Can the Church of England Sue Sony over Resistance Images?
Copyright lawyers speak out
While we still await a response from The Bishop of Manchester on the recent furore over Sony/Insomniac Games’ use of images of Manchester Cathedral in the glorious PS3 game Resistance: Fall of Man, it’s interesting to hear what a number of specialist copyright and intellectual property lawyers have to say on the matter.
To recap, Sony could face legal action by the Church of England for the use of this imagery in the game, with the Church currently claiming that no permission was sought by Sony or Insomniac for the use of the re-imagined images of the interior of this magnificent building. Sony continues to claim that it sought permission where necessary.
Insomniac has said that the game was designed following visits by its "environment artists" to various British locations, including such globally-recognised landmarks as The Tower of London.
Paul Stevens, head of intellectual property at law firm Olswang, said, "The fact that images appear in another medium does not change the potential for copyright infringement to have taken place."
Seb Belcher, head of interactive entertainment at law firm Harbottle & Lewis, opined that, "A lot will hinge on how the images were produced and whether there was a requirement in property law to seek church permission."
source: Financial Times
To recap, Sony could face legal action by the Church of England for the use of this imagery in the game, with the Church currently claiming that no permission was sought by Sony or Insomniac for the use of the re-imagined images of the interior of this magnificent building. Sony continues to claim that it sought permission where necessary.
Insomniac has said that the game was designed following visits by its "environment artists" to various British locations, including such globally-recognised landmarks as The Tower of London.
Paul Stevens, head of intellectual property at law firm Olswang, said, "The fact that images appear in another medium does not change the potential for copyright infringement to have taken place."
Seb Belcher, head of interactive entertainment at law firm Harbottle & Lewis, opined that, "A lot will hinge on how the images were produced and whether there was a requirement in property law to seek church permission."
source: Financial Times
Read More Like This
Comments
andrew mills 12 Jun 2007 10:28
1/8
I've written a detailed piece on our blog today about the legal issues. The item is at http://impact.freethcartwright.com/2007/06/church_of_engla.html
TimSpong 12 Jun 2007 10:44
2/8
andrew mills wrote:
I've written a detailed piece on our blog today about the legal issues. The item is at http://impact.freethcartwright.com/2007/06/church_of_engla.html
For those readers unaware of Andrew's work, he is Partner and Head of IP&Technology at law firm Freeth Cartwright.
Hi Andrew, thanks for pointing to this. I wonder if you've got time for a chat about the wider issues?
Regards
Tim
more comments below our sponsor's message
Joji 12 Jun 2007 10:52
3/8
Well if it does go to court, I'll be laughing when the church once again get egg on their face and look stupid. Hopefully that JT muppet will stay away too.
Interesting, so are they actually clear what this is about now, is this actually about copyright infringement or the falsely hammed up gun violence influence claim? Get ready to shout stupid very loud, because they've gone quiet on that bit.
I'm sure, once the court see that there are other locations in the game, used as influence from London to breathe life into the game, Sony and Imsomniac would be pretty dumb not to get permission, considering how big the gameworld is.
Its important for creative people to have freedom in what they do, and as an artist myself, I'll be behind Sony and Imsomniac 100% on this one. The rest of the industry should too.
Interesting, so are they actually clear what this is about now, is this actually about copyright infringement or the falsely hammed up gun violence influence claim? Get ready to shout stupid very loud, because they've gone quiet on that bit.
I'm sure, once the court see that there are other locations in the game, used as influence from London to breathe life into the game, Sony and Imsomniac would be pretty dumb not to get permission, considering how big the gameworld is.
Its important for creative people to have freedom in what they do, and as an artist myself, I'll be behind Sony and Imsomniac 100% on this one. The rest of the industry should too.
DoctorDee 12 Jun 2007 11:48
4/8
Joji wrote:
Well if it does go to court, I'll be laughing when the church once again get egg on their face and look stupid.
Egg on their face... blood on their hands... incredibility hard-coded into their doctrine.
None of this stops them.
The irony of this is that more people have been killed in the name of religious superstition than anyone suggests might have been killed because of poor impulse control excaserbated by the influence of violent media.
Listen to their "word"
You must kill those who worship another god. Exodus 22:20
Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Deuteronomy 13:12-16
Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13
If you don't trust in God, he'll kill you and while you're dying the "righteous" will laugh at you. Psalms 52:5-7
God will kill those who despise his word and fail to follow his laws. Their carcases will be "torn in the midst of the streets." Isaiah 5:24-25
God will kill those who refuse listen to his prophets. Jeremiah 29:19
God will destroy entire cities, and "execute vengeance in anger and fury upon the heathen such as they have not heard." Obadiah 5:14-15
And it goes ON and ON and ON and ON. If you do not believe in their god, you must die a horrible death. And they are preaching to us (most of whom have never murdered or tortured or exterminated, or even reached hatred on anyone, or associated ourselves with an organisation that has done this both systematically and through its small-minded words and actions) about violence.
When they spurn the bible, and write a new good book, one with less smiting and vengeance, and biggoted intellectual imperialismn... then I might listen to them.
Zman the Wise 13 Jun 2007 20:51
5/8
Wow,
Joji has some obvious issues with the church...anyhoo, back to the point of this posting. Is INSOMNIAC liable? Here's the deal, though some would like to write it off, the church may have an excellent case here.
