The Last Of Us Faces Another Rip-Off Accusation - UPDATED

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Lonewolfm16:

s_h_a_d_o:

Lonewolfm16:

[snip]

Except the map wasn't his livelihood. it was made as part of a hobby. And as others have pointed out, he used the logo of the MBTA... meaning he violated copyright in his creation of the map in the first place.

Um, no. It's part of his job as a graphic designer... http://www.cambooth.net/about

Did you not even bother checking the source material for this news?

Yes he's a graphic designer, but he wasn't paid to make the map. Its just something he made. Only related to his job as a graphic designer in that he knows how to make things like that because he is a graphic designer.

Jesus.
The map(s - there were a number produced) in question was part of an exercise in critique (I'll wait right here while you go and look up those last couple of words). It doesn't matter in the slightest that he wasn't paid - what matters is that the work in question is his own - a fact you have just acknowledged... "Its just something he made".

Lieju:
Bloop

Ideas are work if built upon. I'm a writer, so it's effectively my work. However, I don't go around REALLY telling companies that they're copying me. That would be far too petty.

Lonewolfm16:

s_h_a_d_o:

Lonewolfm16:

[snip]

Except the map wasn't his livelihood. it was made as part of a hobby. And as others have pointed out, he used the logo of the MBTA... meaning he violated copyright in his creation of the map in the first place.

Um, no. It's part of his job as a graphic designer... http://www.cambooth.net/about

Did you not even bother checking the source material for this news?

Yes he's a graphic designer, but he wasn't paid to make the map. Its just something he made. Only related to his job as a graphic designer in that he knows how to make things like that because he is a graphic designer.

So? What's your point? What relevance does it have whether he made it out of hobby or for pay? If I build Cessnas for a hobby, you should just be able to steal one because, hey, it's just a hobby?

The fact that it's a hobby is not in any way relevant, except in your own head. And you yourself just admitted it was part of his job. Oh, he wasn't paid to make the map? Well then surely he couldn't have posted it in the hopes that someone would pay to use it, you know, like thousands and thousands of other graphic designers on the internet. Seriously, what in the world are you talking about?

Owyn_Merrilin:

Dr. Witticism:

Owyn_Merrilin:
[quote="Dr. Witticism" post="7.819938.19783808"][quote="Owyn_Merrilin" post="7.819938.19783375"][quote="Dr. Witticism" post="7.819938.19783265"]

snip

Except literally nothing has gone into the public domain since Steamboat Willie was released, at least not through the usual channels of copyright expiring. Ever hear of a mickey mouse law? The technical term is the "Copyright Term Extension Act," and it's something that Disney forced through congress the last time Steamboat Willie was due to go into the public domain. It even retroactively brought some works that were in the public domain back out of it.

As for the rest of it, I know that system works because it's the system that existed for the vast majority of human history. This isn't me preaching some crazy Star Trek future, it's me complaining about the obnoxious Blade Runner present.

Edit: Forgot the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

I do know about the Act, but it things still eventually expire. Moreover, this proves my point that it is huge corporate entities with near-unlimited resources that are protected by and which are abusing the system, not people like this graphic designer.

I feel like you still haven't answered most of the points I made. So what if that's how things were done earlier in human history? We don't live in that same world anymore. Most of human history was not based on capitalist principles and did not revolve around money, but rather barter and trade, which, like I said, is the only system in which your idea of what the law should be could possibly work. Just because you don't like the current state of things -- and hopefully I made it clear that I don't like it either -- doesn't mean we should go to the opposite extreme. Please, tell me what's wrong with a middle ground? I did not defend Disney doing the things they do, nor did I defend this current system. What I said is that what you're suggesting is too extreme and isn't workable in the current economic system.

Moreover, even in earlier days as capitalism developed but there was still much bartering and trading going around, people STILL got paid for their creative works. Artists were commissioned by people to paint things, they didn't have those paintings stolen from them. Etc. etc.

Finally, your point about the whole of human history also doesn't stand in this debate because the whole of human history didn't have electronic transmission of properties (read: being able to post creative works on the internet for all to see). Today's world makes it insanely easy to steal from others, whereas this was not the case at any time before. At no other time in human history could you go online, find the thing you need to put in your project that you expect to sell and make money from, and use it without the person knowing or paying them. You might occasionally find something you needed, but today you can go online and find anything. Back then, you still had to PAY someone to do the things you needed. The electronic age has changed that. There is no going back.

