac Games mentioned? They developed the game :P

[Richter Belmount]

that's what I wanna know... who the hell does the Church of England think they are? you have to get their permission to put their Cathedral in a game? I hope they release an addon that lets you kill all the guys wearing robes there

They have free speech to bitch about it. But sueing is a different matter , hopefully they come up with a arrangement.

[goemon]

On one hand, I can see the church not wanting to have their cathedral being shown in a violent game. How did they get the layout of the cathedral in the first place? Did they copy any blueprints? In the worst case scenario, Sony will just have to alter the map to look less like the cathedral in question. I don't think they're going to lose any money over it. (Granted, I'm unfamilliar with the British legal system, so maybe there are other rules about lawsuits and payouts.)

[Lothars]

Well since the church is so old it's definitely possible that the blueprints are probaly in the public domain, which means the lawsuit is frivilous and plainly stupid IMO

[Iron Draggon]

well maybe it's just me, but the very fact that it's a CHURCH places it in the public domain, IMHO... so the stupid robes just need to get the hell over it... legal action... give me a break... if the church is stupid enough to waste its money suing over this, I hope that Sony files a counter suit and wins bigtime!

[Richter Belmount]

I hope the church wins for fun times sake , not my country.

[Leo_A]

I hope they win it because stupid gamers would be against it no matter what the case was.

"Well since the church is so old it's definitely possible that the blueprints are probaly in the public domain, which means the lawsuit is frivilous and plainly stupid IMO"

What does that have to do with it? I can buy blueprints to a B-17 online, but that doesn't mean I can create a WWII flight simulator and put it in there without securing a license from Boeing.

"And why do they take this up now? The game have been out for like half a year (almost 3 months in England tho, but still). "

I suspect the leaders of the Church of England aren't buying and playing through each PS3 release the moment it comes out. I'm sure it took a while for them to discover that this took place, and they've surely debated what course of action to take before taking it public.

[jajaja]

"Well since the church is so old it's definitely possible that the blueprints are probaly in the public domain, which means the lawsuit is frivilous and plainly stupid IMO"

What does that have to do with it? I can buy blueprints to a B-17 online, but that doesn't mean I can create a WWII flight simulator and put it in there without securing a license from Boeing.

Its alittle different. B-17 isnt public domain, it belongs to Boeing and they can sell the name/license to anyone they want, but who owns the Manchester cathedral? Who do you have to pay to get a license to use the cathedral? I thought churches were "owned" by everyone. Or possibly the goverment own them in that way as they manage/build/restore the churches.



"And why do they take this up now? The game have been out for like half a year (almost 3 months in England tho, but still). "

I suspect the leaders of the Church of England aren't buying and playing through each PS3 release the moment it comes out. I'm sure it took a while for them to discover that this took place, and they've surely debated what course of action to take before taking it public.

True, but the game is pretty popular so i would think it would be known quicker. Or maybe things like this do take some time, dont know.

[Lothars]

I hope they win it because stupid gamers would be against it no matter what the case was
Man that's an idiotic post

There's no way they can win this case, I would be shocked if the Blueprints for the church isn't in the public domain and if that's the case than this case is just a stupid.

[FantasiaWHT]

out of curiosity, in the game is the inside of the cathedral actually used or do you just see it from the outside?

And if the Boeing B-17 is still protected, it's done so with a patent. I doubt you can patent a building.

And the church is owned by the Anglican Church, I would wager.

[Mayhem]

out of curiosity, in the game is the inside of the cathedral actually used or do you just see it from the outside?

There's a mass (read 30-40 people) shootout inside the cathedral... plus it's an area for the multiplayer.

Whilst it sounds a silly thing to sue over, I can well imagine why, because you don't want killing depicted inside a holy place. And you can recognise it's Manchester Cathedral apparently, it's that accurate. The developers did their homework on the place.

TV and films need permission to shoot footage in many locations, I wonder as graphics start to get so photorealistic, whether software companies will need the same as well to recreate something that exists?!

I don't think the Church will win because I don't think any case is strong enough, just moral objections, but it might set a precident for depiction of real life places in future games.

[TonyB80]

I saw this on my local news last night. when you put the game footage next to the real place it looks very similar except in the game it's all smashed up.

I can see the church's point of view especially as there have been a couple of high profile gun crimes in recent months in manchester as well.

i'm pretty sure that in films you have to get permission to film in certain locations (including catherdrals). looks like video games will be going the same way. rockstar may start having a similar problem with GTAIV, although they changed the names of everything.

[Snapple]

Using a church as the setting for a shootout is almost passe at this point. It's been done a million times, in movies and video games and anime and whatnot. Why is the Church of England only now getting pissed off?

[FantasiaWHT]

I wonder how much the necessity of getting a locale's permission to shoot a movie there is more about the disruption and inconvenience of the filming itself than any concern about the locale's "image". The former wouldn't help the church in its argument at all.

