Church of God Sues Sony Pictures and Comcast for Copyright Infringement

[nsane.forums]

The 'religious' comedy Salvation Boulevard premiered in movie theaters last Friday, but not everyone appreciates the film's humor. The Church of God has sued Sony Pictures, IFC Films and Comcast for infringing the copyright of the church's logo, and is praying to stop the film's distribution. In addition the church demands financial compensation for the substantial and irreparable harm the infringements have caused.

With more than a million members in the United States and more than 6 million spread over 150 countries worldwide, the Church of God is one of the largest Christian movements. The church was founded in 1886 and since its 100th anniversary 25 years ago it has been using a trademarked cross logo to identify its products and services. In 2010 the logo's copyright was officially registered in the hope of preventing third parties from abusing the church's faith.

It now appears the registration came just in time. The Church of God logo is now the subject of a lawsuit filed by the church against several parties linked to the making and distribution of the movie Salvation Boulevard which premiered in U.S. theaters last Friday.

Salvation Boulevard covers the story of pastor Dan, played by Pierce Brosnan, who turns his church into a business empire using rather unconventional methods. Much to the displeasure of the Church of God, however, pastor Dan's church uses a logo that is clearly inspired by theirs.

In the complaint obtained by TorrentFreak the Church of God accuses the defendants of copyright infringement, trademark infringement and unfair competition by using a mirrored version of the church's logo in the film. Sony Pictures, Mandalay Pictures, IFC Films and Comcast (as distributor) are listed as defendants in the lawsuit that was filed at the U.S District Court of Eastern Tennessee last week.

"Defendants are using a certain 'cross' design to promote the Salvation Boulevard film. The design also appears within the film to identify a 'religious group' at the center of the film's storyline," the complaint reads.

"Exemplary frames from a promotional trailer of the Salvation Boulevard film are shown below, wherein Defendants' Cross Design is shown on the upper left of the 'church' appearing in the frame on the left and on the vest apparel item in the frame to the right."

The infringing logo as used in Salvation Boulevard

Through the lawsuit the Church of God hopes to stop the distribution of Salvation Boulevard and the 'burning' of all copies, promotional material and merchandise relating to the film. In addition the Church of God demands compensation for the substantial and irreparable harm the misuse of the logo has caused them.

This is the second time this year that the makers of a prominent movie have been sued for copyright-related offenses. Previously Mike Tyson's tattooist sued Warner Bros. because it used a copy of his artwork in The Hangover II. This case was settled last month for an undisclosed amount.

The Church of God, however, is hoping to stop the distribution of Salvation Boulevard as soon as possible and has faith that the District Court Judge will hear their prayers for relief.

<a title="View Church of God Suit on Scribd" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/60265382" style="margin: 12px auto 6px auto; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; display: block; text-decoration: underline;">Church of God Suit</a><iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" src="http://www.scribd.com/embeds/60265382/content?start_page=1&view_mode=list" data-auto-height="true" data-aspect-ratio="" scrolling="no" id="doc_7177" width="100%" height="600" frameborder="0"></iframe>

View: Original Article

[HX1]

SONY .. :lmao: .. really has made some very bad moves... :rofl: to be targeted like this... :lmao: Getting hit right and left with lawsuits of this... its interesting what it has spawned...

[myidisbb]

you can not copyright nor trademark a religion symbol or logo.

clearly this is a wack cult and should be stomp out. now for movie companies. come on, you wasted money making this crap?

[toyo]

They already copyrighted it. It's just another business logo, and the business owns it, that's all. Sony Pictures, Mandalay Pictures, IFC Films and Comcast should have sought permission to use their logo in the movie - they should know better, since they hunt for people that infringe on their works...

[myidisbb]

They already copyrighted it. It's just another business logo, and the business owns it, that's all. Sony Pictures, Mandalay Pictures, IFC Films and Comcast should have sought permission to use their logo in the movie - they should know better, since they hunt for people that infringe on their works...

no they claim to be a church therefor you can not copyright it. can you image if the jews copyrighted a 6 point star? or the nazis did? a certain christain church copyrighted the croos? or a certain mulsim gropu copyrighting the crest moon with the impossibile star on it? come on. you cant do that.

its like making a movie and in the back ground is the mcdonlds sign.

fair use which is what sony gong to claim too

[HX1]

Yeah that happens to be one of the reasons that if you are making money ..Like SONY or are a studio you put 'MacDougal's' instead... and you will notice that many vehicles in movies have their branding removed.. ( While others may even have plugs for them and mentioning of the brand itself within said movie or episode ) This is also one of the reasons companies use the ADVICE of lawyers who are hired to protect their interests.. They at that point usually will advise a studio or company to remove or skew other company representations such as the LOGO of the church.. Universal symbols for different religious beliefs belong to nobody.. BUT if in fact they create a logo.. which incorporates said symbols then it is a copyrighted logo... Not to mention you have many people who are very 'stiff' when it comes to things like this versus flexible with some rational on the proper association mentally with whats going on... or pertaining to.. versus taking things as sacrilege and as personal attacks which is or will in many cases... will only get publicity..

Back to the movie thing.. there are many copyright release forms involved in some movies.. some sponsored by companies.. others who negotiate payment for usage..( Some are so thrilled they would beg to gt something plugged in a movie.. :P )others who just say it's okay and sign a release which protects them from legal prosecution... Regardless of what we may think we know about the way some business must operate.. it can be a big deal.. especially in a small pond full of piranha .. with times like they are.. You can expect it.. and even expect it when they are not like they are.. Always a subject to keep in mind...

Say I use a resource or stock image to create an NsaneWallpaper... If I choose to use that image ( regardless of what I do to it ) I must submit my work to the original author... for approval for my usage and get them to sign a document stating as such or have purchased the image from the originator.. with those intentions.. which has those rights enclosed as stated by the purchase and payment received.. They can also add addendum to said agreements which allow them to claim a certain percentage or royalty ( even a flat payment with a ceiling .. surcharge if you will .. if any financial gain is to be had or is generated by the usage and or creation of said works by the user of said released/inclusive stock or image or work.. Photoshop Textures, brushes, gradients and effects are all the same way .. many are free for use however and said usage can be so far reaching that it may be impossible to really hit a royalty phase BUT it in effect can be required of inclusive credits upon the release of said work..

[toyo]

They already copyrighted it. It's just another business logo, and the business owns it, that's all. Sony Pictures, Mandalay Pictures, IFC Films and Comcast should have sought permission to use their logo in the movie - they should know better, since they hunt for people that infringe on their works...

no they claim to be a church therefor you can not copyright it. can you image if the jews copyrighted a 6 point star? or the nazis did? a certain christain church copyrighted the croos? or a certain mulsim gropu copyrighting the crest moon with the impossibile star on it? come on. you cant do that.

its like making a movie and in the back ground is the mcdonlds sign.

fair use which is what sony gong to claim too

I'm sure I won't go anywhere with this reply, and it would be my last one, but there are so many things wrong in this, I just have to:

- churches can copyright/patent stuff. They are businesses, just like McDonald's.

- Nazism is not a religion, nor a business, nor a church. Is an ideology

- the cross is a thousands years old religious symbol that is not belonging to anybody in particular; works incorporating a cross can surely be copyrighted, though

- the crescent moon/star is not a Muslim symbol, but a Ottoman one (ie appeared in a dream of a sultan, back in 1400-ish). These 2 things are not the same. Although it has found its way on national flags of Pakistan, Turkey and other countries, most Muslims reject this as being a symbol of Islam