Church legal threat over 'sick and sacrilegious' PlayStation game set in Manchester

[Blackleaf]

Church legal threat over 'sick and sacrilegious' PlayStation game set in Manchester

9th June 2007
Daily Mail

The Church of England today threatened legal action against Sony after it used a cathedral without permission as the backdrop to an ultra-violent computer game.

Church leaders have accused Sony of the "desecration" of Manchester Cathedral, after the firm set one of its top-selling games inside the place of worship.

The new PlayStation3 game, titled Resistance: Fall of Man, which has sold more than one million copies, sees a virtual shoot-out between rival gunman with hundreds killed during a gun battle inside the cathedral in an orgy of blood.

Church officials described Sony's use of the building as "sick" and sacrilegious.

Church leaders have accused Sony of the 'desecration' of Manchester Cathedral


The Church say Sony did not ask for permission to use the cathedral and has demanded an apology and the removal of the game from shop shelves - otherwise legal action will be considered. Sony has not returned calls to officials from the Church.

The firm is also branded irresponsible for choosing Manchester - a city plagued by gun violence which has left tens of youngsters dead.

The Bishop of Manchester, the Rt Rev Nigel McCulloch, said; "It is well known that Manchester has a gun crime problem.

"For a global manufacturer to re-create one of our great Cathedrals with photo-realistic quality and then encourage people to have guns battles in the building is beyond belief and highly irresponsible.

"Here in Manchester we do all we can to support communities through our parish clergy, we know the reality of gun crime and the devastating effects it can have on the lives - it is not a trivial matter."

Just another quiet day in England: Sony has also been branded irresponsible for choosing Manchester - a city plagued by gun violence


It is understood photographers may have visited the Cathedral to take pictures for use in the game.

During the game players are asked to assume the role of an army sergeant and win a battle.

Screenshots of the game in play show the interior of the Cathedral with the player's gun ready to fight; soldiers can be seen elsewhere in the nave taking aim.

The real thing: Manchester Cathedral


No one was available at Sony today for comment. David Wilson, a Sony spokesman, told The Times: "It is game-created footage, it is not video or photography. It is entertainment, like Doctor Who or any other science fiction. It is not based on reality at all. Throughout the whole process we have sought permission where necessary."

The Dean of Manchester Cathedral, the Very Rev Rogers Govender, added: "This is an important issue, for many young people these games offer a different sort of reality and seeing guns in Manchester Cathedral is not the sort of connection we want to make.

"Every year we invite hundreds of teenagers to come and see the Cathedral and it is a shame to have Sony undermining our work."

A spokesman for the Church of England said a letter will be sent to Sony on Monday and if its demands for an apology and withdrawal of the game are not met the Church will look at legal action.

dailymail.co.uk

 

[Josephine]

I actually find this kind of funny...

I think the Church is not so much offended religiously...but they're actually just scared ****less of being shot.:lol:

Just amusing is all...

 

[look3467]

Can we hold anything sacred for want of change?
Pulling all stops only leads to apathy.
No challenges, no contest and really, no room to grow spiritually.

This world, if left unchecked would destroy all of us.

So, lets fight for somethings that hold to decency, things held sacred and that promote stability.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[snfu73]

I don't know how to feel on this one. Interesting. I don't know if any laws have been broken. I mean, I don't imagine that the church is considered a copyrighted image, and therefore I don't think there is a legal basis to get Sony to not use the image. I guess it comes down to a battle of morals, ethics and ideologies. I think, in this case, it might be a good idea for Sony to rethink this one.

 

[karrie]

I actually find this kind of funny...

I think the Church is not so much offended religiously...but they're actually just scared ****less of being shot.:lol:

Just amusing is all...

That's funny? If someone made a video game depicting someone coming into YOUR home, shooting and killing people, would you find it funny? I fail to see the humor, regardless of whether they are offended for religious or safety reasons.

