CNN: Church Officials Want $$$ From Sony Over Resistance Flap

June 11, 2007 -
CNN is now reporting that Church of England officials want Sony to pay up for its unauthorized use of Manchester Cathedral in PS3 shoot 'em up Resistance: Fall of Man.

Church official met today to discuss the controversy, which The Very Reverend Rogers Govender (left), Dean of Manchester Cathedral, described as "beyond belief." Official also drew up a list of demands. According to CNN these include:
1.) Church leaders want the game removed from shop shelves or modification of the section of the game to remove the Cathedral interior.

2.)They also want an apology from the company for using "realistic photo quality" images of its building without permission.

3.) Govender said the church would also seek a donation to be used in its work with young people. He did not specify how much the company would be asked to pay.

Govender urged Sony to get in touch with the church within the next few days to discussed the points raised by church leaders, and hoped the two parties would be able to find a "mutually satisfactory conclusion."

The Times has more.

GamePolitics is running a poll on the Cathedral controversy, located on the right sidebar. Be sure to vote!

Comments

The unmitigated greed of these assholes sickens me. I hope Sony doesn't stick their heads in the sand over this one, they really need to stand up to this kind of bullying.

I'm still confused as to why people are curious about "Sony" in this scenario. It was mentined long ago, that the game was created by Insomniac, creators of Rachet & Clank.
This is why Sony can't answer outright if they got rights or not, they weren't involved in it except for publishing purposes. They are confident that Insomniac got some rights or whatever.
The church obviously doesn't remember seeing a Sony donator for "donations" so they think that since it came on their system, it is their fault.

Anyway, I hope the church gets a single Euro at most, otherwise it just shows the reverend needs more sterling to buy some TV he wants or something. I don't know if he uses it to harbor little boys, that's just another thought that isn't' needed for this situation, so I don't think people need to assume molestation for this case.

In broader ethical terms, I do feel that some areas are off limits to allow for sensivities etc.
The game could have been set in a different environment: they did not have to choose a religious, holy or sacred space - call it what you will.

The Church of England holds the Christian Bible as its chief tennet. The Christian Bible allows for (and in some cases encourages):

- racial intolerance
- religious intolerance
- animal sacrifice
- selling your daughter into slavery
- killing anyone who works on a Sunday
- the stoning to death of disobedient children
- torture
- genocide
- ...

I understand this is not a discussion on religion in general. I just wanted to bring up these points so I could ask the following in light of the above: How can an institution based on a book that promotes any of the above items possibly claim that a GAME should be pulled from shelves, lest its "good name" be sullied?

Not trying to offend any Christians here. Just pointing out how baseless the church's claims are, even before the issues of copyright, public space, and architecture come into play. To claim that a game might make the church look bad is just preposterous and shows a complete ignorance of what the church is, what it has done in years past, what it is still doing today, and what it will do yet again in years to come. If they're so concerned about their image, games set in churches should be the least of their worries.

The whole purpose of making it take place in a church is to add 'context' to the Alien Invasion, we all remember Parson Nathaniel from Jeff Waynes' War of the Worlds, a Priest who had been driven insane and was convinced his crucifix would destroy the 'demons' that were the Martians? Same thing, it's not about attacking or berating the church, it's about adding an air of desperation, if you cannot find sanctuary in Gods House, where can you find sanctuary?

Did they actually do anything wrong? They say they got permission to do it in the first place. This is probably just about the fact it's a violent video game that's selling so well.

ahhh, F%#K the church...

I am only worried about one thing, to avoid having to deal with this whole fiasco Sony might just opt to payup, without changing the vid game or anything else.

You might say that they are a business so spending money like this would hurt them but consider they would be DONATING the cash and hence that makes it tax deductible... (they may even make money out of it if it pushes them down a tax bracket)

The church has no place even commenting on the use of a building in a fictional game: end of story.

@goodrobotus

I never thought of it that way, that seems likely the reason why they added a church more than anything else. I'll bring up that point whenever I try to argue about it.

@sakimori

if what you say is true the church's good name mostly comes from people's ignorance of what the bible says (i.e. most people never glanced at a bible). That's the good name they are trying to protect (although they're making themselves look bad thereby being counterproductive.

Also Resistance was made in the U.S. so when they were making the game they didn't have to follow copyright laws specific to the U.K. or EU. This could mean two things.
a, the trial is delayed or protracted repeatedly because of this complication
and b. worst comes to worst the pulling of the game from shelves may only apply to U.K or Europe.

Also censoring a video game is a great way to get teens to appreciate the church (sarcasm).

And like I said if they want the game pulled all Insomniac has to do is make the cathedral a parody of the manchester one.

Might I also had though shalt forgive and forget? They should know (and I think they do) that Insomniac ment no harm by it. Shouldn't they forgive? Or are they with the likes of Al sharpton where the forgiveness rule doesn't apply if you want stupid revenge (also known as wrath).