Here are just a few other things that were perfectly acceptable and/or workable for the whole of human history until recently: trading women as property; slavery; a farming-based society; and I won't bother to continue listing examples because I think I've made the point.

Please tell me how your system can work in today's world. Also, please tell me why everything should automatically become public domain instead of us finding a middle ground between today's laws and what you're suggesting. Additionally, tell me how people like graphic designers and the thousands of other industries based on individual's creativity are supposed to do in your world, how they are supposed to live off their talents, etc. Finally, please tell me why a middle ground would stifle creativity and be a burden on humanity.

The reason we need to go to the opposite extreme is right there in your post -- the big corporations who have lots of money to use to pervert the laws. The term of copyright only expires on paper, if you think there won't be another law passed the next time Steamboat Willie is up to go into the public domain, I have a bridge in brooklyn to sell you.
Essentially, any middle ground would only remain middle ground for as long as it takes the first massively profitable property to go into the public domain, and then we'd have yet another extension.

As for copyright coming into existence along with capitalism: hah, no. Most of the world (even the developed world) either didn't have it or played fast and loose with it straight through the end of the 19th century, a period which was, if anything, even more capitalism focused than we are now. Don't even bother to compare this to slavery, that's effectively a reductio ad hitlerium (Hitler did it, therefore it's bad. Even if it's just something like brushing your teeth).

At any rate, people would still get paid for their work. Graphic designers, for example, like the guy in the picture, really don't have a problem, because anyone who wants custom work done would have to buy it from them. They may even be on salary somewhere, you know, like they are more often than not already. Sure, once it was released other people could profit from it, but they'd have the benefit of having released it first. Kind of like how people still buy Colgate toothpaste despite there being cheaper but functionally identical alternatives.

Other countries have perfectly acceptable IP laws. The excuse of "well, if we do implement the right system, they'll just take it apart anyway" is not a reason to not try the system. Every new system has had this argument made against it.

How was the 19th century "even more capitalism focused" than today? IP law in this country rose during the industrial revolution. It was a perfectly fine system then. It has developed into something completely different now. I don't know what you're talking about here.

You're smart enough and I wrote clearly enough for you to know that I was in no way making a comparison to slavery. Let's not belittle each others points through obfuscation. The very clear point was that you argument of "we did X throughout human history, therefore it should still be done today" is a ridiculous argument. It has no bearing on the issue.

As for your final point, you managed to completely ignore my points about the digital age and globalization. Your last paragraph describes what would happen in the localized world of yesterday. It is no longer possible today.

Lieju:

Seracen:

Granted, the likelihood of making a profit off of fanfiction is something reserved for tripe-mongers like Stephanie Myer, but still, the point stands.

I'd like to point out, that no matter what you think of Meyers' writing talent, it was E. L. James who made money off stuff based on Meyer's work.

IshimaruHayato:
Everyone is in the mood to sue sue sue. Good god its like we cant just let people make money for being creative.

Um, you do realise that's what this is about, right?
Naughty Dog, instead of creating art-assets themselves, or paying for them, took someone else's work.
And the guy wants to be paid for his creation.

Well, alrighty then. That sort of reminds me of the shenanigans that went on during the Matrix script-writing. Still, there are no shortage of novelists who make bank off of less than immaculate writing styles. As long as people are reading, I suppose, however painful those books may be.

Anyhoo, as much as I agree that we seem to be a litigation heavy society, it is still far to often that people are indeed stealing ideas, or doing half measures, in what should be a triple-A experience.

If corporate is claiming that they need more money for triple-A coffers, they shouldn't cheap out on things such as:

1) not creating original assets (Ellie from Last of Us, Tali from ME3)
2) ripping off others' work (map from Last of Us, apparently)
3) not compensating others for work (Too Human, apparently, altho for such a terrible game...)
4) overworking employees without proper compensation (EA in general, hence the lawsuits)

Because really, if they are screwing over the consumer, where is all that money going?

