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

Will Target Australia sell the next GTA game upon its release?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Matthew Wilsonmy god....... people need to play life is strange. its a very very dark version of twin peaks08/01/2015 - 12:56pm
DocMelonheadLook, I know that you guys wanted to study Gamergate; hell, one of your writers were Interviewing KiA on the subject (He's been banned from GamerGhazi). Sadly, the minorities veiwed Gamergate the same way as WBC at best, and Nazis at worst.08/01/2015 - 12:31pm
DocMelonheadIP wanted you to know that GamerGate is about Harassing minorities into submission, not "Ethnics in Journalism". It been a year since the Zoe Post was published and sparked a hate mob on Zoe Quinn.08/01/2015 - 12:28pm
DocMelonheadThat what's IP's goal is here in regard to gamergate: to get you guys to disassociate yourselves from the harassers that made all those claims up to threaten the advocates of social justice for minorities.08/01/2015 - 12:24pm
DocMelonheadIP tries to demonize all of GamerGate and it's supporters, along with those who didn't outright condemn it as a cover for a hate mob full of bigots.08/01/2015 - 12:20pm
MechaCrashNo, IP is trying to dehumanize you, I'm just pointing out that you're a hypocrit who makes bad faith arguments.08/01/2015 - 11:56am
Andrew EisenAnd I'm off too. Play nice, y'all!08/01/2015 - 11:33am
Andrew EisenIn short, discussions of ethics in journalism? Totally fine. Said indie dev's sex life? Not okay.08/01/2015 - 11:31am
james_fudgeTry talking when you have hundreds of people tweeting at you at the same time :)08/01/2015 - 11:30am
Andrew EisenAnd yet, when 30-seconds of research showed that there was no relevance to said indie dev's sex life, many people kept talking about. Hell, still do to this day. I had a guy on Twitter pester me about this nonsense for an entire day last weekend.08/01/2015 - 11:30am
james_fudgeWhatever dude, you're here posting. No one's stopping you.08/01/2015 - 11:30am
Goth_SkunkBe advised: In approximately 30 minutes I'm heading out of town for an obligatory family reunion. This is being stated so that none can interpret my upcoming 24 hour hiatus as a tail-tucking turn from discussion.08/01/2015 - 11:28am
Goth_SkunkEven now, IronPatriot, MechaCrash, and Craig R. continue to attempt to shout me down and dehumanize me.08/01/2015 - 11:25am
Goth_SkunkWhat transpired afterwards was a concerted effort to shout down and dehumanize those trying to bring these matters out into the open. I remain utterly convinced of this to this day.08/01/2015 - 11:24am
Goth_SkunkAnd yet the sex life of this indie developer tied right into the matter of journalistic ethics, as investigations uncovered a great number of breaches of ethical conduct, both related & not. That scandal is the orifice from which the balloon is inflated.08/01/2015 - 11:20am
MechaCrashI am reminded of the saying about playing chess with a pigeon.08/01/2015 - 11:13am
Andrew EisenThis is supported by, well, what actually happened, but also the text of the actual leaks. That was Tito's question and what he and a few (four total, I think) were discussing.08/01/2015 - 11:11am
Andrew EisenNo, it's not. What was generally prohibited was not discussion of journalistic ethics or other GamerGate topics, but threads that were, for example, discussing the sex life of an indie developer. THOSE are what were locked and removed.08/01/2015 - 11:10am
Goth_SkunkI don't believe you. Not for a second. Every major site with the exception of the Escapist prohibited discussion of GamerGate in its early stages. That is a fact.08/01/2015 - 11:04am
Andrew EisenNo, that's a fact. Don't believe me, read 'em yourself. No one was trying to censor discussion of GamerGate.08/01/2015 - 11:02am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician