Sony says sorry to Church of England
Sony has apologized to the Church of England about any offense that may been caused regarding the use of Manchester Cathedral in the game Resistance: Fall of Man. Sony says, ""It was not our intention to cause offense by using a representation of Manchester Cathedral in chapter eight of the work ... If we have done so, we sincerely apologize."Sony confirmed the letter is legit and says that they also offered to meet with the Church to discuss their grievances. The Very Rev. Rogers Govender said they'll accept the offer to meet, but says they've still got issues. Yeah, like where's their money? The Church of England went into this for a payday. Originally the Church started off saying they were shocked that a "place of learning, prayer and heritage [was] being presented to the youth market as a location where guns can be fired," but in the end, it just comes down to money.
Sony's letter did make one point very clear. There is no connection between "contemporary issues in 21st century Manchester and the work of science fiction in which a fictitious 1950s Britain is under attack by aliens." We'll see what happens after Sony meets with the Church. Ethically, the final outcome should be announced publicly considering the Church made such a public stink in the first place.
Update: We did contact Sony to receive the full contents of the letter abridged by the AP. They informed us they are not making the letter public. Sony also said, "We believe that our letter adequately sets out our position and we look forward to showing the Cathedral authorities the game in its full context."
Update 2: The Sony letter as reprinted by the Church of England found after the break
The Sony letter, according to Church of England:
Dear Dean Govender,
Thank you for your email of 11 June 2007.
Please understand that Resistance: Fall of Man is a work of science fiction.
It is fantasy entertainment set against a backdrop of an alternative reality of 1950's Britain. History has been rewritten and the Second World War has not happened but a race of alien creatures has attacked the earth and the human race is engaged in a struggle to defend itself from this alien invader.
Early in the time line of the story, Manchester Cathedral is utilised as a field hospital to tend to the human casualties of the war. When the story line reaches chapter 8, the Cathedral is empty and abandoned, no longer used as a place of worship and the sequences that take place inside are to defend the building from the aliens.
We do not accept that there is any connection between contemporary issues of 21st century Manchester and a work of science fiction in which a fictitious 1950's Britain is under attack by aliens. We believe a comprehensive viewing of the work will make its content and context clear.
Accordingly we would be pleased to demonstrate it to you at a mutually convenient time.
It was not our intention to cause offence by using a representation of Manchester Cathedral in chapter 8 of the work. If we have done so we sincerely apologise.
In conclusion we note that you are consulting lawyers. We confirm that it is our policy to seek all necessary permissions for our products and services, and we believe with this particular work we have done so.
Yours sincerely,
Dr David A Reeves
President
Sony Computer Entertainment Europe
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Breserk @ Jun 15th 2007 9:30PM
Very good. I'm happy Sony is willing to swallow their pride and just take a little heat to prevent bigger issues in the future. This is a wise move by SCEE.
Grey Fox @ Jun 15th 2007 9:38PM
Good to see they are apologizing to try and fix the situation but that doesn't change the fact the church of all people is trying to extort money out of them for their overreaction.
Fatima @ Jun 15th 2007 9:41PM
Where be the xbots? hmm?
bitbot.cc @ Jun 15th 2007 9:49PM
Sony should not have apologized. What did they do wrong? If I wanted to make a movie someday about a church exploding, do I have to apologize?
Or do I only have to apologize if I have a lot of money?
Daran @ Jun 15th 2007 9:54PM
Bloody Church!
Daran @ Jun 15th 2007 9:54PM
t
Mp3 @ Jun 15th 2007 9:55PM
Obviously the only reason to apologize is to prevent losing money if people are loyal to the church. Otherwise the answer would (and should) be "F&#k you, hypocrite murderers. You are responsible for uncountable deaths throughout history. The world would be a better place without you."
cc123 @ Jun 15th 2007 9:58PM
I really hope Sony doesn't give these sneaky scumbags a cent.
Aberu @ Jun 15th 2007 10:02PM
"F&#k you, hypocrite murderers. You are responsible for uncountable deaths throughout history. The world would be a better place without you."
Woah. Calm down the hate there buddy. Blaming religious beliefs for violence is the first step towards unnaccountability for mass world crimes. *punditry mode on* Like the Nazis blaming their leaders for their horrific actions. Are you a Nazi?*punditry mode off*
Anyways if you want to claim people who use technology in the same group, the way you did religion, then you might as well consider them the people who have created weapons of war and been the people who invented the mother of horrible weaponse, the nuke.
Faisal @ Jun 15th 2007 10:04PM
xD @7 (Mp3)
i agree with u man...fuckin christains
Gamble20 @ Jun 15th 2007 10:05PM
Nobody though that the church would get any money anyway, and SONY doing this is just another good move. Sony wont have to pay a dime.
Adam Payne @ Jun 15th 2007 10:08PM
I read an article like this and it reminds me why blogs like joystiq aren't considered legitimate journalistic entities. The articles about this story by Mr. Sliwinski are full of rhetoric and bias.
Let's take this story and substitute the word "company" for "church". Specifically Best Buy. If Sony had made a game with a shoot out occurring in a photo realistic Best Buy store (complete with Best Buy name), would there be a lawsuit? Hell yeah. And half you people would probably agree with Best Buy for suing.
But everybody is so keen on putting down the church they look past that. The church is a private organization just like Best Buy, etc. If the likeness of their property was used without permission and in a defamatory way, they have a right to be upset.
And the comments by someone like Mp3 completely helps the legitimacy of blogs. Very intelligent, sir.
Jypson @ Jun 15th 2007 10:10PM
@ Aberu
So you're telling me that religion is the only thing keeping the world from exploding into mass violence? Okay guy, it seems to me it is the EXACT opposite going on today. Refresh my memmory, what does Jihad mean again? What was the Spanish Inquisition?
FrankTheCrank @ Jun 15th 2007 10:17PM
Did the church make Sony say a bunch of Hail Mary's?
OK...all together now:
Hail Mary full of grace...uhm....I forgot the rest.
Capt. Castellanos @ Jun 15th 2007 10:19PM
Jypson, your an idiot.
do YOU know what jihad means?
just so ya know jihad doesn't mean,
blow stuff up in the name of religion.
but the spanish inquisition, yeah.
spanish inquisition was pretty screwed up...
Joshua @ Jun 15th 2007 10:25PM
Adam Payne (#12), you're missing the point. It's about freely expressing your ideas. Whether it's a church, a Best Buy, or whatever, people should be able to put whatever they want into what they create without having to apologize for it. If others don't like it, all they have to do is ignore it.
Adam Payne @ Jun 15th 2007 10:29PM
No, Joshua (#16), you're missing the point. Try creating a game (or movie, etc.) that features a massacre at a Best Buy store. See if a judge agrees that you are simply exercising free speech. You are defaming the Best Buy brand and you will probably be ordered to pay a settlement. This is why movies and games never feature real brands in negative situations. They will always have something close (a Wall-Store instead of Wal-Mart for example) to avoid lawsuits and problems like this.
.... @ Jun 15th 2007 10:35PM
Fucking Christians.
Jypson @ Jun 15th 2007 10:36PM
@15
jihad
noun
1. a HOLY WAR waged by Muslims against infidels
2. a HOLY STRUGLE or striving by a Muslim for a moral or spiritual or political goal
I didn't say anything about terrorism, I'm talking about war and mass violence in the name of religion.
Thinky before typey!
Didier @ Jun 15th 2007 10:36PM
I am a protestant and this outrageous acts done by the catholic church of england come to show the lack of integrity of those that pose as christians. Their excuse is that young kids may believe that the church is a place of violence, but this is a rated M game so they can't sensor what adults can see. How did they find out anyway, probably some catholic gamer that didn't have a problem with all the blood and gore (which i don't have a problem with either) thought that the use of a church in FPS was and insult to god. Personally I believe that it wasn't. Sony has no reason to apologise, if anything it should be the church of england that should be apologising for their dirty scheme.
actualperson @ Jun 15th 2007 10:44PM
First of all, before the comments begin, I'm Catholic and share few similarities with the Church of England (C of E).
But this has gone on since the PS3 was released over here. And I agree with the C of E. In an area where gun crime is quite prevalent it's somewhat insensitive to portray a place of worship - for ANY religion - as a battlefield.
The C of E has always maintained that a suit would only be an option should Sony refuse to apologise and remove the games from circulation, which honestly I can;t disagree with. They've done a lot to discourage the use of firearms and this would only serve to harm their cause.
They sought no approval or consent from any concerned parties otherwise this would never have been an issue, the church would've said no and it would've ended there.
How would you feel if your house had been taken by the government and turned into a mosque or synagogue? I'd imagine you wouldn't be pleased, and neither should they.
actualperson @ Jun 15th 2007 10:44PM
The C of E aren't Catholic, they're protestants Didier. Seems to me like you should know your religion better.
