[James Sonne @ Jun 10th 2007 8:30PM]

The church vestry owns the rights to the building's semblance and architecture. It is a legitimate case of copyright infringement.

[L @ Jun 10th 2007 9:25PM]

I agree with you James. The church has a case. It's only made worse by the fact that it's supposed to be holy place. To put it in a game and have a bunch of gunfire going on in it is just tacky and disrespectful to the parish and their religion. But really, if the church owns the likeness, then Sony needs to pay up. No matter what building or structure stands there, Sony, as a multi-billion doller conglomerate, should've had to forsight to ask for permission. Simple as that.

[Gregory Kimball @ Jun 10th 2007 9:48PM]

That's the real issue.

If the Church wasn't so concerned with getting media attention, they would ask Sony for a small amount of compensation and end the matter completely.

[jg @ Jun 10th 2007 9:47PM]

"The church vestry owns the rights to the building's semblance and architecture. It is a legitimate case of copyright infringement."

Does it? The last major architectural work on the Cathedral was about 150 years ago, so I doubt they have a valid objection on the basis of copyright. The church does have the right to restrict commercial use of the photography etc it permits on premises, but I'm not sure if that is involved here or not.

[Andir3.0 @ Jun 10th 2007 10:23PM]

Sweet. The next time someone makes a building that slightly resembles this new cube shaped building I'm making, I can sue them and I'll be rich!!

[thomas_malkin @ Jun 10th 2007 10:31PM]

Sorry, no. You cannot copyright a view of something. You can copyright a photograph, a sound recording, a video, a piece of writing. A work. You cannot copyright the grand canyon, or the view from the Golden Gate Bridge, or your dog.

And the Church of England is funded by taxpayer dollars, as England is a theocracy with the Queen as head of the church. Bad form to try to wring money from people for nonsensical claims of copyright when you haven't had to work for a living in four hundred years because people are forced to give your cult money on pain of imprisonment.

[carlo @ Jun 11th 2007 3:17AM]

Now *this* is a reasonable thread. I agree that copyright isn't quite the best fit, it sounds more like defamation.

[Craig @ Jun 11th 2007 5:28AM]

And the Church of England is funded by taxpayer dollars...

It's funded by donations, investments and a few other sources, but thankfully not my taxes.

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/funding/#where

Oh, it's Pounds not dollars.

[Alex Jacobs @ Jun 11th 2007 5:53AM]

Should half of europe complain about the war games they feature in? many levels in Call of Duty / Medal of Honour feautre town sections and i can remember shotting a gun in a church.

Sony just needed a church to moddel theres on to make it realistic graphics. they must have taken lots of photos in the church to moddel on, how would they do that without church permission???

[Andrew Mills @ Jun 12th 2007 7:19AM]

I've posted an article on our blog looking at the legal issues. It's at http://impact.freethcartwright.com/2007/06/church_of_engla.html. Section 62 of the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988 will be a problem for the Church if it brings a claim.

[John @ Jun 12th 2007 11:11AM]

Well, considering the Anglican church basically just stole the Cathedral from the Catholics, they're one to talk. Maybe Sony can donate the money to the Catholics instead.