Church of England blasts Sony for PS3 shooter
Once again, Sony has drawn anger over the PlayStation 3. This time, the group frothing at the mouth is the Church of England. The reason? Resistance: Fall of Man, the only good FPS to date that came out of Sony’s already-controversial console.
The Church of England is pissed at Sony for using the Manchester Cathedral as the setting of a mission in said shooter, and that Sony didn’t seek permission to use the cathedral in the game. The Church said it’s is considering legal action if Sony doesn’t say sorry, withdraw the game from store shelves, or modify the mission in question to remove the building’s interior.
Obviously, Sony has no plans of stopping the sales of Resistance, especially since the game has sold over a million copies.
Sony is also being criticized for using Manchester because the place has a gun crime problem. Way to go, Sony. Bill Gates hates you, gamers hate you, Tony Blair hates you, now Manchester and the entire Church of England hates you.
Even Mothers Against Violence, a Manchester-based organization, is joining the fray by seconding the Church’s action.
While each side’s arguments hold water, I just can’t help but question the Church’s motives for this one. If the game in question were Psychonauts, there probably won’t be a rush for legal battle.
As for the Church’s chances, it looks pretty slim. The U.K.’s Copyright Designs and Patents act says it’s not infringement to “represent artistic works that are on public display.” Alex Chapman of law firm Campbell Hooper told GamesIndustry.biz that this includes buildings and sculptures that are permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.
That sounds exactly like the Manchester Cathedral to me.
On the other hand, the cathedral is certainly put into a bad light, and the situation doesn’t help the locale’s gun troubles. Here’s the rub: there aren’t any laws against corporate insensitivity. If there were, Sony would have burned at the stake for the PS3 prices.
Thanks to CartoonChurch and Matt Wardman for the hilarious cartoon.
Tags: aliens, church-of-england, guns, insensitive, manchester, pc-games, resistance, shooters, sonyRelated Stories
POSTED IN: News
11 opinions for Church of England blasts Sony for PS3 shooter
Klopzi
Jun 15, 2007 at 7:57 am
If the game were to involve bishops and nuns getting shot or killed by aliens, I could understand the complaint.
However, we’re talking about Resistance’s protagonist shooting aliens in an alternate time-line version of the Manchester Cathedral.
This sounds like a money-grab to me and it sets a bad precedent for other games. What if I were to have a firefight at the base of the Status of Liberty in GTA4? Would Rockstar or Take-Two be sued by the City of New York?
The only thing left to do now is hope that either the case gets dropped or Sony wins the lawsuit. In any case, here’s hoping John Grisham writes a book about it…
Matt Wardman
Jun 15, 2007 at 8:05 am
Thanks for the comment! It’s a bit overdoing it to say that “The entire Church of England hates you.”
There are quite a few gamers around who are also church people. This one is a trainee Church of England priest:
http://www.wannabepriest.org.uk/?p=167
Leaving aside all the stuff about possible legal action, I’m finding the conversation between groups that sometimes don’t know that the other exists quite fascinating.
Glad you enjoyed the cartoon and thanks for the link.
Matt
amber
Jun 15, 2007 at 9:32 am
When is the Church of England not pissed off?
Mike
Jun 18, 2007 at 11:40 pm
Hi Matt,
Yes, the cartoon was hilarious, I just had to put it in the blog. ;)
As for the “entire” Church of England bit, I’m aware that it’s a stretch. It’s tongue-in-cheek, and is just exaggeration.
By the way, I like your blog a lot. ;)
Matt
Jun 19, 2007 at 5:16 am
>This sounds like a money-grab to me and it sets a bad precedent for other games. What if I were to have a firefight at the base of the Status of Liberty in GTA4? Would Rockstar or Take-Two be sued by the City of New York?
AFAIK no one is trying to protect the outside of the cathedral legally - that part of the dispute has to do with permission to photo the interior.
>The only thing left to do now is hope that either the case gets dropped or Sony wins the lawsuit. In any case, here’s hoping John Grisham writes a book about it…
There will be no lawsuit about the exterior. If Sony won the lawsuit to use the interior, that might mean that the interior of any building could be used without the owner’s consent. Not good.
Mike - thanks for the reply.
Mike
Jun 20, 2007 at 6:21 am
Matt, is the Manchester Cathedral on public display? Would this include the interiors of the building?
Like you said in your blog, this issue is rather hairy because the status of the structure is debatable. If the cathedral was classified as public (including the interiors) would there still be a need to ask for permission?
From what I gather, daily services are held in the cathedral at 7:45am (Morning Prayer), 8:00am (Holy Communion), 1:10pm on Wednesdays and Fridays (Holy Communion), and 5:30pm (Evensong).
I presume these services are for members of the Church of England, and perhaps other non-members as well. AFAIK, Christian religious structures do not prohibit entry of non-members, so these structures could be considered public.
Matt
Jun 20, 2007 at 8:00 am
One example of putting a sign up saying “you may have access” which is actually designed to prove that the person putting the sign up has control (and can therefore withdraw access):
sometimes on footpaths you see a sign that says “footpath by permission of owner”. That actually is to prevent it becoming a “public right of way”, while permitting walkers to use it.
Mike
Jun 20, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Does the cathedral in question have these signs explicitly saying one has access? Or does the cathedral display its schedule and nothing more?
Despite all these little technicalities, the C of E’s motives are being questioned. You know it and we know it. I’d like to see them try this with a game that doesn’t sell well. With an unknown developer or publisher that hardly has any money.
Look, if Sony wins a lawsuit to use the interior of the cathedral, this cannot be used as precedent that any private building’s interior can be used without the owner’s consent because the cathedral is indeed public. You may argue that if there are literal signs that allow access, this indicates “owner control.”