Adam Payne @ Jun 15th 2007 10:44PM
Didier, the Church of England isn't Catholic. It's Protestant, too.
Otis Whitaker @ Jun 15th 2007 10:52PM
The fact of the matter is, no one should have to have permission to use a church in a game, OR a place of business, and the only reason we DO need that, is rooted in filthy capitalistic ideals, and an overly idiotic sense of babying everyone.
I'll be blunt as I can be on this: Anyone with the church's side on this is a narrow minded idiot who has no idea of free thought. You hold back all sorts of art forms for the sake of catering to what you deem "okay".
Because of these kind of idiots, we can't have games that take place in recent, or ongoing real warfare, or any sort of game dealing with 9/11, or anything of that nature. Or any game realisticly dealing with religous beliefs, or any of that sort. because it's "disrespectful".
Rigor Mortis @ Jun 15th 2007 11:00PM
@all the religion haters
...cause athiest ideology has never lead to death.
Oh wait, Communism and 100 million dead in one century alone. Oh wait, Nazism and 20 million dead in one decade.
Quit blaming religion and look at human nature instead.
actualperson @ Jun 15th 2007 11:08PM
Otis, I'm sorry to say this but you're rationale has a few holes in it.
Be as blunt as you want but any post that has two idealogically different messages in it is going to be counted as stupid at best.
You say the church shouldn't have been used and then lambast people who side with the church?
It's because of your kind of idiot that few honest discussions can take place.
Jypson @ Jun 15th 2007 11:14PM
@ 25
Begin Rant...I don't hate religion just for the sake of hating it or because "it screwed me over" or something like that. I can't stand for religion because it is another method of controlling human expression and thinking. I can't stand for any organization that has the "moral" authority to tell me how to live my life wether it is a religious/cult leader or a government exteremist like your Hitler or Stalin. It's all a form of control, and it's high time that it is recognized as that, and not allowed to be used as an excuse to tell people how to live their lives...Rant Over
:D! @ Jun 15th 2007 11:26PM
Jypson, religion is optional. It doesn't tell people how to live their lives, people ask religions how to live their lives.
Unlike your proferred extremists.
Just so you don't sound like a tool in the future.
Jypson @ Jun 15th 2007 11:34PM
@ 28
Religion doesn't tell people how to live their lives?! Are you serious? Why aren't abortions legal nationally? Why isn't gay marriage legal? Why is there a "Sunday Law"? Why are some religious holidays national holidays? I can go on and on, but seeing that you think calling someone a "tool" is thoughtful response to an opinion, this is obviously falling on deaf ears. tool...lol
ChrisBo @ Jun 15th 2007 11:37PM
"Nobody steps on a church in my town!"
:D! @ Jun 15th 2007 11:59PM
That's not religion, that's "common sense", for the most part; it's easier on the part of government to say "okay, no killing babies" then to try to argue that the baby doesn't qualify as human until a certain period. With little exception, there isn't much reason to have sex, then decide you don't want the baby. That's just irresponsible.
"Sunday Laws", or blue laws, are generally uncommon. They've all been either repealed or are unenforced. They still serve in some places, but that's a communal thing more than it is a general institution thing.
You aren't required to celebrate national holidays; enjoy the paid time off.
Calling you a tool wasn't party of some thoughtful response, and your response certainly didn't fall on deaf ears... I just thought it'd sound funny. *Shrug*.
Johnny Bloom @ Jun 16th 2007 12:03AM
Guys, can't we all just respect our differing ideologies like adults? Granted, I think Sony should have the right to use a famous church, but should have at least shown caution, considering the violence rate in the area. I hope you all have an enjoyible (Evening/Night/Day/Morning). Adieu.
Stormkeep @ Jun 16th 2007 12:07AM
Jypson, as a citizin of the U.S. who is well aware that a number of our laws and "ideals" are products of the Christian Conservative wing that dominates conservative republican politics, I strongly disagree with your statement that Religion does not tell a person how to live their lives.
I do not agree with them, but because of their influence in this nation, they very much DO dictate to me how to live my life.
Issues like murder, robbery, etc. are common morale issues that are wrong, period, irregardless of your religion.
But things like same-sex marriage, or whether you can have more than one wife/husband, legality of abortion, and a slew of other morale quandaries are ALL religiosly specific issues. And yet, in this country, the views of conservative christianity dictate how ALL of us must approach these issues.
Makes me sick. Seperation of church and state my @$$.
zwarrior @ Jun 16th 2007 12:09AM
Some advertising help companies like Rockstar with the GTA controversy but I think this one may have ended up hurting Sony, amongst those of the religion anyway, those who oppose it probably praised Sony until that apology.