Shareholders and CEO's, b/c you know, THEY care about quality products...

Still, my main point is fear in what Amazon intends. While it's cool that folks can make a little extra from fanfics, the idea that others could simply steal ideas for their own works galls me.

"Why sure, I don't care about the writers' strike, just raid Amazon's fanfic section. We can get a script for our next comic movie from the 'unwashed masses.'"

aceman67:
"I likewise apologized for my initial vitriolic post."
Translation: They paid me tons of money.

Are you that cynical?

Aardvaarkman:
That's not demanding money - that's complaining that the company used his work without negotiating terms or asking permission. Again - where is the demand for money?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

Read the exchange from before again:

lacktheknack:

Aardvaarkman:

Dahemo:
He knew that, yet after putting his redundant map online at a resource that makes it clear the maps are unofficial, he now suddenly believes he deserves money for this.

When did he say he deserves money for this?

Presumably at the part where he says he deserves money for this.

Andy Chalk:
"To be clear: at no point have Naughty Dog contacted me about using my intellectual property (this visual representation of the Boston rapid transit network) in their product. To be even more clear: if you want to use my work commercially, payment before usage is required. If you're making money from your product, then you can pay me for my work as well."

That part.

Now, where did the word "demand" come into play? It totally didn't. Don't move goalposts, it's intellectually dishonest and as irritating as hell.

You asked where he said he DESERVED money, and he did so right where he said:

To be even more clear: if you want to use my work commercially, payment before usage is required. If you're making money from your product, then you can pay me for my work as well.

So there's your answer. Don't try to extend an argument by changing the question and acting as though I never answered it correctly - that's a good way to end up on ignore lists.

Aardvaarkman:

So, if a painter makes a portrait of a real person, or a painting based on a real landscape, it should not have copyright protection, because it's based on a real thing?

Like I said in my response to PhantomEcho, there is a very fine line between what's okay to borrow and what's not when it comes to creation and ideas. I've never said that they guy doesn't deserve compensation, what I am saying though is that I've seen so many copyright claims in the past 12 months that I think it's getting a bit ridiculous.

Whatever the outcome, I just hope something good happens.

Quiotu:
Huh... didn't even think of maps being copyrighted, but apparently it's a big business. Some manufacturers even have copyright traps in their maps, adding towns or points of interest on their maps that don't actually exist to make it easier to tell if the map is theirs or not.

But here's the trick in this case. Sounds like this guy didn't publish or distribute the map they used, he just did it for S&Gs to show what was wrong. Naughty Dog basically found a way to use a non-copyright map, which is pretty rare, and now this guy doesn't have a leg to stand on in the conversation. Posting an edited map on your blog doesn't make it copyrighted.

Sure it's a bit conniving on Naughty Dog's end, but this guy isn't a victim either. Hell, he just got free publicity for a map edit he's received ZERO money for... past, present and future. Take the publicity and shut up, dude.

Copyright law in the US does not cover facts, instructions, rules, etc, though there might be enough creativity in a map (colors, thickness of lines, etc). I wouldn't be sure the guy has a leg to stand on period, depends on how closely they really copied his design.

However, if it is subject to copyright, then there's absolutely nothing that would keep him from having it. If copyright applies, then the creator has copyright, period, end of story, no special actions needed, though since he didn't register he can't sue for more than whatever he usually charges for a job (only actual damages, no punitive damages).

I wouldn't call it free publicity if ND didn't cite it, any publicity comes from him freaking out over it.

lacktheknack:

You asked where he said he DESERVED money, and he did so right where he said:

To be even more clear: if you want to use my work commercially, payment before usage is required. If you're making money from your product, then you can pay me for my work as well.

So there's your answer. Don't try to extend an argument by changing the question and acting as though I never answered it correctly - that's a good way to end up on ignore lists.

I'm not moving any goalposts or changing the question. There is nothing here about demanding money - it's just saying that if you want to use his work, you should negotiate payment (or lack thereof) with him first. Which is perfectly reasonable.

There is no indication that he has demanded money after the fact of Naughty Dog ripping off this map.

Aardvaarkman:

lacktheknack:

You asked where he said he DESERVED money, and he did so right where he said:

To be even more clear: if you want to use my work commercially, payment before usage is required. If you're making money from your product, then you can pay me for my work as well.

