All we need is to turn the other cheek.
In order to see what the legal issues underpinning Manchester Cathedral authorities claims against Sony in the ongoing Resistance Fall of Man saga, we've been in contact with one the UK's legal authorities on intellectual property and technology. These are his opinions.
Andrew Mills is the Partner and Head of IP&T at lawyers Freeth Cartwright LLP. To give you some idea of Mr Mills' background and qualifications, here are some of his memberships:
Institution of Engineering and Technology
Licensing Executives’ Society
Institute of Trade Marks Attorneys
The Intellectual Property Lawyers Association
European Community Trade Mark Association
The Law Society
We have already passed his comment to Sony in the United Kingdom - and now is your chance to discover how the battle between the church and Sony is likely to unfold behind closed doors.
Background
This piece looks at the key legal issues around the current dispute between the Church of England's and Sony for using (without permission) a building allegedly similar to Manchester Cathedral as a setting for Sony’s PlayStation 3 game Resistance Fall of Man. The Church is asking Sony to make a donation to charity by way of contrition..
So, what rights might Sony have infringed here?
Copyright
The obvious starting point is Copyright, a right that comes about automatically and gives its owner the right to stop people copying. Section 4(b) of the Copyright Designs & Patents Act 1998 (“the Act”) specifically provides that a work of architecture being a building is a type of artistic work capable of protection by copyright, but one or two points need addressing. Copyright in artistic works only lasts for 70 years from when the creator dies or if that isn't known, 70 years from the work made.
Under section 65 of the Act, reconstructing a building doesn't infringe the original copyright. The Act also states that copying an earlier work does not give rise to a new copyright.
• Manchester Cathedral has been around for centuries, and had been added to and altered throughout its history – has the copyright run out ? What elements of the building design were created between 70 and, say, 140 years ago and weren't simply reconstructions?
So, if there IS any copyright, does the Church own it ? I obviously don’t know the answer to that at this stage, but I can say that paying someone to design and build a building for you doesn't of itself mean that you own the copyright in that building.
Sony is also likely to point to section 62 of the Act, which says that copyright is a building is NOT infringed by making a graphic reproduction of the building. Based on this, Sony could have a good argument for saying it did not need the Church’s permission, and the Church can’t therefore have any grounds for complaint.
Passing off
To succeed on this claim the Church would have to show that:
• the visual image of Manchester Cathedral has a significant reputation in the minds of the public (as opposed the general image of a generic church)
• Sony have somehow traded on that reputation in selling the game
• members of the public have bought the game on the mistaken belief that the Church had somehow endorsed the game
• the Church suffers damage to its reputation as a result
Would the inclusion of the imagery of the Cathedral in the game really have persuaded anyone to buy it ? Was there really scope for confusion about endorsement from the Church - how many players of the game would recognise the building in question as Manchester Cathedral ?
Special Provisions?
I got to wondering if there might be some special provisions buried somewhere in the statute book that might give special rights to the Church of England. I haven’t found any.
What do Film/TV companies do when filming in a building?
TV and film production companies often enter into a premises agreement/release before filming inside a building. This is simply common sense, as it allows the production company and the owner of the building to agree vital issues such as access to the building, times and dates, provision of electrical power, compensation for damage and so on.
I wonder if Sony created their virtual model of the Cathedral without even going inside at all.
Conclusion
It’s hard to see how the Church of England can make a case. Perhaps it is trying to shame Sony into making a payment for a good cause and you might say “good for the Church”. However, threatening legal action without an obviously solid case is rarely a good idea.
Andrew Mills is the Partner and Head of IP&T at lawyers Freeth Cartwright LLP. To give you some idea of Mr Mills' background and qualifications, here are some of his memberships:
Institution of Engineering and Technology
Licensing Executives’ Society
Institute of Trade Marks Attorneys
The Intellectual Property Lawyers Association
European Community Trade Mark Association
The Law Society
We have already passed his comment to Sony in the United Kingdom - and now is your chance to discover how the battle between the church and Sony is likely to unfold behind closed doors.
Background
This piece looks at the key legal issues around the current dispute between the Church of England's and Sony for using (without permission) a building allegedly similar to Manchester Cathedral as a setting for Sony’s PlayStation 3 game Resistance Fall of Man. The Church is asking Sony to make a donation to charity by way of contrition..
So, what rights might Sony have infringed here?
