Infamous artwork stolen from popular photographer?

Dec 10, 2006
1,860
0
0
Florida, US
#1
Now obviously this isn't something completely new. People steal photos and artwork and modify it enough so that others don't recognize the original piece behind it. However, I realized one of the main artworks used for Sony's Infamous title was a modified version of Paulo Barcellos' New York City / Sin City skyline (posted in 2006). Here's the Infamous artwork in question. To show you this, I'm going to flip the Barcellos photo so that it matches up with the Infamous artwork, so that you may see how Sony's graphic designers have (likely?) stolen his work.

Barcellos' work alone:


Barcellos' work with the Infamous art 50% transparency lined up:


Barcellos' work with the Infamous art 100% on top of it lined up:


If this was done without his permission, I am disappointed in Sony's team. As a graphic designer, I would never make such a grand fuckup.
 
Feb 26, 2007
34,619
0
0
#4
Have you just assumed it was stolen and made an entire thread around that assumption? Admittedly you used a question mark at the end of the thread title but still, a bit pre-emptively damning if you ask me.
 
May 6, 2007
7,119
0
930
#5
Do you know if Sony received permission or are you just being ignorant and accusing Sony without proof? Something tells me it's the latter. If so, you need to get your facts straight before making accusitions of stealing.
 
Oct 22, 2006
23,464
0
0
#8
it is possible the image was submitted to a photo-purchasing site or was given permission.

But yeah, thats a pretty big fuckup thats becoming more and more common if they did steal it.
 
Aug 16, 2008
5,796
3
760
#11
magus said:
Perhaps it was used with permission. You have reason to believe that it wasn't?
This. Lets not jump to conclusions.
EDIT: Looking at the pieces separate, I don't know. Seem rather different.
EDIT: Oh nevermind, the first image you posted was flipped.
 
May 19, 2006
117
0
0
#13
You know, before making this thread, you could've just left a comment on his Flickr page asking him if Sony got permission (I really doubt they stole it), and there's a chance he would've replied.
 
Feb 19, 2008
10,913
0
0
Richmond, VA
#14
Truespeed said:
Actually, you just did. You posted his work without express written permission from him or Major League Baseball.
What the fuck, it's an interesting observation. He put a question mark and he's just presenting it. Quit being so goddamned defensive. The promo is obviously using that photo overlay. It's pretty neat to see the changes, but it would be a bit lame if they did it without approval.

To those that are doubting, just look at the tower in the back with the antennae and the building with the neon lights beginning with V. They're both the exact same.
 
May 6, 2007
7,119
0
930
#16
pakkit said:
What the fuck, it's an interesting observation. He put a question mark and he's just presenting it. Quit being so goddamned defensive. The promo is obviously using that photo overlay. It's pretty neat to see the changes, but it would be a bit lame if they did it without approval.
No, it's unsubstantiated slander. Hey chico, did you get the Major League Baseball line?
 
Jun 14, 2007
286
0
0
#19
devilhawk said:
Defensive much people? There is a question mark in the title.

And how are we supposed to know whether it was stolen or used with permission? Making a thread like this will just lead to knee jerk reactions of OMG, SUCKER PUNCH STOLE ARTWORK, and there is no evidence of that.


EDIT: So you contacted the artist and he was unaware of its use in Infamous?

...

OMG, SUCKER PUNCH/SONY AM THIEVES CONFIRMED :lol

Seriously, thats fucked up if they did steal it.
 
Jun 2, 2007
6,563
0
0
#21
iplay5150 said:
And how are we supposed to know whether it was stolen or used with permission? Making a thread like this will just lead to knee jerk reactions of OMG, SUCKER PUNCH STOLE ARTWORK, and there is no evidence of that.
See the OP's most recent post.
 
Aug 13, 2007
1,411
0
855
#23
Am I missing something here? The first picture is just a photo, right? I don't see how it would be a problem to make a painting depicting the same city from the same angle, it's not like they are literally using his photo.
 
