[jammers1978]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...er/6739575.stm

These people make me angry. Who says the cathedral can't be used in a game?

Not only that they are asking for money from the profits of the game to help target 18-30 year olds for what they say is an anti-gun campaign, but is sure to double up as a recruitment drive for their weird religion.

[archie204]

Originally Posted by jammers1978

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...er/6739575.stm

Who says the cathedral can't be used in a game?

The Church of England who own the cathedral. Seems a reasonable objection to me.

[jammers1978]

And who maintain it patly on the basis of charitable donations from the public..

And it's not like if someone was filming there which would require some kind of a release.

I don't believe the design of a building is copyrighted so sod 'em. They are going to have a tough one in court over this I think.

And to ask for money is just unreal, I notice that you neglected to answer that point...

[archie204]

Originally Posted by jammers1978

And who maintain it on the basis of charitable donations from the public..

And it's not like if someone was filming there which would require some kind of a release.

I don't believe the design of a building is copyrighted so sod 'em. They are going to have a tough one in court over this I think.

And to ask for money is just unreal, I notice that you neglected to answer that point...

I'm not sure why you think asking for money to be allowed to use a building which you own is "unreal".

[Trojan_Jockey]

Originally Posted by archie204

I'm not sure why you think asking for money to be allowed to use a building which you own is "unreal".

Because they aren't using the building! All they are using is a graphical representation of the building in a computer game. You don't need permission to draw a picture of a building, in fact, you don't even need permission to publish an image of a person or a building in a newspaper or magazine. The only person who has rights to the image is the photographer or artist, or in this case the software designer.

[archie204]

So do you think that if a game was produced showing Debenham's or Marks & Spencers in the background that these organisations wouldn't get a bit upset? Especially if the game portrayed something to which the organisations were opposed?

[jammers1978]

Originally Posted by archie204

So do you think that if a game was produced showing Debenham's or Marks & Spencers in the background that these organisations wouldn't get a bit upset? Especially if the game portrayed something to which the organisations were opposed?

Those are trademarked though, which is different.

[Caxton]

Who actually owns the Cathedral the people doing the moaning or is it someone on high who has not voiced his opinion yet and not likely to

[joe2-snj]

I have a very strong view on this. I think the the C of E needs to stop being a cry baby. The Church has in the past and not too long ago done far worse.

Sony claim to have actually got permission to use the building in the first place, unless the C of E can prove otherwise? Even if Sony did cough up then exactly how would this donation be spent. I doubt on the local community.

[Trojan_Jockey]

Originally Posted by archie204

So do you think that if a game was produced showing Debenham's or Marks & Spencers in the background that these organisations wouldn't get a bit upset? Especially if the game portrayed something to which the organisations were opposed?

Have a look at the Game called "The Getaway" on PS2. It contains an exact copy of central London with every shop and institution represented. You have no rights to demand payment if someone draws a picture of your building, end of.

[stoatie]

I'm guessing the original complaint to the custodians of Manchester Cathedral may well have been made by an employee of the software company. Remember Manhunt? Pretty good game, lukewarm reviews, sold in the BUCKETLOAD after it got in the papers.

[Smeggypants]

This is just another excuse for the church to throw it's toys out of the pram and make "holier than thou" comments over so called moral decline.

[Superwomble]

Well, I kind of agree with the church on a down to earth level, but I really, really see the hypocrisy.

At least in a computer game you're not really dead.

Oh, what's that I hear? Could it be the sound of an approaching thunderbolt?......

[Smeggypants]

Well I doubt the hypocrites complained about this ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_the_Cathedral

[The Phazer]

Originally Posted by archie204

So do you think that if a game was produced showing Debenham's or Marks & Spencers in the background that these organisations wouldn't get a bit upset? Especially if the game portrayed something to which the organisations were opposed?

The interior of their buildings wouldn't be hundreds of years out of copyright.

Copyright has a limited duration. The Cathedrals has expired - it had decades under which videogame companies would not have been allowed to replicate it's interior. Sadly for them, said decades were before the invention of videogames.

Phazer

[jammers1978]

Originally Posted by archie204

So do you think that if a game was produced showing Debenham's or Marks & Spencers in the background that these organisations wouldn't get a bit upset? Especially if the game portrayed something to which the organisations were opposed?

Well if defending Earth from alien invasion across a number of realistic environments using a variety of completely over the top weaponry is wrong, then hell I don't wanna be right

[Trojan_Jockey]

Originally Posted by The Phazer

The interior of their buildings wouldn't be hundreds of years out of copyright.