 

[Josephine]

That's funny? If someone made a video game depicting someone coming into YOUR home, shooting and killing people, would you find it funny? I fail to see the humor, regardless of whether they are offended for religious or safety reasons.

I said it was funny because the church was claiming to be religiously offended, when I was just imaging that they were all scared of being shot.

Of course I wouldn't find it funny if someone did that to my home...but I wouldn't go around saying I was morally offended...I would come and say..."I don't want to get shot!!!".

If you read my post again...I never said that the video game was funny...my idea of the church's real concern was funny. Maybe it was just my own personal 4:20 moment;-)

 

[Pangloss]

That's funny? If someone made a video game depicting someone coming into YOUR home, shooting and killing people, would you find it funny? I fail to see the humor, regardless of whether they are offended for religious or safety reasons.

Karrie:

One: The cathedral is not a private residence - it is a public building, one that by its very architecture tries to attract attention to itself - the spire. It is a landmark. That makes it symbolic - by design. That makes it a part of everyday public discourse - by design.

Two: The church is a public institution - one that very much puts itself into the everyday lives of as many people as it can. That means public comment on the church is not only fair game, but necessary.

Three: The free speech you enjoy - this is part of it. Remember, standing up for freedom of expression means nothing until somebody says something you really don't want to hear.

Don't get me wrong - I don't find the game funny, but I do find the church's hypocrisy hilarious. Now that I'm enjoying.

Pangloss

 

[Pangloss]

I wasn't going to buy the game. . .but now I think I just might. Although I'm not really all that big on first-person-shooter games.

Pangloss

 

[DurkaDurka]

I wasn't going to buy the game. . .but now I think I just might. Although I'm not really all that big on first-person-shooter games.

Pangloss

Too bad this isn't a PC game, I could think of a lot of mod's that would really piss the chuch off. A Vatican Mod, Maybe Westminister Abby

 

[karrie]

Karrie:

One: The cathedral is not a private residence - it is a public building, one that by its very architecture tries to attract attention to itself - the spire. It is a landmark. That makes it symbolic - by design. That makes it a part of everyday public discourse - by design.

Two: The church is a public institution - one that very much puts itself into the everyday lives of as many people as it can. That means public comment on the church is not only fair game, but necessary.

Three: The free speech you enjoy - this is part of it. Remember, standing up for freedom of expression means nothing until somebody says something you really don't want to hear.

Don't get me wrong - I don't find the game funny, but I do find the church's hypocrisy hilarious. Now that I'm enjoying.

Pangloss

I really don't find those kinds of games okay to begin with, but, I find them especially repugnant when they draw real life places and people into the mix. No person, be they the president, the vatican, or simply a family, should be subjected to realistic images of their homes and/or places of work being shot apart, bombed, or in any other way shape or form terrorized.

I fail to see the hypocrisy in the statement given by the Reverend... "It is well known that Manchester has a gun crime problem.

"For a global manufacturer to re-create one of our great Cathedrals with photo-realistic quality and then encourage people to have guns battles in the building is beyond belief and highly irresponsible.

"Here in Manchester we do all we can to support communities through our parish clergy, we know the reality of gun crime and the devastating effects it can have on the lives - it is not a trivial matter."

If you can illuminate me as to how that is funny or hypocritical, then do so.

 

[karrie]

I said it was funny because the church was claiming to be religiously offended, when I was just imaging that they were all scared of being shot.

Of course I wouldn't find it funny if someone did that to my home...but I wouldn't go around saying I was morally offended...I would come and say..."I don't want to get shot!!!".

If you read my post again...I never said that the video game was funny...my idea of the church's real concern was funny. Maybe it was just my own personal 4:20 moment;-)

Since the quotes within the article addressed the issue of linking gun violence with the cathedral, I thought it seemed pretty clear that personal safety was an issue of concern. It didn't seem like they were hiding that.

"This is an important issue, for many young people these games offer a different sort of reality and seeing guns in Manchester Cathedral is not the sort of connection we want to make."