Aug 16, 2008
5,796
3
760
#28
TheFallen said:
Well shots can be purchased from a photographer without them ever knowing (paid stock photos, etc), so I hardly feel that was 100% confirmation. Hence the question mark.
Either way I don't see why it isn't included. If you are asking a question you should provide what info you do know. :/

Other than saying he was unaware did he seem concerned?
 
Dec 10, 2008
1,666
0
0
#31
Funny to see some inFamous fanboy trying to saying it's not a problem.

But yeah, we don't know what's behind this, most likely Sucker Punch got permission to use the artwork.
 
Jul 29, 2007
3,826
0
0
#32
karasu said:
They certainly aren't using the same composition and he didn't create the city. :/
lol...what? Open the two pics and flip between them. There's even the same 'yellow window' 'white window' on the building below his hand, not to mention highlights on other windows.
 
Dec 10, 2006
1,860
0
0
Florida, US
#37
billy.sea said:
Funny to see some inFamous fanboy trying to saying it's not a problem.

But yeah, we don't know what's behind this, most likely Sucker Punch got permission to use the artwork.
Yea I don't understand why I was so suddenly slammed for even bringing it up. I can understand the whole "did you email him?" slew of comments, but I have emailed him and his response indicated that he did not know what Infamous was. I've pressed the matter with him in response, so we shall see once he sees the images.

Edit: Figured I should mention this thread has nothing to do with Infamous hating. Quite clearly intending on playing the game once it arrives from Gamefly. The demo was great. I simply noticed the similarity when viewing the Wallpaper thread on GAF, since this photo was my iphone wallpaper recently.
 
Jun 7, 2004
17,367
8
1,340
VA
www.twitch.tv
#38
Chrange said:
lol...what? Open the two pics and flip between them. There's even the same 'yellow window' 'white window' on the building below his hand, not to mention highlights on other windows.

What are you talking about? There are five lights on in that building and it's perspective is much closer to the viewer.
 
Jun 30, 2005
14,851
0
0
#39
I bet you that the concept artist did a Google Image search for a city skyline, or maybe it was New York skyline in particular, liked the photo, not knowing or caring whose it was, used it as a reference, altered some details here and there and called it a day.

And now it's fodder for an eSlappy fight here.
 
Jun 25, 2005
38,456
0
0
#44
karasu said:
What are you talking about? There are five lights on in that building and it's perspective is much closer to the viewer.
Seriously professor, my paragraph is TOTALLY different from the one on Wikipedia. The sentences are all in different spots and it uses a few different words.
 

Jocchan

Ὁ μεμβερος -ου
Feb 16, 2007
17,255
0
0
Silent Hill
www.jocchan.com
#45
jaundicejuice said:
I bet you that the concept artist did a Google Image search for a city skyline, or maybe it was New York skyline in particular, liked the photo, not knowing or caring whose it was, used it as a reference, altered some details here and there and called it a day.
Basically.
Using photos as reference for buildings and landscapes is extremely common, because it gives you better (and more detailed) results in much less time than just using your own imagination to design everything from scratch.
If they were using the picture without the photographer's permission, then the word stolen would have been appropriate. But using a landscape picture as a reference for their own artwork does not equate to steal.
In other words, nothing to see here.

P.S.: before ad hominem attacks, I'm not defending any hive here. I didn't like the demo and won't buy the game.
 
Jun 30, 2005
14,851
0
0
#48
Stealing it would be taking the photograph as is and passing it off as your own, what the creator of that image did was clearly reference the photo for the background imagery.

Jocchan said:
Basically.
Using photos as reference for buildings and landscapes is extremely common, because it gives you better (and more detailed) results in much less time than just using your own imagination to design everything from scratch.
If they were using the picture without the photographer's permission, then the word stolen would have been appropriate. But using a landscape picture as a reference for their own artwork does not equate to steal.
In other words, nothing to see here.
Exactly.