It would be none less copyright-related than gang gunfights, though.
They didn't claim any copyright infringement on gunfights. They said (paraphrasing) 'as an anti-gun violence organization, we don't want gunfights to be displayed inside our church. We vocally protest Sony's use of it in this way.'. A perfectly reasonable desire.
Then they said, 'we're looking into whether or not Sony using the interior of our church is a copyright violation. We are holding our legal options open'.
No gunfights inside their church is their goal, copyright infringement of the artistic nature of the church interior is their tool/weapon to reach the goal.
So yes, gang gunfights is not a copyright infringement, but they never claimed it was.
I don't think you understand copyright (or you'd realize the church potentially did have a valid claim, despite your comment of being "immediately obvious to anyone" otherwise) and I don't think you understand what the church was complaining about, or you might be an ounce or two sympathetic to their legitimate complain
On the contrary. I understand very well that copyright expires 70 years after the death or the author, and the Manchester Cathedral is a 15th century building. Unless you expect 15th century stonemasons to live over 450 years, this is pretty safe.
There's several issues here though, explaining why the church was 'looking into their legal options' because there may indeed be opportunity for a copyright claim, even if just a slim one.
First, the building was bombed during WW2, and rebuilt, upgraded, expanded, and modified. This would make the original 15th century architecture in the public domain, but with the new modifications (depending on how different they are from the original) the church would be a derivative work of that original design. The original design would still be public domain, but the changes would be copyrighted and haven't yet expired. If Sony used the modern representation of the church, they may indeed be infringing on the derived (modern) work.
Now, building exteriors are one thing, but the church (at least in the wikipedia article) repeatedly referred to the interior of the church, only requesting that the interior fight scenes be removed, perhaps recognizing that they'd have even less chance arguing for the exterior to also be removed.
Also, work in permanent public display bears no copyright in the UK. Therefore the "copyright" claim is very obviously totally unreasonable.
It's not true that work in public display 'bears no copyright'. It is still fully copyrighted, there are just a few extra exceptions that permit certain types of reproductions in specific circumstances. All the other rules of copyrights must still be followed.
Just because something is displayed publicly does not mean it is automatically public domain. It just gives a few extra rights to the public. Is Sony within those few minor extra rights? Seeing that those exceptions mostly cover photographs and filming, do those rights only apply to faithful reproductions?
Does the interior of the church's private property count as public (probably)? I haven't played the game either.
What art forms within the interior of the church falls under these exceptions? These exceptions don't apply to paintings, murals, or engravings. Did Sony accidentally reproduce any of these? Likely the murals would already be out of copyright... but on the other hand, Bill Gates owns the digital rights to the Mona Lisa, and TV shows and movies and news websites have to pay him each time they use it. When it comes to digital reproductions, law is still a grey area. Hence, the church considering their legal options and consulting their lawyers while at the same time trying to engage in a dialogue with Sony before it even reaches court.
Further, it's not just 'public display' its 'permanent public display'. These are legal terms open to interpretation by judges. What constitutes 'public'?what constitutes 'permanent'?
The church basically said, "Hey, we don't like what you are doing with our property (gun violence inside reproductions of our church), and we want you to stop. Here's why we don't like what you are doing (gun violence victims as members, city of gun violence, opposed to gun violence, spends money to reduce gun violence, gun violence vigils), and here's how we are going to try to get you to stop (we're looking into our legal options, we're contacting you directly, and we're publicly voicing our grievance)."
Seeing that it appears no lawsuit was actually filed, they may have come to the conclusion that their chance of victory was slim.
They probably could've argued for a violation of moral rights, but that applies to authors and the original creators are dead. But the moral rights of the authors of the derivative works of the reconstruction and expansion and revamping of the church? Legal issues is not yes/no. It's a vast swamp of 'maybes'. To entirely dismiss the church's (potential) lawsuit as "so perverse that it's hilarious" is to misunderstand the expanse and complexity of the law.