We’re not even sure if such signs exist. Even if they did, it wouldn’t matter. Why?
Because the cathedral in question is a public place of worship, no matter how you look at it. The little tidbit about the Copyright Designs and Patents act is going to making things difficult for C of E if they decide to sue. This act says it’s not infringement to represent artistic works that are in public display, and this includes buildings and sculptures that are permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.
Is the cathedral permanently situated in a public place? Yes.
Is the cathedral open to the public? Yes.
Would this include the interior of the cathedral? Of course! Where are they supposed to hold Holy Communion? Outside the church? The schedule I posted would surely be enough to tell you that the cathedral is indeed open to the public and its services are held inside. This means even the interior of the cathedral is open to the public. This means you can use the interior of public buildings, but can’t just use the interior of private ones.
There’s no need to go over the little details (i.e. does this law encompass stained glass), because these little parts are sum of the whole, which is the cathedral.
Matt
Jun 20, 2007 at 11:29 pm
I’ll be fairly quick here, as I have to go to work. It is a can of worms!
Holding “public worship” in a building at some times does not make it a public building all the time. e.g., the footballer’s wedding last Saturday was a private service, as are funerals, baptisms etc. “Public worship” is also held in “private buildings”- e.g., school halls. The one does not imply the other. So you cannot say “there are public services here therefore there are no restrictions on visitors”.
SERVICES are public by law and anyone can attend - which was for political reasons in Elizabeth I’s time - but that does not imply anything about the building except that the public can go in to attend those services.
Access to the Cathedral building is controlled by the Dean and Chapter, and they can set conditions before people come in as with any other building - otherwise photography could not be restricted. As another example, at Canterbury Cathedral you have to pay at the gate to get into the Cathedral Close - and the photo restrictions are on a notice at the gate.
I believe that Manchester had a sign saying “private non commercial photography for personal use allowed on purchase of a licence (£3 or so)” when I visited.
On the artistic works and so on, there may be different rights on each piece (e.g., if they are by different artists). But in this case I think that will not be relevant.
I’m sure I saw a comment from you about photos being permitted in Catholic Cathedrals, but I don’t know where it went!
Anyway - my understanding is that they would have the same restrictions on commercial photography as the CofE ones if they spotted the commercial photographer. I think they are not so organised because they are not used to 5 million visitors a year.
Cheers for now.
Matt
Mike
Jun 21, 2007 at 2:14 am
“Holding “public worship” in a building at some times does not make it a public building all the time.”
But a church is a public building all the time. People visit churches not just because of the services. People go to churches to pray, and these times would vary so you can’t place restrictions as to when it’s public and when it’s not. While weddings are “private” ceremonies, the celebrants have no authority to remove non-attending supplicants from the premises. The only time a church is closed is in the evenings.
I removed the bit about the Catholic cathedrals because I wasn’t sure. Still, I have taken photographs inside churches, and these occasions are not limited to weddings or baptisms. On personal experience, I never encountered any such issue.
Matt
Jun 21, 2007 at 6:37 am
>But a church is a public building all the time.
No it isn’t - or not in all aspects. I’ve been trying to show that.
> But a church is a public building all the time. People visit churches not just because of the services. People go to churches to pray, and these times would vary so you can’t place restrictions as to when it’s public and when it’s not.
You can place restrictions as to when it is open foe example - normally in Cathedrals they are open 7:30am to sunset (ish). That is a restriction. They are also closed when there are events on.
Also, people visit the Natural History Museum all the time, but it does not permit photography.
Here’s a couple of photography policiies from cathedrals:
Canterbury
(see http://www.canterbury-cathedral.org/visit/information.htm)
“PHOTOGRAPHY
Photography is permitted (except in the Crypt) – but for your own personal use only. Any commercial / stock library photography must be agreed in advance and is subject to a fee.”
York Minster
see http://www.yorkminster.org/learning/school-visits/planning-your-visit/
“Photography:
The use of cameras at York Minster is welcomed for educational use within schools. Recording images or sound for commercial purposes or to upload onto the internet is not permitted without prior consent, and all commercial rights in all images remain the property of the Dean & Chapter of York.
Photography is not permitted in the Undercroft, Treasury or Crypt or during any act of worship.”
Coventry:
See: http://www.coventrycathedral.org.uk/Admission.html
“Photography & Video Permits
Permits are required and may be purchased from the Information Desk at the entrance to the Cathedral (£3 still camera or video). The Visits Secretary will advise the rates for youth/student groups on request. Services and events may not be photographed or recorded. ”
The point I’m seeking to establish is that control over access is in place already - and that “commercial” photography is restricted.
At Worcester Cathedral you have to talk to the Dean and make a written submission if they think you are doing photography as a business. I made the mistake of asking in a way that made me sound like a big company and was diverted into the full blown “written permission” system.
If you are simply a tourist you will very rarely be obstructed. They are nice like that! Often cathedral staff will ask “that’s for personal use, isn’t it” if you obviously have a decent camera or a monopod or tripod.
In smaller churches quite often there will just be noone there, and there may just be an “hionesty box”.
>While weddings are “private” ceremonies, the celebrants have no authority to remove non-attending supplicants from the premises.
I can’t cite a source on whether you have a right to wander in as a member of the public to any wedding - I can’t see how that can be the case when some weddings are restriced access.
If you create a disturbance the Churchwardens (not the celebrant) can definitely remove or arrest you:
See http://www.churchwardens.com/duties.html
“On the rare occasion of a major disturbance within (or immediately outside) the church, the Churchwardens take primary responsibility in dealing with the matter and have the power to arrest anyone or escort them off the premises if necessary.”
>The only time a church is closed is in the evenings.
That depends on the church. A good number are closed during the day if they are at risk - or open for 2-4 hours a day if stewards are not available.
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: