Church of England throws a fit over computer game
 

Sony is having a hard run of luck.
What a shame. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/lol.gif

All Sony has to do is change a few pixels. Big deal.

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Why would they need permission? http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...s/confused.gif If you features someone's property in a motion picture, etc., you have to pay them to do so.
(This does not apply to long shots of a city, etc.)

If you ever go to a show and are surprised to find that your house is the one where the ghost is murdering all the teenagers, you have yourself a good lawsuit http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/greed.gif

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
My old house? F**k, no one was supposed to know about that. It was an accident, really it was. Hey, if it was only teenagers, then no biggie. Forget about it.

To The Church of England:

[IMG]http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/6712/lil*****1sv7.gif[/IMG]

lol. Hang on.

The image name had the word b itch in it and so 'poly tried to find *****.gif - which doesn't exist

tell them to play "Afterlife"

silly english priests

Originally posted by Zoid
I mean, come on! Blaming the social problems in Manchester on video games? http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...s/rolleyes.gif Maybe you should do something about the unravelling of the social fabric that Thatcher started and is continuing to this day before going after recreational gaming?? Pillocks! I reckon this is more about money or setting a precident than the game. If they win, they either get money that they badly need, or they get a game pulled they disagree with. Both good. And it seems they have a valid point, as the inside of a building is (I thought) the intellectual property of the owner of the building.

I was under the impression that you own the IP rights to any private property you own, so if anyone wants to film your house, or such, they had to obtain permission. That would also go for the church's private property.

Originally posted by Drogue
I was under the impression that you own the IP rights to any private property you own, so if anyone wants to film your house, or such, they had to obtain permission. That would also go for the church's private property. They show the houses of people on the news all the time. No money changes hands. Film crews film in cities all the time for movies yet they don't have to pay the owners of every building in the back drop.

Originally posted by Oerdin


They show the houses of people on the news all the time. No money changes hands. Film crews film in cities all the time for movies yet they don't have to pay the owners of every building in the back drop. Yep. The only time they pay is when it means a loss of business to the shop/house.

Can SONY sue JK Rowlings and her publishers for including a reference to the Playstation? Its even an insulting usage, the Playstation is used by Dudley Dursley, with all that that implies. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/wink.gif

they should have made in Winchester Cathedral, instead.


Winchester Cathedral
You're bringing me down
You stood and you watched as
My baby left town

You could have done something
But you didn't try
You didn't do nothing
You let her walk by

Now everyone knows just how much I needed that gal
She wouldn't have gone far away
If only you'd started ringing your bell

Winchester Cathedral
You're bringing me down
You stood and you watched as
My baby left town

Oh-bo-de-o-do oh-bo-de-o-do
Oh-bo-de-o-do de-do- duh

Originally posted by Zoid
Intellectual Property. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...s/banghead.gif

There is no such thing. There are several related legal concepts (e.g. copyright and patents) that are collectively referred to as IP, but there's no such thing as generic "intellectual property" rights.

Copyright expires. The cathedral is far too old for its design to somehow still be copyrighted. And photographs taken of it would be copyrighted to the photographer, not the cathedral.

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
Because it's private property, that's not necessarily the case. Yes it is, WRT copyright.

I mostly know about how museums in the US deal with it, so this may or may not apply, but because it is a privately owned work of art the owner must authorize reproductions of it. That is, the work itself may be in the public domain, but in order to access the work to see it or photograph it you need the permission of the owner. The claim is that there is an implicit contract that comes with that permission which assigned the copyright of any derivative to the owner of the work itself.

There are certainly photographs of the museum more than 50 years old (or whatever the term is in the UK), so it's tough luck for them.

Copyright on the work, not derivative works.

As I said, even derivative works are old enough to be out of copyright.

The art in the game can be a derivative work of public domain art.

Originally posted by Asher

Isn't it open to the public?

There goes that argument. No it doesn't. The public isn't making money seeing it, or taking pictures of it. Are they? This is the crucial point. If the pictures are used in a commercial way, then it's a perfectly valid argument http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ies/tongue.gif

No it doesn't. You can't read.