By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - Church of England considers legal action against Sony

steverhcp02 on 09 June 2007
cleveland124 said:
dallas said:

Vary rarely have I heard of a *reputable* christian organization actually suing anybody, let alone for something minor such as this.

I would suppose that the Anglicans are trying to sue on the grounds of slander, but just setting their cathedral as a location in a violent game, gives little ground for that imo.

 

I used to have a christian background (not anymore) and I know how to deal with religious people. I think that religious people want some kind of assurance that the world isn't going to change too rapidly for them in a lot of ways. So, I would sit down with some representatives and explain the corporate social contributions ( if any) that sony has been making and how sony appreciates the anglicans many contributions as well. It would help if they set this meeting up with an actual christian, too.


From the article it appears they are suing to have production of the game with the Church in it stopped. As such, I don't know what else they could do. I suppose they could have asked Sony nicely to stop production of the game. Which Sony would probably respond, we will in 2012 after we stop making PS3 products. They simply don't want to be associated with a Violent game. Just because society is numb to violence doesn't mean it's not a big deal to anybody to be associated with guns, killing.

Do you have any generalizations on Blacks, Jews, Hispanics or Italians why we are making statements about protected classes? A real Christian wants the world to change too much. Which is why they don't fit. And I don't think the church wants a money amount from Sony. They want to be seperated from association of violent videogames.


 But we want God to bless our troops as we slaughter people in Iraq....God loooooves violence, you didnt get that memo.  The catholic church was FOUNDED on violence, the irony in this is so rich, im enjoying every bit of this.




Get Your Portable ID!

Around the Network
dpmnymkrprez on 09 June 2007
rickthestick2 said:
dpmnymkrprez said:
Cobretti said:
they got a right to sue since they don't want to be associated with violence in their place of worship. This should of been common sense to sony.


Yes i know its just a church but it means alot to people.

Like how would you like it if someone made a game based on your house and for example had a dungeon in the basment holding little children or something bizzar. (ie like michael jacksons house) and the thing looked so relistic that people in your street actually you worked out that it's your house, they might actually think your a child molestor.


Granted most common people know it's fictional. However you got those retarded people that take games too seriously. (ie that WOW guy in asia who lent somone one of his swords a rare one and that guy sold it on ebay, next day the other guy wen tto his hosue and killed him).


So to conclude i think they are worried that their is a pyscho in their religious community that might want to go on a killing rampage in the church.

It is make believe, ever hear of sticks and stones,

WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT TURNING YOUR CHEEK

 

SHAME ON EVERYONE WHO THINKS THE CHURCH IS RIGHT SHAME SHAME SHAME!!!

THE CHURCH NEEDS TO BE GOOD AND TURN THE OTHER CHEEK, PS HOW DO THEY KNOW OF THE GAME, IF THEY DONT LIKE VIOLENCE.........OOPS THAT IS BECAUSE SOMEONE AT THE CHURCH PLAYED IT.........


 While i agree with you mostly, i'm curious. Where in all of Christianity does it state that you can't play a game like that? Or was it the Church of England that implies such. Because if it is the Church of England than i really don't care.


Very good point, churches have plays depicting the crusification of christ and marys birth



JSF on 09 June 2007

This lawsuit is not going to happen. That church is getting free publicity right now. Then everyone will go their merry ways. The church doesn't have an airtight case. It's U.K., so, if they lose, they have to pay the legal fees for both sides. It's too much of a risk over something so stupid.  I'm sure a donation by Sony would also help them move along...not that I'm directly accusing the church of a shakedown or anything.

 



Bodhesatva on 09 June 2007

Can someone please explain to me why the Church doesn't have a valid point here? Not about the violence and profanity and heathenism; you can't prosecute that. But you can prosecute people who use building interiors for public display without consent.

Simplest example: if I went in to this Cathedral and filmed a Movie I was making without asking the Church if it was okay, I could be arrested (upon the Church's discretion). That's illegal. So why would it be okay to go in, take a bunch of pictures without consent, then recreate that same interior using Computer Graphics for a video game?

I want to point out that my questions aren't rhetorical: I'm not a lawyer. If someone can explain to me why this should be okay, and how it distinguishes from my movie example, I'd love to hear. 



http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/Arkives/Disccopy.jpg%5B/IMG%5D">http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/Arkives/Disccopy.jpg%5B/IMG%5D">

Gballzack on 09 June 2007

If the contents of the church's interior are considered public domain in that they are no secret, then arguable using them in a production shouldn't be illegal, at least not by US laws.



Around the Network
FishyJoe on 09 June 2007

That's what I've been wondering. If they can go into someones building and recreate it for whatever they want, what's to stop someone from recreating your house and making a movie about a serial killer with a house that looks identical to yours?



FishyJoe on 09 June 2007
Gballzack said:
If the contents of the church's interior are considered public domain in that they are no secret, then arguable using them in a production shouldn't be illegal, at least not by US laws.

Just because you allow guests onto your property does not make it public domain. You can't go into a building and publish photographs of the inside without the owners permission.



JSF on 09 June 2007

If someone puts out a comic book where fictional superhero characters (such as Spiderman) have a fictional fistfight inside the Empire State Building, and the artist did his research and depicts the setting just like the real thing, they should be sued?



FishyJoe on 09 June 2007
JSF said:
If someone puts out a comic book where fictional superhero characters (such as Spiderman) have a fictional fistfight inside the Empire State Building, and the artist did his research and depicts the setting just like the real thing, they should be sued?

Should they or could they sue are two different questions. Theoretically I think it could be possible. Realistically from a PR and financial standpoint, it would probably be terrible.



ssj12 on 09 June 2007
FishyJoe said:
Gballzack said:
If the contents of the church's interior are considered public domain in that they are no secret, then arguable using them in a production shouldn't be illegal, at least not by US laws.

Just because you allow guests onto your property does not make it public domain. You can't go into a building and publish photographs of the inside without the owners permission.


 why you havent been banned beyond me, you post nothing but negative towards sony products. 

Is it illegal to find the old version of the church ie 1954 look and recreate it. The copyright if there is one cant legal stand that long. The outside shell shouldnt be able to be argued against if so GTA4 is screwed since they recreated all of New York and they didnt ask permission. Even if they call each place a different name they are using the exact building structure for each building.  



PC gaming is better than console gaming. Always.     We are Anonymous, We are Legion    Kick-ass interview   Great Flash Series Here    Anime Ratings     Make and Play Please
Amazing discussion about being wrong
Official VGChartz Folding@Home Team #109453