Sorry for the double post but is there a way to contact the church I would like to invite the reverend to this discussion (but if I do you better not be rude).

I'm sorry, but the Church has way overstepped it's boundaries. They have no right, nor do they have a good enough reason, to pull this game from store shelves. Sony isn't even a British company, they could say "HAHA, F*** YOU CHURCH" if they wanted, not that they should, and the church couldn't do anything, right? I mean sure, they could do like in China and censor anything that goes against the church, but unless I'm mistaken, Britain mostly has freedom of speech. BTW brits out there, your gun laws are bloody ridiculous

3.) Govender said the church would also seek a donation to be used in its work with young people. He did not specify how much the company would be asked to pay.


There we go. Forget all the other steps, here's the MAIN step of the whole issue.

posting forum links if you want to add to the forum discussion.

Hold on, ... GP's using photo-like images of the church, possibly without consent of the church. Prepare for a lawsuit. JK, this is B-U-L-L-S-#-!-T

I understand this is not a discussion on religion in general.

@ Sakimori: Bull. You threw out what amounts to a non-sequitor in this discussion, and frankly, your comments reek of wanting to turn this into a discussion on "religion in general". There are other forums for that.

[...] June 11: The Church announces that it wants Sony to pay up for “unauthorized use” of Manchester Cathedral. See, just one day into the scuffle they’ve already dropped the concern about violence ruse and admit it’s really all about the money. [...]
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Which group is more ethically challenged?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Matthew Wilsonhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?t=18&v=CbGmrySQLIg looks like Inafune is giving capcom the middle finger.07/02/2015 - 5:05pm
TechnogeekUnfortunately, the shoutbox moves fast enough that I can't find why I got that impression, so if was indeed erroneous I do apologize.07/02/2015 - 4:34pm
TechnogeekBut yeah, as far as my earlier comment re: you and the article, I did get the impression at some point that you felt there should have been some sort of reprecussions for the article's existence.07/02/2015 - 4:34pm
TechnogeekI got expletive-censored for posting something a few weeks back wherein I expressed my shock that I agreed with you about something, Skunk; so you're not the only one being hit with that stick.07/02/2015 - 4:31pm
Andrew EisenI know you don't. And you haven't recently so all's well.07/02/2015 - 4:25pm
Goth_SkunkI don't think I misrepresented anything.07/02/2015 - 4:24pm
Andrew EisenHeavy profanity is not permitted in the Shout box. Words like "moron" are but we ask that our readers not resort to name-calling.07/02/2015 - 4:23pm
Goth_SkunkSo I can't say a 4-letter curse word, but Mechacrash is free to call me a moron. Acknowledgment: Mecha was warned about his conduct, but his post was not edited, as mine was.07/02/2015 - 4:20pm
Andrew EisenWhat people took issue with was your misrepresentation of what the author said. Now that you're criticizing what she actually said, no one has a problem (though they might disagree with your opinion).07/02/2015 - 4:19pm
Andrew EisenThat's not comparable at all. One is advice, one is a rule.07/02/2015 - 4:17pm
Goth_SkunkBut apparently, people seem to take issue with my justification and have been jumping down my throat about it for... 24 hours?07/02/2015 - 4:17pm
Goth_SkunkAnd now we've just had an example wherein I was forced to moderate myself in order to minimize offense.07/02/2015 - 4:16pm
Goth_SkunkThat's what this whole conundrum's been about! I strongly disapproved with the Wired article writer's suggestion and made that opinion known here in the shoutbox.07/02/2015 - 4:16pm
Andrew EisenPlease keep such strong language out of the Shout box. Anyway, that's fine. If there's something you want to write about. Go right ahead. Don't like someone's suggestion? Feel free to say so.07/02/2015 - 4:13pm
Goth_SkunkIf I get a response "this rape scene you wrote was offensive. You should've done it differently. Consider examples A, B, C, or D" I would happily take it under advisement should I decide to write something similar in the future.07/02/2015 - 4:12pm
Goth_SkunkIf I get backlash for such a decision consisting of "this rape scene was offensive," that's fine. If I get criticism like "this rape scene was so offensive, you shouldn't have written it," I'll respond "Go (expletive) yourself"07/02/2015 - 4:11pm
Andrew EisenMatthew - Oh, absolutely. But no one's saying any specific trope or subject should be taboo.07/02/2015 - 4:11pm
Andrew EisenA few have opined that I should have left the "I'm on a whore" line out of my Old Spice Parody video. I don't see why that's a problem.07/02/2015 - 4:10pm
Goth_SkunkHypothetical: If I'm writing a story and in my story there is a rape scene, and that rape scene is present because I want it to be there, and it is very relevant to the story as a whole, I'm going to write it.07/02/2015 - 4:10pm
Matthew WilsonI think it should be criticized for being used badly, but I dissagree with the idea that is should never be used. as far as I am concerned its a story telling tool, and like all tools it can be used in a good or bad way.07/02/2015 - 4:09pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician