http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=25730

So the church is so old, there is no copyright claim, even if the CoE owned it. The only way they could prevent use would be national security, but that would have stopped it being put in the game in the first place.

It's good that this won't end up as some lengthy legal case. However, like the article said, public reaction could be more damaging than the legal one.

 to who.

 "EU Eurobarometer poll of 2005 shows that only 38%^[40] of people in the UK believe in god and that religious belief is on the decline."

 Maybe the church wants to stay relevent by attackiong videogames.

38% of people: That's still like over 20 million people. Also, even if people aren't religious, many people, especially parents, want every excuse they can get to attack video games, just because they have something personal against them. On top of that, the media is going to make a big a deal as possible out of this... (which the BBC so far has aptly done)

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.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. It's mostly the offense. The Church said it was considering legal action. Nowhere except gaming forums have I read they were talking about copyright or anything like that. If anything, I imagine they'd say the cathedral is their private property and that they have some rigths to it (you can't take pictures without their permission, you probably can't publish detailed blueprints, and maybe you shouldn't be able to do realistic looking depictions either). And they might as well bring charges more like defamation and such. Plus, saying you're considering legal action is also a form of pressure. And what the Church did say, was that they wanted Sony to apologise publicly, and give some recognition and funding for the Church's anti-guns program. Sony is talking to them, not ignoring them, so what's the big deal? But I know - it's the Church, so it's got to be outrageous!

Also, this is not the first time games have used places of worship as violence playgrounds. And at least one such case ended with Eidos voluntarily removing Sikh material from Hitman 2 and offering a formal apology. But, again, this is "the Church" (for some cluless people it's even "the Vatican"), so they must be after money, or power... or both - you know, godly stuff like that.

Here's a good analysis of this from a legal blog.

http://impact.freethcartwright.com/2007/06/church_of_engla.html

Yep, that makes very good sense: these experts not only give opinions but back those with actual legal history and documentation. Thanks JSF, thanks Blue3.