So there's your answer. Don't try to extend an argument by changing the question and acting as though I never answered it correctly - that's a good way to end up on ignore lists.

I'm not moving any goalposts or changing the question. There is nothing here about demanding money - it's just saying that if you want to use his work, you should negotiate payment (or lack thereof) with him first. Which is perfectly reasonable.

There is no indication that he has demanded money after the fact of Naughty Dog ripping off this map.

But that's not what you asked first.

You asked "When did he say he deserves money for this?"

Which is a completely different thing.

I can't believe some people here are trying to justify Naughty Dog's bad behavior in this whole debacle by claiming they are using the map "in a creative way" therefore the guy's frustration is moot. Even worse are rants like "ND are getting picked on because they're successful". WTF is wrong with you dorks?

First they rip off Ellen Page's likeness and use it as the basis for a character design, then they rip off Booth's modified work and use it as a background graphic. Both in the same fucking game. It's pretty obvious Naughty Dog is pulling some dubious crap, yet we still get fanboys with their fanboy logic attempting to deflect blame away from the company. Dear sweet Jeebus, what the hell is wrong with the gaming community?

FalloutJack:

Lieju:
Bloop

Ideas are work if built upon. I'm a writer, so it's effectively my work. However, I don't go around REALLY telling companies that they're copying me. That would be far too petty.

Ideas are cheap.

But if you do actual work, spend time and money on something (like writing a book, or designing a map) that is worth something.

So you'd think it was ok if a company took your actual work, a piece you wrote, put it in their product, and then charged money off that product?

Seracen:

"Why sure, I don't care about the writers' strike, just raid Amazon's fanfic section. We can get a script for our next comic movie from the 'unwashed masses.'"

What would stop them now? Just go in ff.net and you'll find lots of fanfiction, some even good, and the person you stole from wouldn't probaly sue or even mind. And considering you can't use a written story as a direct script, they wouldn't even have much of a legal leg to stand on.

But the thing is, even if a story is really good, they'd still have to do work on it to turn it into a movie-script.
(And if they really wanted to growd-source the script, just hold a competition or something, and you'll have fans giving their work for free.)

Lieju:
Boing

I'm not sure this frigging map is work. Presumably, it's a hobby. If my Wild Wasteland roleplay here on the Escapist somehow got lifted by Bethesda to be somehow either integral or at least referenced on their next Fallout game or something, I'd ask for some credit, my name (likely the names of the other players) as a contributor, a bit of acknowledgement. Not freakin' money. And I wouldn't cop half the attitude this guy is. Stuff I publish online or use as roleplay material online? Public domain until I otherwise protect it with at least some kind of disclaimer.

FalloutJack:

Lieju:
Boing

I'm not sure this frigging map is work. Presumably, it's a hobby.

Irrelevant.

FalloutJack:

If my Wild Wasteland roleplay here on the Escapist somehow got lifted by Bethesda to be somehow either integral or at least referenced on their next Fallout game or something, I'd ask for some credit, my name (likely the names of the other players) as a contributor, a bit of acknowledgement. Not freakin' money.

So, you're fine with doing free work for a company you like. This guy is not.

(And it's not like he even made that map for any video-game-related stuff, and probably doesn't care about video-games.)

FalloutJack:

And I wouldn't cop half the attitude this guy is.

Really? I think you're assuming your work would be used in something you're a fan of. But imagine your work being profited by someone you don't know or even like. Not that 'attitude' matters in whether ND stole assets or not.

FalloutJack:

Stuff I publish online or use as roleplay material online? Public domain until I otherwise protect it with at least some kind of disclaimer.

You don't have to proclaim copyright to own something. In fact, from what I understand (I'm no lawyer) you'd need to state something you made is public domain for it to be that.

Putting something on the Internet =/= public domain

Lieju:

FalloutJack:

Lieju:
Bloop

Ideas are work if built upon. I'm a writer, so it's effectively my work. However, I don't go around REALLY telling companies that they're copying me. That would be far too petty.

Ideas are cheap.

But if you do actual work, spend time and money on something (like writing a book, or designing a map) that is worth something.

