Sony Apologizes to Church of England, Church Issues ‘Sacred Digital Guidelines’
By Ron on Friday, July 6th, 2007 at 6:12 PM PST In Game Companies, Gamer Life, Sony
You’ll remember the stories (here, here, here, and here) that the folks here at Gaming Today brought you about the ongoing debate between Sony and the Church of England over the use of Manchester Cathedral in Resistance: Fall of Man.
Today, Sony Computer Entertainment President Dr. David A Reeves issued an apology to the Church of England via the Manchester Evening News. The statement said that Sony representatives had recently met with the Very Reverend Rogers Govender, Dean of Manchester Cathedral, and also with the Reverend Paul Denby. In this statement, Dr. Reeves said, “It is clear to us that the connection between the congregation and the cathedral is a deeply personal and spiritual one. As a result, it is also clear that we have offended some of the congregation by using the cathedral in our science fiction game. It was never our intention to offend anyone in the making of this game, and we would like to apologise unreservedly to them for causing that offence, and to all parts of the wider community who we might also have offended. Furthermore, we will ensure that Manchester Cathedral is never used as a setting in any future Sony Computer Entertainment video game.”
So, now the Church has the apology they sought, and all should be well, right? Well, not exactly. The Church of England is still not happy with the resolution of the situation. In fact, they have already publicly stated that the apology is not enough, and their lawyers are still communicating with Sony lawyers in reference to their demand that Resistance be pulled from store shelves.
They’ve even gone so far as to release a set of “Sacred Digital Guidelines” that they are calling for all video game manufacturers to sign.
The Very Rev Rogers Govender said: “We asked Sony to apologise unreservedly to the Cathedral and wider community for the offence caused. This they have done. We asked them to withdraw the game. They have refused to do this. We asked Sony to make a donation to community groups nominated by the Cathedral. They have not responded.” He went to explain a bit about the creation of a set of what the Church is calling ‘Scared Digital Guidelines’ to prevent another incident such as this one. In discussing these guidelines, he said, “We have been dismayed at those in the computer industry who have defended the use of Manchester Cathedral in this a violent game. We fear that the next buildings to be cloned for virtual desecration could be a mosque, synagogue, temple or other churches.”
He then called on all game manufacturers, not just Sony, to sign these guidelines. Wonder what they are? Here’s the list:
- Respect our sacred spaces as places of prayer, worship, peace, learning and heritage.
- Do not assume that sacred space interiors are copyright free.
- Get permission from the faith leaders who are responsible for the building interiors you want to clone.
- Support the work of those engaged in resisting the culture of gun crime and those involved in promoting the work of conflict resolution.
Now, I’m going to say again that I have no issue with religion, the people who practice it, or anything else concerning it. HOWEVER, this is, as my UK friends would say, codswallop of the highest degree. I’ll agree that Sony should apologize for the use of the cathedral, but just barely. I’d agree with it from Sony’s side simply for PR reasons.
That said, these continued demands from the Church for the game to be pulled out of stores, and for Sony to give them money are getting really old, really fast. I highly doubt that the Church has any type of a legal case here. If they did, I believe you’d already have seen a suit filed. Basically, you’re getting to watch firsthand as a religious organization attempts to extort money from a game developer. Oh, and at the same time, cut into their bottom line by trying to pull their product. I’d be willing to wager that the majority of Dean Govender’s congregation is a little embarrassed at being represented in such a fashion. ‘Live and let live,’ indeed.
All of that aside, the fact that these representatives of the Church have issued these nonsensical ‘Sacred Digital Guidelines’ is the very height of arrogance. The Church, while it is a venerable and ancient institution, has no legal right to make these demands, and game companies have no obligation, moral or otherwise, to sign the stupid things. Let’s look at them for a minute. Obviously, Sony does respect the Church, else they’d have ignored the demands for an apology, so #1 is covered. I’m sure Sony made no assumption on the copyright issues, as they have plenty of staff attorneys to advise them, so that takes care of #2. #3 is just silly. Should game developers ask permission from the President to use the White House in a game? How about from a manager at Radio City Music Hall? If the material IS copyrighted, get permission. If it isn’t, use it. Period. As far as #4, I support the work of those working against gun violence. However, what the Church means here is “Give us money for our programs,” and that shouldn’t happen either, unless the company stockholders decide to make such a donation.
Here’s hoping Sony stands firm on their current position, and gives them nothing else. The apology I can understand, but I don’t want to be back here in a few weeks reporting that Sony’s caved further. I especially don’t want them to cave in and set a precedent that could haunt the industry for years to come.
Quick, buy as many copies as you can. They will sell very well on ebay once the game is pulled.
Amen to this article
First off, I can’t say how much I agree with this article, despite the fact that I do believe in God AND I have my own issues with Sony, BUT this is just a pathetic attempt to gain some media publicity, it really is sad how the one doing the desecration is the reverend in giving the church a bad name… I mean honestly, if God is offended by a church in a video game, but is just going to let things like, say, the Crusades(Which ACTUALLY happened) slide, then I don’t think we as humans would be here today…
Honestly, for lack of better words… stop your bitching
Sorry folks, Sony is not exempt from standard business practice. If they had been making a feature film they would have had contracts and permission-the games industry is not a special case where normal procedures don’t apply.