Jypson @ Jun 16th 2007 12:16AM
Alright super happy guy, we can shoot back and forth all night, so I only want to hear one thing. Is it your HONEST opinion that the Religious Right does NOT have a profound influence on Amarican politics and doesn not effect the general public? Is it your HONEST opinion that the various religions of the world do not have any power over global politics? If you want to worship a god, a goat, a rock, or whatever you want...feel free. But don't expect the people who don't believe in what you do to sit silently and go along with what ever you want in the name of your religious beliefs.
Jypson @ Jun 16th 2007 12:19AM
I'm afraid you read my comments wrong Stormkeep, we are both saying the same thing, not opposites.
Negativecool @ Jun 16th 2007 12:26AM
Adam Payne-
Solid arguments, well said. However, my only problem with your arguments is the in the use of copyrighted and trademarked material in a game such as your example of using "Best Buy" in a game.
The difference here is that "Best Buy" is copyrighted & trademarked and cannot be used unless there is consent. It is ok to make a game with a store called "Good Buy" or something to that effect. It can even have yellow and blue colors like Best Buy as long as it doesn't have the trademarked "Best Buy" logo anywhere.
Now, I'm not completely sure, but I'm pretty sure there are no words or phrases in or on the Church of England, or any Christian church for that matter, that have been copyrighted, trademarked, and/or legally protected. Case in point, no one ever god sued by the church for wearing an "Austin 3:16" shirt.
The only way I can see the Church having a legal RIGHT to sue is if there is some legal precedent against making true to life architecture etc. in a game to represent a real location. In which case there are HUNDREDS of games that are now in trouble.
GTA IV is a big one that comes to mind. Notice they didn't put "Met-Life" on their building in the trailer, they put "Get a life" to avoid the legal issues you speak of. Aside from the wording of the building, it is made as exact as possible with today's hardware and software. The game will also include many churches that are going to be beautifully rendered in the game…I suppose they should all sue now too? Sony should handle this VERY carefully to avoid issues with developer’s artistic licenses in future games because I guarantee it won’t end with the church.
Grey Acumen @ Jun 16th 2007 12:31AM
Rather than just repeat what I've already said, I'll just refer you guys to the well commented thread that points out the merits of religion, and just what it does and doesn't cause.
http://www.joystiq.com/2007/06/09/church-of-england-threatens-sony-with-lawsuit/
I was one of the big religious defenders. But now I'll say my piece on this topic.
Sony made the right move. Whether the church is being hardasses about this or not, it's still their property, and it is being used by someone else to make money, possibly defaming that property at the same time. As has been said, this would also be the case if this had been a walmart or a bestbuy. You STILL NEED PERMISSION.
If you'd like a more personal example, what if someone took your picture, name and address and put it onto the the character model of a homosexual rape game? And then that someone makes money off of your character model raping or being raped in game by the thousands of people who play it. And you don't get a cent of it. People walk down the street and point at you and ask if it hurt, or if you have aids, no girl will date you and you have burly guys licking their lips at you.
Come on, it's in the name of art and creativity, right? Why do you have to restrict my ideas?
Not so much fun from that angle, is it? As much as you might be pathetically bigoted towards the church, they still have the basic rights of ownership and the like.
Sony admitted that they dropped the ball. This was a good move for them. Most people are thinking, jeeze, why would anyone get so bent out of shape over such a little oversite, with oversite being the key word. If Sony admits to the mistake, it stays an ACCIDENT, instead of it looking like they're deliberately trying to step all over the church.
If Sony can deal with the LEGAL aspect of things as simply as possible, it'll keep this from blowing up into a SONY vs "All Things Holy" stance where they'll look like they're deliberately trying to undermine the sanctity of church and such. YOU might not care about that, but trust me on this, there are a LOT of people who do, and they'll do more than just complain on an internet forum about it.
The biggest thing for Sony now is to try to keep this playing out as if this was simply a major business, and that it was purely accidental.
Oh, and just something I noticed. People keep sayign they hate religion because of all of the death and hatred that have been done IN THE NAME OF RELIGION. Since when is that the fault of religion? How about I become a serial killer and I say that I'm doing it all for you. It's in your name right? I guess that makes you responsible for it.
Religion isn't any more responsible for that other stuff than you would be if I did do all that.
If you need to blame some faceless concept for all the troubles in the world, try blaming politics. That has tainted everything from government to religion to science and art.