There are laws in place that allow for the portrayal of landmark structures in videogames, such as this church. So INSOMNIAC has every right to include this building in resistance. The catch is that these buildings CANNOT BE PORTRAYED AS DESTROYED OR DEFACED IN ANY MANNER, so this law actually supports the church's rights. If the building so much has a cracked window or a bullethole in it without the Church's permission, then INSOMNIAC will be liable. (And for all you people like Joji with deep fear of religions, this applies to business-owned stuctures as well)
Another law that many would use to support INSOMNIAC's case is that the architect's right to a building patent runs out after seventy something years, thusly allowing INSOMNIAC to use the church images in their game in whatever state they choose. However, these rights are only applied to the building's design, and the architect's right to the building, not the owner's. If the building itself is portrayed in violation of the above stipulations in the game without permission from its owners, you are liable. Also, this patent on the building's design applies more to the arena of ripping off another architect's design and making your own building with it, not so much to interactive digital media.
It's not a slam dunk, but the church is in a very strong position to win this case, but I think they'll settle rather than have the games pulled from shelves.
(Sorry Joji, but maybe you should be more concerned about the individuals' rights than what religion they are connected to)
Zman out!
Joji has some obvious issues with the church...anyhoo, back to the point of this posting. Is INSOMNIAC liable? Here's the deal, though some would like to write it off, the church may have an excellent case here.
There are laws in place that allow for the portrayal of landmark structures in videogames, such as this church. So INSOMNIAC has every right to include this building in resistance. The catch is that these buildings CANNOT BE PORTRAYED AS DESTROYED OR DEFACED IN ANY MANNER, so this law actually supports the church's rights. If the building so much has a cracked window or a bullethole in it without the Church's permission, then INSOMNIAC will be liable. (And for all you people like Joji with deep fear of religions, this applies to business-owned stuctures as well)
Another law that many would use to support INSOMNIAC's case is that the architect's right to a building patent runs out after seventy something years, thusly allowing INSOMNIAC to use the church images in their game in whatever state they choose. However, these rights are only applied to the building's design, and the architect's right to the building, not the owner's. If the building itself is portrayed in violation of the above stipulations in the game without permission from its owners, you are liable. Also, this patent on the building's design applies more to the arena of ripping off another architect's design and making your own building with it, not so much to interactive digital media.
It's not a slam dunk, but the church is in a very strong position to win this case, but I think they'll settle rather than have the games pulled from shelves.
(Sorry Joji, but maybe you should be more concerned about the individuals' rights than what religion they are connected to)
Zman out!
DoctorDee 14 Jun 2007 06:27
6/8
Zman the Wise wrote:
(And for all you people like Joji with deep fear of religions, this applies to business-owned stuctures as well)
I don't think that Joji, or the rest of us, have any "fear" of religion. I think we deride religions, rather than fear them. Except for the natural fear anyone should have of secretive cults that practise mind control, lie openly, practise discrimination and that have systematically employed murder to spread a doctrine that even an average seven year old can see is superstitious tosh designed to reassure the weak and the scared.
Businesses... some of us fear those.
Another law that many would use to support INSOMNIAC's case is that the architect's right to a building patent runs out after seventy something years, thusly allowing INSOMNIAC to use the church images in their game in whatever state they choose.
You seem confused. Patent does not come into this. Patent is a region-specific award of rights in a method or technology that would be non-obvious to an expert in the field. You cannot get a patent on a building unless it uses a new and innovative construction proces, and even then the patent would be on the process and not the building per se.
It's not a slam dunk, but the church is in a very strong position to win this case, but I think they'll settle rather than have the games pulled from shelves.
It's very rewarding, for those of us who believe that the church is pissing down its own leg here, that the respected lawyer thinks they have no reasonable chance of victory yet the guy who cannot tell copyright from patent, and who speaks of "laws" without any citation, thinks the church is in a very strong position.
PreciousRoi 14 Jun 2007 08:14
7/8
Zman the Foolish wrote:
(Sorry Joji, but maybe you should be more concerned about the individuals' rights than what religion they are connected to)
err, which individuals? I thought this was about a church, not an individual person...churches are great at honoring the rights of individuals, just ask Galileo or Salmaan Rushdie. Or do you mean an individual's right not to have their ludicrious system of beliefs mocked? I gave that one up for Lent once, and never bothered recognizing it again except on Maundy Thursdays of leap years.
just my standard run of the mill nitpick, since someone else beat me to most of the rest of the logical and legal flaws...maybe you should be more concerned with getting your ducks in a row when criticizing someone else's argument.
TimSpong 14 Jun 2007 10:56
8/8
Zman the Wise wrote:
There are laws in place that allow for the portrayal of landmark structures in videogames, such as this church.
[Snippety snip]
Another law that many would use to support INSOMNIAC's case is that the architect's right to a building patent runs out after seventy something years, thusly allowing INSOMNIAC to use the church images in their game in whatever state they choose.
[Snippety snip]
Another law that many would use to support INSOMNIAC's case is that the architect's right to a building patent runs out after seventy something years, thusly allowing INSOMNIAC to use the church images in their game in whatever state they choose.
Can you post the laws you're talking about please? Just for reference. Ta.