Copyright has a limited duration. The Cathedrals has expired - it had decades under which videogame companies would not have been allowed to replicate it's interior. Sadly for them, said decades were before the invention of videogames.

Phazer

Err, they haven't rebuild the cathedral, they have simply created a graphical representation of it. That has nothing to do with copyright. You can replicate the interior of anything if you like, otherwise paintings wouldn't exist!

[tiggertiny]

The CofE should heavily market Manchester Cathedral just think of all the morons who play these silly games who might pay good money to see the "actual" location used in the the game.

[The Phazer]

[quote=Trojan_Jockey;15256267]Err, they haven't rebuild the cathedral, they have simply created a graphical representation of it. That has nothing to do with copyright. [quote]

Yes it does. Recreating a graphical representation of something is breach of copyright, and architecture (as long as it's not visable from a public highway, such as the interior of a building) gets copyright protection.

For example, the Eiffel Tower is covered with lights for a reason - anyone can take a photograph of the tower because it's architecture visable from a public highway. But you can't take a picture of it in the dark, because the lights are a separate artistic work and thus copyright permission is required to reproduce an image of it. This is a very nice earner for the Paris City Council, and they are very sharp at sending out invoices to any magazine publishers etc with whom they've not received a fee.

You can replicate the interior of anything if you like, otherwise paintings wouldn't exist!

No, you can't. Not without the permission of the person who owns said architectural copyright. But they'd normally be the person painting something, or the person in it, in which case permission is effectively granted. Or the copyright has expired.

The church isn't actually that upset about the content - it's upset that Sony haven't paid the fee they'd normally charge boardcasters/proffessional photographers for being inside the church to take pictures. However, they can only justify that by preventing people using recording equipment inside the church unless the fee is paid, or by claiming copyright on more modern artistic works in the church (there will no doubt be some banners on the pulpit etc). They can't claim copyright on the internal architecture any more, because it's too old. And there's no evidence Sony recorded in the church without permission - they've just recreated it virtually. And no modern artistic works are featured in it, since getting blown up by aliens in the game at the time anyway. So the church are screwed.

Phazer

[jlgroom]

Originally Posted by The Phazer

Yes it does. Recreating a graphical representation of something is breach of copyright, and architecture (as long as it's not visable from a public highway, such as the interior of a building) gets copyright protection.

From: (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=25730)
A specialist games and copyright lawyer Alex Chapman of Campbell Hooper solicitors, explained that there is a provision in the UK's 1988 Copyright Designs and Patents act which "explicitly states that it is not copyright infringement to represent certain artistic works that are on public display". This includes buildings and sculptures which are "permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.

Therefore, The inclusion of the Cathedral in the game could not be considered to be an infringement of any copyright in it. He went on to add that due to its age, it is unlikely Manchester Cathedral has any copyright remaining on it - as copyright expires 70 years after the person who created the work dies.

[IainMcCord]

Originally Posted by Trojan_Jockey

Have a look at the Game called "The Getaway" on PS2. It contains an exact copy of central London with every shop and institution represented. You have no rights to demand payment if someone draws a picture of your building, end of.

It doesn't though, does it. That's why you'll find some boarded up shops. However in that case it'll be because of the trademark issues, as has been said earlier in the thread. Same goes for the selection of cars used, as some manufacturers wouldn't give permission.
Don't even think they can get them on copyright if any works of art in the interior appear in the background. Seems you are allowed to have that kind of thing.

[stoatie]

I think we're barking up the wrong tree looking at copyright- it's not mentioned in the article. I'd guess any legal action would be based around bringing the property into disrepute.

[gyles]

I'd guess that any action would be based around the Ts&Cs you 'accept' when going into the property which usually say no commercial photography.

[The Phazer]

Originally Posted by stoatie

I think we're barking up the wrong tree looking at copyright- it's not mentioned in the article. I'd guess any legal action would be based around bringing the property into disrepute.

Can't be done with something so clearly fictional. The game is fighting an alien invasion. You also can't bring property into disrepute, only organisations, but the CofE isn't mentioned in the game at all. The game's story would have them all dead.

I'd guess that any action would be based around the Ts&Cs you 'accept' when going into the property which usually say no commercial photography.

Wouldn't have much to stand on there either. There's nothing to demonstrate that Sony actually used photography. They could have just used existing published pictures, but because they were recreating them rather than publishing them the Churches normal get out on that one - that they claim the copyright is in the photograph rather than the interior - doesn't stand up either.

No, the Church is just bluffing in this case. Or stupid enough not have asked a lawyer before it shot it's mouth off.

Phazer