So you'd think it was ok if a company took your actual work, a piece you wrote, put it in their product, and then charged money off that product?

Seracen:

"Why sure, I don't care about the writers' strike, just raid Amazon's fanfic section. We can get a script for our next comic movie from the 'unwashed masses.'"

What would stop them now? Just go in ff.net and you'll find lots of fanfiction, some even good, and the person you stole from wouldn't probaly sue or even mind. And considering you can't use a written story as a direct script, they wouldn't even have much of a legal leg to stand on.

But the thing is, even if a story is really good, they'd still have to do work on it to turn it into a movie-script.
(And if they really wanted to growd-source the script, just hold a competition or something, and you'll have fans giving their work for free.)

True, to a certain extent, but at least you can always claim the "poor man's copyright" on the idea. It isn't likely that you'll win the lawsuit, as corporate has more money than you, but the principle is there. There are plenty of frivolous lawsuits that don't go anywhere over supposed "stolen ideas."

Again, I agree, and doubt this will cause any practical ramifications. I'm just more concerned with the precedence than anything else. However fragile a foundation I have for my personal rights over my own ideas, it's still better than nothing...in the way that syphilis is preferable to terminal cancer. :P

Aardvaarkman:

Therumancer:
At the end of the day you can't copyright an image of Boston's streets or whatever.

Why not?

It's certainly possible to do so. You could copyright a photograph, a satellite image, or a drawn map of Boston streets. What law are you referring to that prevents this?

No you can't. It's not one specific law, but rather the protections inherent in public or publically accessible property. Otherwise everything would be copyrighted and art and any kind of expression at all would be impossible, since showing anything at all could make you liable to pay someone royalties.

I'm familiar with the issue mostly through photography and video as the question has in the past arose that if you say show someone's house in the scope of filming a documentary if that person is owed royalties. Perhaps more relevantly to a case like this, whether a photographer has to pay the subject of a photograph on public property royalties if they make money off of it. This kind of thing has come up both in terms of people using photography for things like artwork to show the plight of the homeless, or digitally altering photos for purposes of entertainment, and perhaps most frequently in the case of Paparazzi chasing celebrities around when they step into public (or can be seen on private property with a public view). If celebrities could copyright their image and charge prohibitive costs nobody would be involved in that kind of thing. The same logic applies to a landscape, a house, or whatever else, if it's visible from public property as shown, then it's fair game.

When your dealing with something like a street map, your dealing with the very ideal of public property, what's more it's a fairly unchanging thing (it does change, but slowly, over a period of time). The streets are where the streets are. One guy being able to say definitively "I drew that particular map" becomes ambigious by it's very nature in a
case like that. It's similar to the case with a professional photographer, they sell their wares directly and try and get to publishers before anyone else has an equivalent to a valuable shot.

Overall this is similar to the old joke about TSR trying to copyright "Nazi" (though to be fair, they were copyrighting a specific image of a Nazi someone drew on a cardboard playing piece for an Indiana Jones game, but they did it badly, and when questioned their response was comedy gold given how ambigious they were being about their intent. It was later immortalized in an RPG parody book called "Murphy's Rules"). Arguably for this guy to have a serious case he'd pretty much have to say he has exclusive ownership to the streets of Boston.

At any rate, it's not one specific law, but a lot of them, and precedents. The best way I can explain it is to point out similar things. You might feel there is a difference, but there really isn't one. Oddly enough one of the few things US law has done a fairly good job of is protecting people's rights to public property. While this had the benefit of preventing everyone out to make a dime from sueing movie/TV/documentary film makers about what might have found it's way into a shot, it's also caused the whole Paparazzi problem.

Therumancer:

When your dealing with something like a street map, your dealing with the very ideal of public property, what's more it's a fairly unchanging thing (it does change, but slowly, over a period of time). The streets are where the streets are.

But that's not what the issue is. You can't copyright the streets themselves, but you can certainly copyright a representation of them such as a map or photograph. Just look at Google Maps, satellite images, street view, etc - all copyrighted views of public areas. Look at maps for GPS systems like TomTom and Garmin, etc. Copyrighted out the wazoo.

At any rate, it's not one specific law, but a lot of them, and precedents.

