Church of England throws a fit over computer game

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Zoid
I mean, come on! Blaming the social problems in Manchester on video games? 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.

[Kuciwalker]

I don't see why it should be. And what type of intellectual property is it?

[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.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Drogue

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.

True. But as you (and Molly) says it's probably about money and headlines. I don't think they give a rats ass about the IP rights...

[Dinner]

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.

[Kuciwalker]

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.

What IP rights? Copyright? Patent? Trademark?

[Asher]

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.

[Asher]

Greedy little Christians.

[lord of the mark]

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.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


What IP rights? Copyright? Patent? Trademark?

Intellectual Property. If the inside of Manchester Cathedral is considered a work of art or such you're not allowed to use an image of it for commercial use without permission from the owner (in this case the CoE).

[lord of the mark]

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

[Asher]

Originally posted by Zoid
Intellectual Property. If the inside of Manchester Cathedral is considered a work of art or such you're not allowed to use an image of it for commercial use without permission from the owner (in this case the CoE).

Isn't it open to the public?

There goes that argument.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Zoid
Intellectual Property.

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.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It is considered an artistic work and therefore under copyright. This is the same principle used when museums try to control photos of the works they've bought and display.

[Kuciwalker]

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.