"It is likely there is no basis for a claim" Sony vs church

[LordTheNightKnight]

thetonestarr said:
Put it into perspective.

Say you're famous. Say people know your house and what it looks like (maybe you've been on MTV Cribs or you host a TV show from your house). And say your house is definitely about as unique as it gets.

Then say someone decides to film a movie about a murderer/rapist, and they depict him as living in a house identical to yours.

Would you not be offended? Would you not find it outrageous that they didn't come and get your permission first? I mean, yes, everybody knows you're not a rapist or a killer, but the fact is - this is your house. And you're a good person. Regardless of any situations, the attention you'd get is not good.

Give the church a break. If it was ANYBODY ELSE besides a religious establishment causing the stink over this, I'm certain it would be received far better.

It's not the offense; it's the legality.The hypotheical people you refer to would have made the house in their own lifetime, and thus would have claims of copyright or privacy. That is certainly not the case with a cathedral that old, with an institution that is theoretically public to everyone on the planet.