"It is well known that Manchester has a gun crime problem. For a global manufacturer to re-create one of our great Cathedrals with photo-realistic quality and then encourage people to have guns battles in the building is beyond belief and highly irresponsible."

 

[vice]

Karrie:

One: The cathedral is not a private residence - it is a public building, one that by its very architecture tries to attract attention to itself - the spire. It is a landmark. That makes it symbolic - by design. That makes it a part of everyday public discourse - by design.

Two: The church is a public institution - one that very much puts itself into the everyday lives of as many people as it can. That means public comment on the church is not only fair game, but necessary.

Three: The free speech you enjoy - this is part of it. Remember, standing up for freedom of expression means nothing until somebody says something you really don't want to hear.

Don't get me wrong - I don't find the game funny, but I do find the church's hypocrisy hilarious. Now that I'm enjoying.

Pangloss

You first two points don't hold water. The church may be publicly visible as both a building and an institution, but it doesn't mean that its image or structure is fair game for public photographs/ games/ artwork for gain. Intellectual Property rights do exist worldwide, and for very prominent and recognizeable buildings such as the Eiffel Tower or Madison Square Gardens. The Picture Archive Council of America has a list of 'marked' buildings, "merely advises users to seek advice from their own legal representation to determine if any additional permissions are required under the circumstances [of showing their photographic image]."

http://www.stockindustry.org/resources/specialReleases.html

The list is by no means definitive, but its existence does provide a rule of thumb for all people or groups wanting to use the image or likeness of prominent and recognizeable buildings - you need to ask for permission first. Sony should've thought about this beforehand.

Your third point is irrelevant. This has nothing to do with free speech.

 

[eh1eh]

I think it just reminds the church too much of their past.

 

[karrie]

I think it just reminds the church too much of their past.

I wish I could say I knew more about the past of the Church of England. I'm not too brushed up on it. If you care to explain a bit more which parts of their past this evokes, I'd appreciate it.

 

[eh1eh]

I wish I could say I knew more about the past of the Church of England. I'm not too brushed up on it. If you care to explain a bit more which parts of their past this evokes, I'd appreciate it.

Ha, I'll bet your not:roll:. What I was think of was stuff like the crusades, inquisition, stuff the church was built on.

 

[karrie]

Ha, I'll bet your not:roll:. What I was think of was stuff like the crusades, inquisition, stuff the church was built on.

Okay, you lost me with the sarcasm and the eye rolling. Are you trying to say I'm a history buff in regards to the Church of England? Because, I really have no clue when they were formed, or what their role may have been in the crusades, inquisition, etc.

 

[Pangloss]

I really don't find those kinds of games okay to begin with, but, I find them especially repugnant when they draw real life places and people into the mix. No person, be they the president, the vatican, or simply a family, should be subjected to realistic images of their homes and/or places of work being shot apart, bombed, or in any other way shape or form terrorized.

I fail to see the hypocrisy in the statement given by the Reverend... "It is well known that Manchester has a gun crime problem.

"For a global manufacturer to re-create one of our great Cathedrals with photo-realistic quality and then encourage people to have guns battles in the building is beyond belief and highly irresponsible.

"Here in Manchester we do all we can to support communities through our parish clergy, we know the reality of gun crime and the devastating effects it can have on the lives - it is not a trivial matter."

If you can illuminate me as to how that is funny or hypocritical, then do so.

First, to be totally clear - it is the hypocrisy that is itself funny. Let me explain.

The church (well any church) is a political organization. The church is in the public sphere - it not only causes debate (a good thing) but is itself an object of debate.

That debate can take many forms - the reasoned discussion of opposing points of view is one form, such as in these forums, polemical writings is another, and art is still another yet.

The church injects itself into public debate - that is what the sermons are, that is what public statements are, that is what columns in newspapers are.

