The Wardman Wire

This is an unusual story that has blown up today . Sony has included the interior of Manchester Cathedral as a location for a simulated gunfight with a *lot* of deaths.

[Edit 11 June 2007]: Title corrected. Church of England -> Manchester Cathedral

First Report

The first report was in the Times Online - their religion Correspondent Ruth Gledhill broke the story on Friday evening, and it now being reported by others (BBC, Google News). Ruth Gledhill writes on her blog.

This video game, developed by Insomniac, is set in a virtual representation of Manchester cathedral, where every autumn clergy hold a service for the families and friends of the victims of gun crime.

As we report, the Bishop of Manchester, Nigel McCulloch, is demanding that Sony withdraw the video game, Resistance: Fall of Man, because of a violent gun battle that takes place in the cathedral. ‘Is this the first virtual desecration of a sacred building?’ asked cathedral spokesman David Marshall.

….

Calling on Sony to withdraw the game, which has gone on sale worldwide, the Bishop of Manchester, the Right Rev Nigel McCulloch, said: “It is well known that Manchester has a gun crime problem.”

Sony did not ask permission, and sent a researcher to record scenes for the game.

There are a number of issues here:

• Did Sony need permission?
• Did they record inside the cathedral?
• Does it matter, legally and morally?
• Is there any comeback?

My opinion is that the biggest concern for the Cathedral is likely to be with local gun crime - cathedrals are huge players in development of local communites, and then with the intellectual property and loss of income questions.

This article looks at some of the legal and copyright questions.

The Footage in Question

First of all, this is a sequence taken from the level of the game set in Manchester Cathedral. However, it is of extraordinarily poor quality.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Should Sony have asked

In my opinion, it is clear that morally Sony should have asked first. They may not have asked permission because the inevitable answer would be SOS (sod off Sony), or for a risk of establishing a precedent.

However, it is (not very) possible that they may not have realised that there were restrictions. Sony are a huge media company as well as producing electronics - if they have their act together they will have checked. However, ecclesiastical law is something (understatement) of a specialism and the videogame part of Sony may be a “law unto itself”.

Legal Nuances

I think these are the relevant legal points. If you go into the detail, it is far more complicated!

Copyright

There have been some efforts to make copyright of “Building Designs” stick. Mainly to prevent iconic architects’ designs being copied. In practice, plans are copyright but external views can be photographed.

If you go somewhere such as the Broadgate estate in the city, if they try to stop you taking photographs it will be because it is a private estate - not because the buildings are copyright.

Manchester Cathedral is centuries old, so the building is not copyright.

Is the game a Representation of the Cathedral?

Sony have justified their position (in the Times Online) by saying that it is not photography:

David Wilson, a Sony spokesman, told The Times: “It is game-created footage, it is not video or photography. It is entertainment, like Doctor Who or any other science fiction. It is not based on reality at all. Throughout the whole process we have sought permission where necessary.”

This is something of a red herring, but also something of a good point. Photographs and video are treated somewhat differently from other “artistic representations” under UK Law, but - essentially - if it is recognisable then Sony may have a problem.

The “It’s not based on reality at all” made me smile. Clearly it is, or no one would say “That is Manchester Cathedral”.

Access to the Interior

Most UK Cathedrals and some sort of “no commercial photography without permission” statement in place. It is a moot point whether these are legally enforceable.

If Sony have taken photographs or videos for their game, then they are in violation of this statement, and may have a legal risk.

Copyright Items in the Interior

In UK Law a work of art (”a work of artistic craftsmanship”) on permanent public display does not have protection against photographs being taken of it for commercial us. You can take a photo of a “Banksy” just as you can of Nelson’s Column.

However, if it is on temporary display - even in a public place - copyrigth law does apply.

There are two questions then:

Were there any copyright items on display which are reproduced in the game?

If so, Sony are bang to rights on this aspect.

Is the interior of the Cathedral a public place (in law)?

This is a hugely complicated question - to do with the legal status of the Church of England (a chapel unequivally is *not* a public place).

I’m not going to go into this, but if Manchester Carthedral *is* a public place then all the attempts by all the cathedrals to control commercial photography in opening hours are on the skids. Except that some cathedrals go so far back that there may be specialist laws from centuries ago that have an impact.

Trademarks

The image of Manchester Cathedral may be a trademark. I have not dug deep enough into this to comment in detail.

Where does that leave us?

The initial response has been from the news media has been one of some bemusement

Sony may have a risk, but they may not. However, they have an exposure of 10s of millions in revenue from this game - so they face a large downside.

Similarly, for Church of England cathedrals, there is a potential risk and a large potential downside. The income from commercial photoraphy and film is probably in the millions.

It may be that Manchester Cathedral (and they will have consulted with other Cathedrals and the Church legal advisers before taking this action) want to stop this before it becomes open season on English Cathedrals.

It may be an attempt to establish legally that video games are in the same category as films, and avoid losing the income that comes from rental of cathedrals by film crews.

Income from set piece filming (such as the weddings in Four Weddings and a Funeral) are not at risk, but with the rapid increase in small producers and guerilla filming at least one category of income is potentially at risk in the future. Broadcast and HD quality footage can now be shot on prosumer level video cameras.

It may in fact turn out that Sony obtained freelance footage, and are only potentially liable for “reproduction” and “publication” (which would be violations of copyright if copyright exists) rather than filming without permission.

So what will they do next?

Sony will sit back and take advice - at least for a half day or so.

Wrapping-up

Ther’s a lot more to say on this, as there are a couple of crucial issues at stake - that could be expensive for both parties. We shall see.

Further Information

Ruth Gledhill has posted a full account on her blog. Worth a read.