Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, designs, info-tech and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. Read, post comments and participate!

The team is Eleonora Rosati, Annsley Merelle Ward and Merpel. E-mail the Kats here!

The team is joined by GuestKats Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot, Jocelyn Bosse, Alessandro Cerri, Anastasiia Kyrylenko, Marcel Pemsel and Anna Maria Stein.

SpecialKats: Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo (TechieKat), Antonios Baris (Book Review Editor), Rose Hughes (PatKat) and Chijioke Okorie (Africa Correspondent).

InternKats: Asude Sena Moya and Söğüt Atilla.
Home / copyright / Passing off / publicity rights / Manchester Cathedral, you're getting me down

Manchester Cathedral, you're getting me down

- , ,
The IPKat is a little puzzled by an article in today’s Times, claiming that the Church of England may have grounds to bring an IP-based action against Sony. The C of E is objecting to the use of images of Manchester Cathedral in a violent computer game sold by Sony. The article claims:
"the cathedral and its clergy could have grounds for an action against Sony for defamation and breach of copyright. The cathedral could also sue Sony for “endorsement rights”".
This is news to the IPKat. While the UK does provide copyright protection for works of architecture, Manchester Cathedral is a little too old to qualify. Likewise, we can’t even manage publicity rights for people, let alone endorsement rights. Perhaps the best chance would be to argue passing off, but would the public really be deceived into thinking that the C of E has authorised a game based on gun battles?
Manchester Cathedral, you're getting me down Manchester Cathedral, you're getting me down Reviewed by Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 Rating: 5

5 comments:

  1. AnonymousTuesday, 12 June 2007 at 11:32:00 GMT+1

    I've written a long piece about the legal issues. It's at http://impact.freethcartwright.com/2007/06/church_of_engla.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousTuesday, 12 June 2007 at 14:03:00 GMT+1

    Could the issue be where Sony sourced their images? Copyright might have been infringed if the images were copied in some measure from a third party's images, for example images on Manchester Cathedral's own web site, which has a virtual tour of the cathedral.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousTuesday, 12 June 2007 at 17:17:00 GMT+1

    Proving that would be fun! :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. GeoffWednesday, 13 June 2007 at 10:52:00 GMT+1

    I've been thinking about this and it occurred to me that the whole copyright/passing off issue might just be a red herring. Sure, the motivation behind the church/cathedral wanting to sue Sony is the use of images of the cathedral in the game, but the general consensus is that they wouldn't have a case on those grounds.

    What else might the church be able to sue Sony for? As (self-appointed?) moral leaders for England, could the church bring a case on behalf of the people of this country against this "filth" and try to have a Mary Whitehouse/video nasty type effect on the gaming industry as a whole. Any other grounds that they could bring a case on?

    To use a mixed and probably inappropriate analogy: while the slap to the cheek may be what the church was upset about, why should they retaliate by trying to cut off Sony's hands when they might be able to take them out more effectively with a swift knee to the groin instead?

    ReplyDelete
  5. David PearceSaturday, 16 June 2007 at 09:55:00 GMT+1

    Sony has now apologised for including the depiction of Manchester cathedral in the game (see the BBC report here), but have not removed the game from sale.

    ReplyDelete

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Subscribe to: Post Comments ( Atom )
Powered by Blogger.