[PS2Hawk]

so wait .. as soon as they can produce a living chimera SONY should pull it off the shelf

[monkeysuit]

The only thing that came to my mind after reading that article was the countless shoot outs in churches I have played through in all of the CoD and Medal of Honor games. The funny thing about that is, in those games you actually are fighting humans. In the level they are suing over you fight - drum roll - chimera. Why is this just now becoming an issue?

[diskoboy]

Ah, good ol' Commie News Network (CNN).

Only they could pull off a headline such as, "Church want's cash for 'sick' game".

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/fun.games/06/11/sony.manchester/index.html

[PSXferrari]

I hope they win it because stupid gamers would be against it no matter what the case was.

"Well since the church is so old it's definitely possible that the blueprints are probaly in the public domain, which means the lawsuit is frivilous and plainly stupid IMO"

What does that have to do with it? I can buy blueprints to a B-17 online, but that doesn't mean I can create a WWII flight simulator and put it in there without securing a license from Boeing.

"And why do they take this up now? The game have been out for like half a year (almost 3 months in England tho, but still). "

I suspect the leaders of the Church of England aren't buying and playing through each PS3 release the moment it comes out. I'm sure it took a while for them to discover that this took place, and they've surely debated what course of action to take before taking it public.



Wow, an intelligent post from someone who actually knows what they're talking about! What a relief... and, of course, what happens??? Everyone trashes Leo and says what an idiot he is. Figures.

Everyone else needs to stick to gaming and stop trying to interpret the legal system, because barely anyone else said anything relevent. This lawsuit is certainly not "frivilous" as someone suggested (just by using that term, the person showed that they know nothing about the legal system), but it's not a sure-thing either. It could go either way... and the worst that could happen is Sony would have to pay the Church royalty fees or agree to change the design for future games shipped to retailers. They already sold over 1 million copies.... it's not like lawyers are going to come to your house and steal your copy of Resistance just because the Church wins.

Again, I have no problem with someone disagreeing with the lawsuit, but please stop being children in your reasoning. The majority of the posts here can be paraphrased to say, "This is RETARDED! I love video games, and anyone who disagrees with anything video game developers do, is WRONG. Therefore, the Church is wrong." Stop crying and saying something relevent. The legal system works in weird ways and just because something SOUNDS DUMB doesn't mean it's dumb when it comes to the interpretation of the law. So why would the Church turn down the chance to sue? I would think protecting their reputation and getting money out of a lawsuit would be more important to them than our insignificant video game habit. Sorry, I know it sucks that people seem sue-happy these days, but that's the way the world has worked for decades. So if your gonna disagree with the lawsuit than please at least do it like an intelligent person and not like some video game fanboy. ... (And now I can probably count on getting a few responses from exactly those type of people now telling me why I'm an idiot. Looking forward to it.) As for the few decent people who wrote intelligent disagreements with the Church lawsuit, I apologize for the rant.

[PSXferrari]

Its a pretty stupid case indeed. I do understand their point of view to a certaint point tho, but to sue over something like this is pretty strange in my opinion. Its not the first game who use accurate models of something that excist in real life.

Correct, but there are a few differences here. First of all, people have pointed out that churches have been used in games before. True, but these were probably either used with permission, OR they were just generic churches designed for the game. No one can sue you for showing a gunfight in a church-- the point here is that the fight was in a specific church and without permission. The Church of England is the name of a branch of churches throughout England. Sort of like what we would consider a "chain of stores" in the retail market. So in that respect, the Church of England is probably trademarked in some way.

Consider the following: In the Grand Theft Auto games, locations such as the Clucking Bell are used as fast food restaurants, rather than McDonald's, Burger King, etc. WHY? Because Rockstar knows that they would get sued if they did. McDonald's would not want to be associated with the violent GTA games, so they would sue if their chain was used in the games without permission. And they would have a legitimate case; don't you agree?? So why is the Church of England any different? The design for McDonald's is just as much in the public domain as the Church. How hard was it for Sony/Insomniac to make a few modifications so that it seemed slightly more generic, rather than photorealistic to the Church?

Now, again guys, I'm not saying I agree with the lawsuit. I'm really indifferent right now and don't feel I know enough to say one way or the other (you'd have to read more than just a news article to get that; i.e. the legal documents). I'm just pointing out that the Church does have more of a case than all the "Don't Hurt Video Games" protesters are giving them credit for in this thread. Dumb or not, there is a shot at them winning this. Of course, I'm certainly open to being proven wrong but unless someone is going to give me a good LEGAL reason why I'm wrong, I don't wanna hear a bunch of flaming fanboy cry-babies telling me otherwise.




And why do they take this up now? The game have been out for like half a year (almost 3 months in England tho, but still).

I was wondering the same exact thing, and I guess so was a reporter who asked the Reverand that exact question. As it turns out, he was stuck on the Grimsby chapter and was waiting for a good walkthrough to show up on GameFAQs. Hence the delay.