So let's be clear - the church has put itself into the public sphere and has made itself an object of public debate. The hypocrisy is that now that others are making an artistic statement about humanity and the role of the church within it (do not doubt that this videogame is at least partly talking about this, if the writers are any good at what they do), and the church does not like where this is going, they now want to end discussion with a bludgeon. The bludgeon being, of course, tort law.

The church, which believes in matters spiritual and the reasoned resolution of conflict, is turning to secular law to solve a problem.

The irony and hypocrisy is so rich in so many ways.

If the church were a private group, or even a discreet one, I'd be less amused - if a private individual were being abused I'd be outraged.


And Karrie, while I sort of agree with you that public figures like religious and national leaders should be safe from people advocating their destruction, I can easily imagine a valid artistic/political comment in the form of, say, an image of Pope Innocent burnt at the stake (in place of those he had burnt) or of Pol Pot lying dead on top of all the skulls in his Killing Fields. Public figures accept that they are symbols and that the public must be free to use symbols in almost any way they choose.

The church is one of those symbols. The church knows it. The church wants it both ways - be public but have the rights of a private individual.

Pangloss

 

[Pangloss]

You first two points don't hold water. The church may be publicly visible as both a building and an institution, but it doesn't mean that its image or structure is fair game for public photographs/ games/ artwork for gain. Intellectual Property rights do exist worldwide, and for very prominent and recognizeable buildings such as the Eiffel Tower or Madison Square Gardens. The Picture Archive Council of America has a list of 'marked' buildings, "merely advises users to seek advice from their own legal representation to determine if any additional permissions are required under the circumstances [of showing their photographic image]."

http://www.stockindustry.org/resources/specialReleases.html

The list is by no means definitive, but its existence does provide a rule of thumb for all people or groups wanting to use the image or likeness of prominent and recognizeable buildings - you need to ask for permission first. Sony should've thought about this beforehand.

Your third point is irrelevant. This has nothing to do with free speech.

Vice, please forgive the sarcasm, but I'll try to explain this for those folks in the booster seats.

Ok, sarcasm done.

The White House has been blown up in countless movies (and burned down for real twice), the latest I can remember being Independence Day; heads of state have been kidnapped, tortured and killed, and there have been movies about the heads or members of every religion on earth.

So now everybody is all in a twist? Give it a rest - they have to take the chaff with the wheat.

Please do not confuse manufactured replicas or postcards with artistic statement - one is for commercial gain, and the other is protected free speech.

Art takes many forms, as does speech - some you might not even acknowledge as art, and that's just fine. Defining art is pretty much guaranteed to drive any sane person mad. But without question, this game is an artistic creation and therefore protected by free speech. Not just by the law - but by morality.

Pangloss

 

[karrie]

And Karrie, while I sort of agree with you that public figures like religious and national leaders should be safe from people advocating their destruction, I can easily imagine a valid artistic/political comment in the form of, say, an image of Pope Innocent burnt at the stake (in place of those he had burnt) or of Pol Pot lying dead on top of all the skulls in his Killing Fields. Public figures accept that they are symbols and that the public must be free to use symbols in almost any way they choose.

The church is one of those symbols. The church knows it. The church wants it both ways - be public but have the rights of a private individual.

Pangloss

Hmm... now herein lies a distinction for me.

An artist renders a painting, and while many may see it, they are merely observers to what that artist had to say. They are not participants. The artist does not hand them a brush and say 'now you, paint a decapitated pope.' Nor does he encourage them to further the concept, and paint a variety of carnage for him. I can not think of any other piece of 'art' which serves the purpose of being merely a backdrop for what the user decides to paint. Nor any other piece of politicized art which is made with the intention of entertaining for hours on end. While I feel artists should have freedom in what they paint, what they present, I really truly don't think PS3 fits the description of art or political statement.

 

[Dreadful Nonsense]

Ha, I'll bet your not:roll:. What I was think of was stuff like the crusades, inquisition, stuff the church was built on.

C of E wasn't round then