Copyright
The obvious starting point is Copyright, a right that comes about automatically and gives its owner the right to stop people copying. Section 4(b) of the Copyright Designs & Patents Act 1998 (“the Act”) specifically provides that a work of architecture being a building is a type of artistic work capable of protection by copyright, but one or two points need addressing. Copyright in artistic works only lasts for 70 years from when the creator dies or if that isn't known, 70 years from the work made.
Under section 65 of the Act, reconstructing a building doesn't infringe the original copyright. The Act also states that copying an earlier work does not give rise to a new copyright.
• Manchester Cathedral has been around for centuries, and had been added to and altered throughout its history – has the copyright run out ? What elements of the building design were created between 70 and, say, 140 years ago and weren't simply reconstructions?
So, if there IS any copyright, does the Church own it ? I obviously don’t know the answer to that at this stage, but I can say that paying someone to design and build a building for you doesn't of itself mean that you own the copyright in that building.
Sony is also likely to point to section 62 of the Act, which says that copyright is a building is NOT infringed by making a graphic reproduction of the building. Based on this, Sony could have a good argument for saying it did not need the Church’s permission, and the Church can’t therefore have any grounds for complaint.
Passing off
To succeed on this claim the Church would have to show that:
• the visual image of Manchester Cathedral has a significant reputation in the minds of the public (as opposed the general image of a generic church)
• Sony have somehow traded on that reputation in selling the game
• members of the public have bought the game on the mistaken belief that the Church had somehow endorsed the game
• the Church suffers damage to its reputation as a result
Would the inclusion of the imagery of the Cathedral in the game really have persuaded anyone to buy it ? Was there really scope for confusion about endorsement from the Church - how many players of the game would recognise the building in question as Manchester Cathedral ?
Special Provisions?
I got to wondering if there might be some special provisions buried somewhere in the statute book that might give special rights to the Church of England. I haven’t found any.
What do Film/TV companies do when filming in a building?
TV and film production companies often enter into a premises agreement/release before filming inside a building. This is simply common sense, as it allows the production company and the owner of the building to agree vital issues such as access to the building, times and dates, provision of electrical power, compensation for damage and so on.
I wonder if Sony created their virtual model of the Cathedral without even going inside at all.
Conclusion
It’s hard to see how the Church of England can make a case. Perhaps it is trying to shame Sony into making a payment for a good cause and you might say “good for the Church”. However, threatening legal action without an obviously solid case is rarely a good idea.
Read More Like This
Comments
Joji 15 Jun 2007 16:06
1/9
I read this and feel there's a lot of sense in what its saying. The church are gonna look pretty dumb.
There's also the fact that usually, when games have single and multiplayer levels that are under the same name and design, the multiplayer levels usually have stuff ommited (or have done in the past) in comparison to the single player original, to keep speed up etc. Only recently have such games been able to include more detail, such as Gear of War. I'm not sure if Resistance does this though.
Strike one, Sony/Imsomniac.
There's also the fact that usually, when games have single and multiplayer levels that are under the same name and design, the multiplayer levels usually have stuff ommited (or have done in the past) in comparison to the single player original, to keep speed up etc. Only recently have such games been able to include more detail, such as Gear of War. I'm not sure if Resistance does this though.
Strike one, Sony/Imsomniac.
counter sue 15 Jun 2007 18:32
2/9
Could Sony counter sue for the bad PR of this supposedly groundless case?
Or would sueing a church be even worse PR, and, conversely, how are Resistance sales doing in light of all this? Are the church's complaints having any impact on sales positively, or negatively? This is the first time the PS3 has stayed in the mainstream press and public eye for so long, since launch!
It's probably cheaper to get a gun, than a PS3 though....-_-....
Or would sueing a church be even worse PR, and, conversely, how are Resistance sales doing in light of all this? Are the church's complaints having any impact on sales positively, or negatively? This is the first time the PS3 has stayed in the mainstream press and public eye for so long, since launch!
It's probably cheaper to get a gun, than a PS3 though....-_-....
more comments below our sponsor's message
alexh2o 15 Jun 2007 19:44
3/9
I still think Sony should sort this out. Im not from Manchester and it didnt really bother me, thought the church was just going on an anti gaming crusade. However, Ive sinced talked to a mate who lives in Manchester. I was unaware of just how bad gun crime is there. People are shot and killed ALL the time, with most services for them being held in the cathedral. It is actually really disrespectful to what is a major and very serious community issue going on in Manchester. I do think perhaps, with all the cathedrals, let alone the ability to digitally make one up, Sony should have thought more about their choice.