Except that's not true. The legal precedents are overwhelmingly that maps can be copyrighted. I prefer facts to making things up that suit your idea of how things should be.

lacktheknack:

But that's not what you asked first.

You asked "When did he say he deserves money for this?"

Which is a completely different thing.

And he never said he deserved money for this.

He said he was pissed off that the map was used without permission. That's all. Unless you can cite something that shows he went to the company asking for money.

Aardvaarkman:

lacktheknack:

But that's not what you asked first.

You asked "When did he say he deserves money for this?"

Which is a completely different thing.

And he never said he deserved money for this.

He said he was pissed off that the map was used without permission. That's all. Unless you can cite something that shows he went to the company asking for money.

You have a very odd definition of "deserve".

He said that if someone's going to make money from his stuff, then they have to pay him.

The Last of Us is making money.

Ergo, he thinks that they have to pay him.

Burden's on you to prove otherwise, because simple observation supports the assertion that he thinks he deserves money for it.

lacktheknack:
You have a very odd definition of "deserve".

No, I'm using the standard definition.

He said that if someone's going to make money from his stuff, then they have to pay him.

Notice the "if" there? I don't think he ever expected his work to be used in a commercial project, or to make money from it. He wasn't going around saying "I made these maps, now give me money!"

It's more that he was shocked to the the work used in an unauthorized manner. I'm not aware that he ever even offered these maps for sale in the first place.

The Last of Us is making money.

Ergo, he thinks that they have to pay him.

Again, I'll remind you of the "if". If he had been approached by them first, he may have simply not allowed them to use it.

Burden's on you to prove otherwise, because simple observation supports the assertion that he thinks he deserves money for it.

Sorry, but no. He says that they have resolved the matter, but there's been no mention of money changing hands. If you have proof of that, I'd like to see it.

Aardvaarkman:

lacktheknack:
You have a very odd definition of "deserve".

No, I'm using the standard definition.

He said that if someone's going to make money from his stuff, then they have to pay him.

Notice the "if" there? I don't think he ever expected his work to be used in a commercial project, or to make money from it. He wasn't going around saying "I made these maps, now give me money!"

It's more that he was shocked to the the work used in an unauthorized manner. I'm not aware that he ever even offered these maps for sale in the first place.

The Last of Us is making money.

Ergo, he thinks that they have to pay him.

Again, I'll remind you of the "if". If he had been approached by them first, he may have simply not allowed them to use it.

Burden's on you to prove otherwise, because simple observation supports the assertion that he thinks he deserves money for it.

Sorry, but no. He says that they have resolved the matter, but there's been no mention of money changing hands. If you have proof of that, I'd like to see it.

We're never going to agree because we're using completely different versions of English.

Lieju:
Snip

Dude, you're taking this way too seriously, and you're doing that thing where you divide my post up into little snippets and I hate that. Cut it out. In any case, my points are not what you call irrelvent, but a different perspective which also applies in the reality we live in. Now, you can get bent out of shape over that, like our man of the map does, or you can take it in stride like me and not sweat the small stuff. It's just a map, not even anything really personal. If there's anything here that's irrelevent, it's the original claim. This guy is not going to be taken seriously.

Isn't it interesting that this game is being called out on several "rip-offs" only after it's received enough praise that many seem to consider it as one of the best games of the current console generation? I wonder if this game had been a total flop, if we would have heard from either of these two about how it's so offensive to them that their works are ripped off and yada yada.

I think both this guy and Ellen just smelled money and jumped for it.

That doesn't mean it's okay for Naughty Dog to rip-off other people, mind. Only that I sincerely doubt the motives of these two "poor victims" were as pure as they pretend to be. They just want a piece of the pie like everyone else. Justified or not, greed is still greed, and it's disgusting to look at.

FalloutJack:

Lieju:
Snip

Dude, you're taking this way too seriously, and you're doing that thing where you divide my post up into little snippets and I hate that.

Really?

FalloutJack:

Cut it out.

Okay.

FalloutJack:

In any case, my points are not what you call irrelvent, but a different perspective which also applies in the reality we live in. Now, you can get bent out of shape over that, like our man of the map does, or you can take it in stride like me and not sweat the small stuff. It's just a map, not even anything really personal. If there's anything here that's irrelevent, it's the original claim. This guy is not going to be taken seriously.