And why isnt Insomniac Games mentioned? They developed the game :P

Being a huge publisher is nice and all... the bad part is they become liable for the game they accept from the developer. Plus, they have waaaay more money, so I'm sure the Church prefers going after them anyways. Oh, plus Sony owns Insomniac, so I guess either way it's coming out of Sony's pocket.




Well, that ends another long, rambling rant courtesy of me.

[PSXferrari]

Ah, good ol' Commie News Network (CNN).

Only they could pull off a headline such as, "Church want's cash for 'sick' game".

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/fun.games/06/11/sony.manchester/index.html



Commie News or not, I don't get what's wrong with that headline... ? Everything in it is true. The Church is seeking cash for a game they have called "sick". The "sick" is in quotes so CNN is noting that the claim of it being sick was made by the Church and not by CNN. This is a fairly typical headline to grab people's attention and get them to click the link. "Church wants cash for game" would get far less clicks, right? And in the end, that's what it's all about for any news organization.

What would you suggest for a good headline that would still grab the same amount of attention?

[Lothars]

I've said it once and I will say it again, it's a pointless Lawsuit for something that I believe has little to no releavance, I mean I really hope the lawsuit fails but meh whatever, i just disagree full with the people that are saying they hope it succeeds. though everyone is entitled to there opinion.

[diskoboy]

Commie News or not, I don't get what's wrong with that headline... ? Everything in it is true. The Church is seeking cash for a game they have called "sick". The "sick" is in quotes so CNN is noting that the claim of it being sick was made by the Church and not by CNN. This is a fairly typical headline to grab people's attention and get them to click the link. "Church wants cash for game" would get far less clicks, right? And in the end, that's what it's all about for any news organization.

What would you suggest for a good headline that would still grab the same amount of attention?


I just think they wrote that headline to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Like it's some sick, twisted, disgusting thing, that only the antichrist, himself, would play..

[monkeysuit]

I agree with Disko here. Yeah, this is appropriate for CNN "Headline news" but why spend 3 hours debating it on live television?

Besides, shouldn't Wolf Blitzer be covering Anna Nicole Smith or Paris Hilton?

[PSXferrari]

I just think they wrote that headline to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Like it's some sick, twisted, disgusting thing, that only the antichrist, himself, would play..


Right, but that's the way all internet news articles are nowadays. It's not like in the newspaper days when you could put a nice title and people would still read it, because they were only getting that one newspaper. Internet news sites are competing with thousands of other sites, and the news is the same no matter who's telling it. So one of the keys is to have an extremely catchy headline so people will click on your stories. The more clicks you get, the more you can charge advertisers because you have more people visiting your pages.

So I understand what you're saying, but I think this is how journalism is all throughout the internet, not just CNN.com. Now, if the article itself was biased than that's a completely different story. The article itself should be completely objective. But the title has to be eye-catching and it certainly is. But again, the title doesn't lie. The Church did call the game "sick", so CNN themselves are not calling the game sick, even though the title makes it seem that way.


I went to Google and searched this under the "News" section. Here were some headlines about this story from the first page of search results:


"Sony Invents New Kind of Desecration"
"Bishop Condemns Resistance On PS3, Sony Responds"
"Manchester Cathedral smites Sony"
"Church of England to Sue Sony for Illegal Gun Fight in Cathedral"
"Church of England Calls Sony Game 'Sick'"
"Video Games Might Not Be Good for You"
"Desecration 'Deeply Offensive'"
"Sony Lambasted for Bringing Guns to Church"


Notice the trend. All slightly contort the story to create the headline, but they are all true once you understand the facts. And they're all eye-catching to get you to click the link. "Huh? Sony brings guns to church" and you click and see what it really is; and sure the headline makes sense but in a different kind of way. So yeah, this was an unnecessarily long response, but point is I don't think CNN was doing anything more than making an eye-catching headline. I do understand what you mean by making a mountain out of a mole hill in the headline, but I think it's so typical that you can't single out CNN for it. Now, I'm not defending CNN here (I'm not familiar enough with them to know exactly well they provide the news); I'm just defending this particular headline.

[PSXferrari]

I agree with Disko here. Yeah, this is appropriate for CNN "Headline news" but why spend 3 hours debating it on live television?

Besides, shouldn't Wolf Blitzer be covering Anna Nicole Smith or Paris Hilton?


Well that's a completely different story. An eye-catching headline is one thing, but I don't thing it's newsworthy enough for that kind of coverage. And that kind of coverage certainly isn't good for the industry. I think video games have become more mainstream to the point that we hopefully never see anti-videogame coverage like what Mortal Kombat and Night Trap got in the mid-90s, but any type of negative news never helps the perception of the industry in the eyes of the old people making laws in this country. But then again, if they managed to cover Paris Hilton for an entire weekend, then I guess I can understand how they managed to make such a big deal out of this one too.