1. I'm going on the report you posted. It states the game "apparently contained a surveillance camera image of the boy posted on a bulletin board."
That description is accurate with the screenshot I posted in the previous reply.

I haven't read reports stating otherwise (other than your blog, of course). Would you care to point them out?

3. Yes, the image was probably checked for ownership. But, unless I'm mistaken, they have the legal right to use it:
"This is an image from a CCTV. It may be public domain through lack of creative authorship, or alternatively it may be usable under the fair use doctrine."

The person(s) checking ownership might not have recognized the image. Even if they did, perhaps they didn't think it was distasteful.

I'm just speculating. We will probably never know how it slipped through.

4. Most casual gamers aren't focused on details in the backdrop. Many of the gamers, especially the younger ones, wouldn't recognize the image even if it was staring them in the face.
How is this a poor excuse? What are you expecting?

Kev: First and foremost, I'm surprised anyone would even consider defending this. It's absolutely ridiculous.

1. This one http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/6768695.stm refers to it as a still of footage (though the term footage would include a still). This one just calls it footage: http://www.getgamer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3440. This one http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=25929 also refers to it as footage. http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/article2682225.ece also. I suspect it just matters how you interpret the term "footage". A single frame is considered http://www.thefreedictionary.com/footage.

EDIT: Come to think of it, why I am arguing whether it's several frames or a single frame. It makes no diffence, the company in question have attempted to profit on the kidnapping and murder of a toddler.

3. So you're saying that each asset was checked. So really, it wouldn't have been that hard to catch would it? I mean if they had to determine the origin of each asset, they'd have to have known it came from a real case. At which point it wouldn't be a leap and a bound to find that the victim (or relations) might be offended?

4. I meant its an extremely poor excuse for the content being included at all. Not that it took a long time to find, which in itself should never have mattered because the image (if thats what it was) should never have been included in the first place. I took your meaning to be that it was ok that it wasn't found (by anyone), because it wasn't publicised as much outside the UK. Above you said they may have recognised image but didn't think it was distasteful to use. You really think thats ok?