Your perspective was that you wouldn't mind if someone stole your work, so this guy shouldn't either.
Look, if you don't want to have discussions, don't post on discussion-forums.

CriticKitten:
Isn't it interesting that this game is being called out on several "rip-offs" only after it's received enough praise that many seem to consider it as one of the best games of the current console generation? I wonder if this game had been a total flop, if we would have heard from either of these two about how it's so offensive to them that their works are ripped off and yada yada.

Because it's so good and has gotten so much publicity, the chances of people noticing their work was used was higher. As was the chances of this kind of stuff getting reported.

Also, if the game hadn't been so good, I suspect there's be less people jumping to defend Naughty Dog.

CriticKitten:

I think both this guy and Ellen just smelled money and jumped for it.

How did Ellen try to profit from it, exactly?

CriticKitten:

That doesn't mean it's okay for Naughty Dog to rip-off other people, mind. Only that I sincerely doubt the motives of these two "poor victims" were as pure as they pretend to be. They just want a piece of the pie like everyone else. Justified or not, greed is still greed, and it's disgusting to look at.

Yes, people should not get paid for their work. That's greedy.

Unless they're multi-million corporations, of course.

Lieju:
....

That isn't what I said and you know it. If you don't want to understand what I said, don't call me out on things. I say it isn't work it isn't worth anything, and it's lying on the ground like a mislaid button. And you missed out on all of it. Now, you will cut the instigating. You're already reported.

Legion:
Now that they know it is his, I agree they should respond, but to be honest depending on how they discovered it I can't see it being difficult to not realise that it was made by a graphic designer, it's not like it was a well known intellectual property or anything. I wouldn't be surprised if they just image searched for a map and it came up somewhere.

Although of course they should still have done their research and looked into it properly.

As a company, and a big one at that, just because you find something on Google images, doesn't mean it automatically means it's up for grabs.
You have to take the time to find out the source of the image you want to use, and finding out whether or not it's legally protected or not.

That's like me finding a picture of Mickey Mouse online, and using it in a selling product.
Turns out it was official art, and Disney wants to sue me to bankruptcy.
Me saying I found it on Google images is not going to protect me in court.

FalloutJack:

Lieju:
....

That isn't what I said and you know it. If you don't want to understand what I said, don't call me out on things. I say it isn't work it isn't worth anything, and it's lying on the ground like a mislaid button. And you missed out on all of it. Now, you will cut the instigating. You're already reported.

I think people seriously undervalue the time and energy it takes to make an accurate map of the subway system. Especially in a Graphic Design setting.
How is what he did not work exactly?
You'd be surprised how difficult it is to get everything in correct position. Especially when it's supposed to resemble something from real life.

It can get easily cluttered. It can get easily inaccurate by just a single half-inch.
He can easily skip over a location by accident that might be unimportant to him, but very important to one who needs to find said location if they ever look at that map in real life.
He even has to account for the "You are here" dot depending on where he's told the maps would be located.

It's like as the years go by, the general public take less and less into consideration how much work is put into this stuff and in art in general.

Well since the creator of that map's image has the MBTA logo and website on it as per the original and he posted segments of his map version on tumbler without providing a source link to his page or saying who made it I'm finding it hard to build up any sympathy

Granted his website is on the finished image in a very small font size in the bottom left, so if someone can find that on the image in game it should be easy to tell. Unless it was intentionally hidden

They could have just made one themselves, there are means of creation beyond ripping from the internet when you have all that uncharted money you know.

But I think he is over-reacting by saying that he is "fucking furious". I mean I admit I would be a bit annoyed, but I don't think I would get all that angry at a game using something that I created. Granted that doesn't mean I wouldn't press charges against the company like it seems our man over here threatened to do, but I feel he is kind of over-reacting there.

Honestly it just seems like a dumb mistake on Naughty Dogs behalf, I highly doubt they where maliciously using his updated map, they probably just didn't notice that it was updated. I doubt this will end up going anywhere either, Naughty Dog if they aren't stupid will just pay the man his dues and then they can sweep it under the rug.