I do also perfectly understand what the church tried to mix in, there. It's the fact that Manchester has a "gun history". This is sad, but it has nothing to do with copyright.
They were explaining the reason for their complaint. They are anti-gun violence, and hold vigils in their church for gun violence victims (most likely whose family members attend the church), and now a videogame is portraying interactive gun fights within the church.
They weren't arguing that gun violence has something to do with copyright. They were complaining about portrayals of gun violence in what almost amounts to their own home, and said they were looking into the actual <potential> copyright claims.
They weren't arguing in court that they have a copyright claim against gun violence. That's a misunderstanding of their complaint and claim.
However, it's just typical for how demagoges work. You take "fact" A of which you know it's not true at all, and mix in some sad facts B and C which are entirely unrelated, and try to stirr up the public. Who will take A for as granted as B and C because they're mentioned in one sentence.
I don't think that's what they were doing. Why would the public even care about copyright infringement?
What facts are they deliberately distorting? Everything seems perfectly reasonable to me. It seems like you are the one distorting or simply misunderstanding their claims.
I think they were telling the public, "This is what we are complaining about" (Sony portraying gun violence in their own church), and telling Sony and the public "We're looking into possible copyright violations as a way to get Sony to retract it."
If they said, "We're suing Sony for copyright infringement" with zero explanation of why, it just looks like a nuisance lawsuit (which their demand for donations doesn't help - despite it being specifically a demand for donations toward anti-gun violence work).
that came from the child abusing faction (who, besides are doing something illegal).
A) You're implying the entire Church of England is pro-child abuse. Which is false.
B) You're implying the entire Church of England's congregation or employees are also child abusers. Which is false.
C) You're implying that someone's complaint is invalid because of who they are, not because of the merits of the complaint. Which is false.
This is like a mall security guard, or maybe the mall manager, sexually abusing someone, so instead of making sure justice is done against that person and the two or three who were aware of it, you attack malls everywhere for being pro-abuse. And then you respond to an unrelated employee who works in the mall is claiming he doesn't think it's right to portray gun violence in that mall, saying, "YOUR COMPLAINT IS INVALID BECAUSE YOU SUPPORT CHILD RAPISTS!".
It doesn't make sense. A person's arguments may be accurate even if they are serial killers. Or a person's arguments may be flawed even if they are perfectly decent individuals. An argument must be judged based on its own merit, not the merit of the one giving it. And you're dismissing an argument based on the one giving it happening to work for the same organization as someone else who did a terrible thing.
I haven't ever played Fall of Man myself, but I read that it's about aliens invading. Unless the church postulates that all Manchester drug dealers and gang members are yellow skinned "aliens" a.k.a. Chinese immigrants (hey, we're not being racist at all, are we!)
You're extrapolating what you imagine to be their reasoning, and then implying that they are being racist for your extrapolation of your imagination of what their stance might be?
I don't see how one could possibly assume that the makers of that game tried to make any such indication, or that you should (or even could validly) assume such a thing.
You're making the same assumption that Sony themselves made, when Sony replied to their complaint without actually taking the time to understand their complaint.
Sony said, "This is a work of fiction, we're not trying to portray anything specific or any specific building."
And the church said, "We don't care if it's a work of fiction or not, you've digitally reproduced our refuge from gun violence, our home away from home, our place of worship, and then host virtual gunfights within it."
They know the difference between fiction and not. That had zero to do with their complaint. They aren't Jack Thompson.
Lastly, if someone doesn't like shooting at aliens/zombies/whatever, that's fine, nobody forces them to play that game (or Doom or Afterlife, or Resident Evil, or any such game).
They were not complaining about general gun violence in games. They were complaining about gun violence in a digital reproduction of their own property - one that they are intimately familiar with as a place of refuge and safety. Seriously, this is only a notch or two less than a gunfight in a digital reproduction of their bedroom at home.
It seems like you brought it up just as an excuse to bash religion.