Last month Sony said they had permissions, now they have admitted this is not true and they just walked in.
If the author of this article can’t see that asking permission (Guideline number 2) is ok then fine. Let’s copy his work without permission and sell it to other magazines and websites…
Sorry folks, Sony is not exempt from standard business practice at all. If they had been making a feature film they would have had contracts and permission-the games industry is not a special case where normal procedures don’t apply.
Last month Sony said they had permissions, now they have admitted this is not true and they just walked in.
If the author of this article can’t see that asking permission (Guideline number 2) is ok then fine. Let’s copy his work without permission and sell it to other magazines and websites…
Ok the “Church” is acting very arogant in this article. Asking Sony to donate to a church nominated charity is ridiculous. They need to see that Video Games draw their surroundings from everyday life. Church can entail that everyday life. Also these guidelines are ridiculous too. I agree with Tim about this being a publicity attempt that is pathetic. What if a Videogame company choses to base a scene at a church but does not completely clone it? Is that still in violation of the “Sacred Digital Guidelines”? Also most of the pictures needed to clone such places are probably all over the internet by now. All I can say is that this is complete BULLSHIT. Excuse me for the language but it is.
As a trainee games programmer at Preston University, I am very saddened to see the Games Development industry being attacked repeatedly by religious organisations and political activists. Bare in mind that the Church has released its own (admitidly anti-violent) videogames in the past, and have not stuck to their own guidelines that they have suddenly decided to draw up. Gun crime is a very sad fact of life, but to ban it in the virtual world whilst it still run rampant in real life is not only hypocritical but also morally questionable. The Bible (the old testement in peticular) is extremely violent, sexist, and sexually perverse, but should it be removed from books shelves? Of course not, to remove certain texts, films and virtual entertainment based on an individuals absurd personal beliefs would be censorship at its most ridiculous.
Sometimes I wonder if there will be any jobs for me when I leave university, if the Church and certain other parties have their way. I guess I could try copywrighting ‘Anti-Video Games’ debates, and anyone who says computer games are negetive in any way will have to give money to the Child’s Play group (http://www.childsplaycharity.org/), a charity set up by concerned gamers who collect donations solely for childrens hospitals across the globe, with no financial profit for themselves whatsoever, NOT EVEN TO BUILD AND MAINTAIN THEIR OWN CHURCHS. Which sort of leads us neatly back to the point of this article…
Church of England, Catholics, Muslims, Jack Thompson- all hypocrites. And if video games are ever banned because of them, it will be the first step towards a facist-governed world…
I think that everyone is missing the point here, since they are looking at the big bad Church versus the pure-of-heart game designers.
The game designers are out to make money. Pure and simple. Sony is responsible to their stockholders to make money by selling electronics, games, and other products.
The Church of England is an organization that is in an anomalous position. While it is the official Church in England, it is also a private institution. As such, the interior of its properties are private property, and anyone who attempts to use these interiors for profit is violating that right of privacy. End of story.
Since Sony profited from the C of E’s private property, the C of E is entitled to some of that money. They are being nice in letting Sony simply pay them to go away, as opposed to a licence fee for each copy made.
If a competing company depicted the headquarters of Sony in their games, and encouraged players to take out as many Sony workers as possible as part of the game, Sony would not be amused.
Here’s some info that I posted in a previous article on the subject that may make you folks yelling about the church’s ‘private’ property pause and think.
From the UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988.
62. Representation of certain artistic works on public display.
(1) This section applies to—
(a) buildings, and
(b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.
(2) The copyright in such a work is not infringed by—
(a) making a graphic work representing it,
(b) making a photograph or film of it, or
(c) broadcasting or including in a cable programme service a visual image of it.
(3) Nor is the copyright infringed by the issue to the public of copies, or the broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme service, of anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of the copyright.
So. UK law explicitly states that a graphic work representing a building does not infringe any type of copyright on said building. That seems fairly straightforward to me.
What all this tells me what I said in the article above. The church is attempting to use the current media climate, which is hostile to the gaming industry, to pressure Sony into giving them money. That’s what we call extortion, folks. Even Webster says so.
Main Entry: ex·tort
Pronunciation: ik-’stort
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Latin extortus, past participle of extorquEre to wrench out, extort, from ex- + torquEre to twist — more at TORTURE
: to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power
@dm:
I have no problem with the Church telling Sony that they should ask permission. However, I can find no UK law that REQUIRES Sony to do so. Sure, maybe Sony should have asked, but they were not required to ask.
Sony’s stance last month was something along the lines of “We believe we have secured all the required permissions.” From what I can find, they had done that.
Copy my stuff? Not again!
If you actually read the UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988, there is nothing that states explicitly that the interiors of buildings, whether open to the public or not, are to be included, unless they fall under the vague term, “works of artistic merit”. If a game designer wishes to use the exteriors of the Houses of Parliament, or St. Paul’s Cathedral, or the headquarters of British Petroleum, there is nothing to stop them.
There is also nothing to stop designers from using generic or “best guess” interpretations of interiors for these buildings as well. But when you go onto private property, whether open to the public or not, and take exact renderings of those interiors and use them for profit, you are violating rights of privacy.
This is true for games, books, films, and any other type of media.