Church and Hollywood Fight Over 2012 Statue Copyright
Brazil’s Catholic Church is suing Columbia Pictures for including images of the huge statue of Christ in Rio de Janeiro in their movie 2012. Copyright common sense strikes again…..
The massive Christ the Redeemer statue in Rio is one of the New Seven Wonders of the World and a landmark famous all around the globe. It took 9 years to build and was finally finished in 1931 at a cost of $250,000.
It’s now the center of a rather unholy row between Brazil’s Catholic Church and Columbia Pictures in the US. The Hollywood company included images of the statue being destroyed by a giant wave in its movie 2012 and the Church is far from happy.
“The archdiocese refused the use of the religious symbol during pre-production of the movie, but Columbia Pictures did not respect the prohibition,” said Church lawyer Claudine Dutra.
“Many faithful have said they are shocked and offended by the images of the destruction of this sanctuary that the archdiocese wanted to preserve. We want Columbia Pictures to publicly declare that it did not intend to cause offense,” she added.
The statue was created by Paul Landowski who died in 1961, but the archdiocese holds the copyright until 2032, when the sculpture enters the public domain.
I guess it would be customary to have a go at Columbia for being copyright hypocrites, but i’m struggling not to suggest that both parties should have their heads banged together on this.
So Much Fail ;_;
Anyone who watches that movie IMO is a HUGE FAIL for breeding into the fear mongering that is ruining people these days.
I’m pretty sure Columbia’s correct here. This seems like Fair Use.
Religion is just another business
this copyright thingy is going to blow up in the big indusrty’s face
They should be banged together.
I wonder why they don`t sue local TV stations for showing the thing in their broadcasts… Or they do?
That’s a shame but must respect brazil most important church symbol.
I guess hollywood should put down american symbols
Hollywood should make a movie were the twin towers go down !!
what about it !!
They did it’s called “world trade center” with Nicolas Cage.
no one was crying about that.. fuckin church should suck it up and realize no one cares.
media industry VERSUS religion industry
__________________________________________________
Both ……..
are really rich and powerfull.
are money grabbing bast***s.
assume the moral high ground ,
even when they screw people over.
are intolerant to others.
want to live in the past ,
where they earned more and had more controll.
__________________________________________________
The world would be a better place without them BOTH
[...] gran estatua. A veces los derechos de autor tienen estas paradojas, mire usted por donde. Enlaces: Freakbits __________________ RapidShare empezara a borrar archivos sin uso a partir de el 20 de octubre [...]
So there shocked that one of the most recogniable symbols in the the world was used in a (terrible) hollywood movie just because it was a copyright statue of jesus. i dident even know you could copyright statues, how many torist photos are there of this thing.
@DogPawHat
Tourist photos are rarely used for commercial purposes
“Fair use” does not cover “commercial use”
[...] Pictures por una escena “ofensiva” en ‘2012′ 5 03 2010 La sede de la Iglesia Católica en Brasil está actualmente demandando a Columbia Pictures, la compañía que creó la película ‘2012′, por haber incluido imágenes del Cristo [...]
I suppose it’s justified to sue the movie studio when they were specifically told not to use the statue as part of the film, particularly since it was portrayed as being destroyed in the movie.
Sort of like graphical vandalism of a religious icon that causes religious and spiritual distress.
So if the movie studio wins the case, on what grounds then do they stand in their fight against pirates of their films?
Although I really think this is much ado about nothing, here is my question. If the Brazilian Church told the production company that they couldn’t use the statue, that means the production company ASKED for permission. If they did, that means they thought they needed it. So if they then chose to IGNORE the refusal, then I think that yes, some questions need to be asked. That being said, to suggest that people are emotionally harmed by watching this statue FICTIONALLY destroyed, says to me that we’ve all become just a little too sensitive. I mean, GROW UP, it’s just a movie! And not even a good one! I think we just have too many lawyers, all of them trying to get on TV! And I think that we left COMMON SENSE back in the eighties somewhere, and replaced it with political correctness. We all need to grow a thicker skin!
I don’t see a problem here. A copyright holder didn’t give permission, and a company profitably violated it. Why is Columbia not paying up?