Hope that clears things up a bit, though doubtlessly there will be people who don't even bother reading. Oh well, guess that's how it goes on the internet.
Stormkeep @ Jun 16th 2007 12:36AM
Oops, sorry Jypson. That's what I get for doing two things at once. It's how I combat ADD. ;-)
I have some issues with the religious right, as you probably noticed, but you're quite right, we agree. My apologies for misrepresenting you.
BTW, Grey, I do agree with you despite my dislike for most religions. And I think Sony did the right thing by apologizing, and doing so publically. I still think the church just wants "money" and they don't really care about any of the other aspects of the issue you brought up, but that doesn't mean an apology wasn't due.
Negativecool @ Jun 16th 2007 12:55AM
Grey Acumen
Grey smart guy, you need calm down. Read my post. I'm just curious to know if you have a legal backround and can comment on what I was trying to say.
Take my picture and use my name and address? No. Take my picture and make a digitize it...and thats all...why not?
Negativecool @ Jun 16th 2007 12:57AM
*digitize it*...(WTF, make a digitize?)
Me fail english, thats unpossible!
Grey Acumen @ Jun 16th 2007 1:12AM
I actually don't have a legal background, but I do have a logical one, I'm just making a basic coorelation between the personal level and the church.
Indeed, if there is absolutely no mention of the name or location in relative to real life, then the church really wouldn't have much to stand on, just like if someone only happened to use your face (though there are actually laws against taking people's pictures without their permission, not saying I agree it should be so tight assed, just pointing it out)
But from what has been said, people are giving the name of the Church in the game as being the Manchester Church, and it's location being that of England. Those two pieces are why I mentioned getting your name and address in that game. Maybe I was wrong about those points actually being brought up in the game, if so, then I retract that particular point.
Admittedly, I was going a little hyperbole there with the rape game scenario. I honestly don't see it as that big of a deal myself. Heck, if what I'm gathering is accurate, then the main abject of that particular scenario in Resistance is actually to get RID of the alien threat that has taken over the church. I don't really see it in a negative light myself.
But I am pointing out there are other people that DO take this stuff seriously. Even if they ONLY use the architecture and never said the name, they still are walking a very thin line in terms of public opinion.
Sony made the best choice, they're keeping this as an accident, admitting to it, and have a good chance of settling out of court, which means that a precedent DOESN'T get set.
Grey Acumen @ Jun 16th 2007 1:14AM
Heheh, Negativecool are KOay at englishness! :P
A.H. @ Jun 16th 2007 1:15AM
I think the Church just jealous cause Billy Graham's Bible Blaster isn't doing as well.
Stormkeep @ Jun 16th 2007 1:19AM
Grey, I'm not sure where you live, but where I live there are NOT laws against taking someone's picture if they are in a public place.
There are privacy laws which cover it if they are not in a public place, and there are laws which cover usage of said pictures after taken, but nothing against the actual taking of said pictures publically.
If you were actually right, you realize how many pictures in the press would get them in legal trouble?
cc123 @ Jun 16th 2007 1:23AM
SONY DOES NOT NEED PERMISSION.
Here are the laws in the UK that govern this:
62.—(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.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_4.htm#mdiv62
Sony did nothing wrong! They don't need to apologize or give in to any demands set upon them by the dirt bags in the church.
Important lesson in life kids: the religious assholes are most likely wrong.
cc123 @ Jun 16th 2007 1:25AM
Pay attention to parts 1a, 2, 2a, and 3
Vidikron @ Jun 16th 2007 2:09AM
What I find amusing is how people like Adam try to defend the church by talking about "massacres" at a place like Best Buy. With the obvious intent of making it sound like the game is the equivalent of a gunman killing shoppers or something.
In the game you are actually clearing evil alien-like creatures out of the church in a war time setting... essentially saving the church.
Capt. Castellanos @ Jun 16th 2007 2:50AM
wait wait wait.
if someone takes a picture of you in a public place,
they can post it on the internet and stuff?
i thought that was, uhh, 'not-allowed'.
(illeagal?)
but if they do do that, doesn't the person have every right to say, "ey, can you take my picture down?"
isn't that why on tv they have blurred out faces of people?
and the whole religion thing,
i give up on it.
my religion is christian.
i like the beliefs of the whole goodness stuff.
but i despise it when they shove it down other people's throats.
(and yes, they do that, i almost had to do it.
but i knew it was dumb.)
Capt. Castellanos @ Jun 16th 2007 2:51AM
illegal.
everyone sucks at english today, huh.