P.S. I still think the whole Ellie=Ellen Paige thing is a complete coincidence. It looks like the Last of Us is running into all sorts of random bit of trouble here.

Lieju:
Because it's so good and has gotten so much publicity, the chances of people noticing their work was used was higher. As was the chances of this kind of stuff getting reported.

Also, if the game hadn't been so good, I suspect there's be less people jumping to defend Naughty Dog.

I imagine not, but the point remains valid all the same.

How did Ellen try to profit from it, exactly?

If she's not already in talks with the studio to settle the situation, then she'll be looking to file suit. Just you wait.

Yes, people should not get paid for their work. That's greedy.

Unless they're multi-million corporations, of course.

That, of course, presumes that the work(s) in question were actually ripped off and not just similar, but okay, we can play that game.

Let's pretend this was genuinely ripped off piece of work in both cases. That Naughty Dog definitely intended to make their character into Ellen, and that they clearly stole this subway layout from this person, and that in both cases it was done with utterly malicious intent. How much do they "deserve" for this tiny contribution of work that barely encompasses a fraction of the overall product?

Accreditation in the end credits? A financial sum? And if the latter, how much?

I guarantee that whatever number you say (provided you're actually trying to be realistic and don't just make up a dumb number) is a lesser amount than what they're negotiating to receive as a result of these claims. That's what we call "greed", plain and simple.

But hey, you can believe what you want to believe. But my own experiences with people lead me to believe that they can be just as greedy as any corporation.

CriticKitten:
If she's not already in talks with the studio to settle the situation, then she'll be looking to file suit. Just you wait..

If that happens, then it happens.
But the fact is, you're saying she is greedy because she mentioned (when asked) in an interview that she thought her likeness was ripped off.
I don't think she will, though, because I don't think she has grounds for it, and I don't think she expressed anything else than annoyance that people will get those two games mixed up.

CriticKitten:

Yes, people should not get paid for their work. That's greedy.

Unless they're multi-million corporations, of course.

That, of course, presumes that the work(s) in question were actually ripped off and not just similar, but okay, we can play that game.

Let's pretend this was genuinely ripped off piece of work in both cases. That Naughty Dog definitely intended to make their character into Ellen, and that they clearly stole this subway layout from this person, and that in both cases it was done with utterly malicious intent. How much do they "deserve" for this tiny contribution of work that barely encompasses a fraction of the overall product?

Accreditation in the end credits? A financial sum? And if the latter, how much?

I don't think intent really matters, in the case of the map, at least.

With Ellen, I don't think she should be compensated (ND should probably admit they based Ellie on her, and changed her design because they found out Ellen was acting in Two souls), but with this guy, where they used his work, he should get paid.
I have no idea how much licenses for maps like that cost (maps can be expensive, though)...

But if it was really such a small amount of work he did, then it shouldn't have been a big deal for ND to make a map themselves, from scratch, right?
Or find an image they can use and pay for it in the first place?

Dragonbums:
A more interesting view.

It could be. It MIGHT be. But I don't really think what I call serious graphics work would be handled in this fashion. Noe, obviously he and people of the game have come to an accord on the matter and he admits himself that his blustery attitude was a mistake, but I still think that things you value that much should - if you're going to put it on the internet like that - have some kind of proviso or disclaimer covering you, so as to say "Hey, you were warned". I don't think this would happen if at least that were observed, what about you?

FalloutJack:

Dragonbums:
A more interesting view.

It could be. It MIGHT be. But I don't really think what I call serious graphics work would be handled in this fashion. Noe, obviously he and people of the game have come to an accord on the matter and he admits himself that his blustery attitude was a mistake, but I still think that things you value that much should - if you're going to put it on the internet like that - have some kind of proviso or disclaimer covering you, so as to say "Hey, you were warned". I don't think this would happen if at least that were observed, what about you?

It's a public map though.
Chances are, his map was displayed on whatever social media site his puts up his works.
Which in that case is in fair show to be displayed on Google images. Not to mention the fact that Metropolis themselves would've displayed it on their site.
However most people often resort to these measures of ruckus because in the real world, had he of gone in and asked them to politely credit him for his work, then he would've been ignored. Completely.
So instead of wasting his time, he caused a huge ruckus. That always leads to something being done.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here