Ethan 15 Jun 2007 20:51
4/9
It as never about sense. It was the church looking for cash, and finding a scapegoat. Then they used their considerable media prowess to stretch to the idea that Sony is promoting gun crime inside churches, knowing that journalists can't check up facts on a tiny portion of the game. Sony should have gone straight to the press and shown them this portion of the game, with a quick explanation of the plot.
To alex, I think saying it's inappropriate to do that is significantly misguided. Gun trade occurs in all major cities in the U.K. and thus gangs do have them and use them to shoot each other, and innocents, but it's not really related to the church (more likely Rusholme/Moss Side). It would be like saying Project Gotham is insensitive to people who have died in car accidents in London. I wish news was researched properly though.
To alex, I think saying it's inappropriate to do that is significantly misguided. Gun trade occurs in all major cities in the U.K. and thus gangs do have them and use them to shoot each other, and innocents, but it's not really related to the church (more likely Rusholme/Moss Side). It would be like saying Project Gotham is insensitive to people who have died in car accidents in London. I wish news was researched properly though.
TimSpong 15 Jun 2007 22:28
5/9
Ethan wrote:
I wish news was researched properly though.
Please explain.
Thanks
Tim
Joji 16 Jun 2007 00:45
6/9
Tim, I think Ethan means the media in general not Spong. I agree though, I couldn't believe how badly Sky news and Radio 5 were making this whole thing look. It seems they only investigate things properly when its about war.
I understand the U.Ks gun crime problem (hey, our wonderful government helped create it), but I really don't think you should let real world problems have a bearing on an imagined universe. What would be next? Paintings and films, music? This is the beauty of the muses, they are free to express and amuse and should remain so.
I understand the U.Ks gun crime problem (hey, our wonderful government helped create it), but I really don't think you should let real world problems have a bearing on an imagined universe. What would be next? Paintings and films, music? This is the beauty of the muses, they are free to express and amuse and should remain so.
ajmetz 16 Jun 2007 21:30
7/9
Joji wrote:
It seems they only investigate things properly when its about war.
..they don't even do that, do they? There's a lot of censorship over war too, as well as different groups with different agendas.
Likewise, after all the bigging up of the UK games industry, that government has done under encouragement from ELSPA, I was a bit dissappointed to hear some of Tony Blair's comments taking side with the church, but when you think about it, really, the young and savvy don't vote? Older people who don't have a clue about gaming, and are despairing at where society is going, and what's happening to the youth of today, etc, do vote. So, really, I don't think the viewers of the news care about whether the game used a church offensively, inoffensively, whether they've a right to take digital inspiration from architecture, or whether it infringes copyright. I think it's more a chance for discontentment in general to be voiced, for the target audience of fuddy duddies to have something to rally around, etc. Doesn't really matter what Tony Blair says to anti-establishment youth, but it is important not to offend core voters by sounding insensitive or like you don't care about their community's voice of complaints, etc.
In short - the reporting may be crap, but the target audience for those news reports isn't gamers.
Rather, it's an audience that could do with, and may benefit from, something to moan about.
As this piece points out, might be a weak case in court,
but, let them have their moan, and you have your games, and then everyone'll be happy,
whether they're a Bumblebee (chirpy diligent Autobot Mini) or a Huffer (Grumpy Autobot Mini engineer who'll gladly do anything, as long as he can moan and complain about it whilst doing it).
Of course it's probably lazy journalism, chinese whisphers, and sensationalism, or an excuse for a church's agenda, but, maybe when the PS3 comes down in price, we'll see more journalists bother to go out, buy the system, and play the games first. ;-) Haha. For now, a secondary source is far cheaper than primary research (although far less fun I'll assume!). Then again, putting a PS3 on company expenses in the name of research would be cool...;-)
sean lowe 17 Jun 2007 09:23
8/9
OK maybe it is wrong to do what they did, maybe that reproducing a church interior and having blood shed would offend and sony maybe should of been more careful to the churchs emotional and moral views, but does the church recognise that this is fictional? does the church recognise that WW1 & WW2 is not fictional and that many of lives were lost and bloodshed occured in churches all over europe during the beginning of the 20th century? what bout during middleages, dark ages and that those ages saw many of people persucuted for witchcraft and again killed and slaughtered in churches? i feel the church is hypocritical when it comes to someone else but they should first recognise there own faults and history of violence before they condem modern age for recreating in fiction what has happened thousands of times before in reality, but maybe it was wrong, lets see if a sorry will fix the problem or if the church again is after more cash.
Robert 19 Jun 2007 20:45
9/9
Remember millions of people have been killed in Wars since the dawn of time over religion. So maybe we can sue the church for its bad deeds.