• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Infamous artwork stolen from popular photographer?

Sinatar

Official GAF Bottom Feeder
Jun 7, 2004
36,859
0
1,745
Edmonton
karasu said:
They certainly aren't using the same composition and he didn't create the city. :/



 

Jocchan

Ὁ μεμβερος -ου
Feb 16, 2007
17,255
0
0
Silent Hill
www.jocchan.com
Oh, and thanks OP for letting me know who shot that beautiful pic.
I had found it on Google Images a few months ago, and have it in my wallpapers folder, but didn't know who made it.
Maybe the Sucker Punch artist found it in the same way.
 

TheFallen

Member
Dec 10, 2006
1,860
0
0
Florida, US
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.

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.

I would generally agree with you, the two images have identical details in various parts, down to the texturing. Paulo's work received a bit of modifications from a standard photograph ("HDR on Photomatix. Made using 3 exposures, 2 stops each." according to his flickr). So the textures being so similar would raise some concern that this was more than a reference. Damn good photoshopping for sure, they even redid a majority of the road.

Jocchan said:
Oh, and thanks OP for letting me know who shot that beautiful pic.
I had found it on Google Images a few months ago, and have it in my wallpapers folder, but didn't know who made it.
Maybe the Sucker Punch artist found it in the same way.

oh hell yea, I've used it for my desktop and phone many times. I was shocked looking through the video game wallpaper thread and finding this.
 

DopeyFish

Not bitter, just unsweetened
Jun 6, 2004
37,148
1
1,615
jaundicejuice said:
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.



Exactly.

Stealing is stealing. So when someone takes a piece of music, lays their own lyrics on top of it and reuses it... it's referencing? Not Stealing? Because this is exactly what this is

and for the record, you would need to get permission to use this photo in any manner. it's obvious quite a bit of the original photograph still exists, correct?
 

Jocchan

Ὁ μεμβερος -ου
Feb 16, 2007
17,255
0
0
Silent Hill
www.jocchan.com
TheFallen said:
I would generally agree with you, the two images have identical details in various parts, down to the texturing. Paulo's work received a bit of modifications from a standard photograph ("HDR on Photomatix. Made using 3 exposures, 2 stops each." according to his flickr). So the textures being so similar would raise some concern that this was more than a reference. Damn good photoshopping for sure, they even redid a majority of the road.
Well, I don't agree here: it doesn't matter if the original photo was manipulated by its original author or not, because they're not using it (neither in Paulo's original form nor shopped).
They painted over it, using it as a reference (it's pretty obvious) and changed a few details here and there, and this is generally allowed (not to mention extremely common).
This is why I wouldn't talk about stealing ;)

TheFallen said:
oh hell yea, I've used it for my desktop and phone many times. I was shocked looking through the video game wallpaper thread and finding this.
I like the pic too :D

lupinko said:
Really? I hated the demo, but I bought the game and absolutely love it.
I found the demo extremely boring. I wanted to give it another chance but in the end I never ended up picking it up again. Maybe I will sometime in the future, though.
 

Chrange

Banned
Jul 29, 2007
3,826
0
0
karasu said:
Are we talking about different building or something? Because the two I'm talking about are not the same.



He didn't bother changing those windows, among about three dozen other unique identifying marks in the original pic, just hid them a bit with a light.

Using the pic for reference perspective would be one thing, this is lazier than that. It looks a hell of a lot more like alteration of the original image, not creation of a new one.
 

karasu

Member
Jun 7, 2004
17,547
254
1,600
VA
www.twitch.tv
Chrange said:


He didn't bother changing those windows, among about three dozen other unique identifying marks in the original pic, just hid them a bit with a light.

Using the pic for reference perspective would be one thing, this is lazier than that. It looks a hell of a lot more like alteration of the original image, not creation of a new one.


Oh those windows. We were talking about completely different buildings. Well yeah, you're right about them. But stealing and lazy are still two fucked up word choices that have no business being used here.
 

Wolves Evolve

Member
Sep 11, 2006
3,655
0
0
Thats fucked. This probably happens everywhere. Its fun to spot though. The concept art team can't catch a bus and take a camera so off they go to google images.

I'm using 'em - I'm using those words : STEALING AND LAZY.

I'm using them because they apply here. Someone working for a corporate entity, using another entity's work in their work without proper credit, is stealing and its lazy lazy lazy.
 

devilhawk

Member
Jun 2, 2007
6,560
0
0
Chrange said:
He didn't bother changing those windows, among about three dozen other unique identifying marks in the original pic, just hid them a bit with a light.

Using the pic for reference perspective would be one thing, this is lazier than that. It looks a hell of a lot more like alteration of the original image, not creation of a new one.
The 'referencing' act some are proclaiming should end with that image. If they got permission, that's fine. Otherwise, it is stolen.
 

DogWelder

Member
Aug 2, 2008
3,396
0
0
Tellaerin said:
No worse than using any other reference photo for a city skyline. I get the impression the OP's just trying to stir up shit.
Really? He's trying to stir up shit? With artwork? Good God, people will defend anything these days. It's really embarrassing.
 

test_account

XP-39C²
Mar 22, 2007
23,612
2
1,130
TheFallen said:
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.
If it was used with permission (which i would guess it was?), where is the grand fuck up? Is it just because that all the graphics wasnt made from scratch by one person? Why does that matter too much, especially if they had the permission to use this city artwork? I think that this inFamous artwork looks pretty good.

EDIT: Sorry i missread, i thought you said "with permission", so i was wondering why you ment it was a grand fuck up. But i now see that you said "without permission", and then i agree with what you say :)
 

devilhawk

Member
Jun 2, 2007
6,560
0
0
test_account said:
If it was used with permission (which i would guess it was), where is the grand fuck up? Is it just because that all the graphics wasnt made from scratch by one person? Why does that matter too much, especially if they had the permission to use this city artwork? I think that this inFamous artwork looks pretty good.
He only said it would be a fuckup IF they didn't get permission. Don't put words in his mouth.
 

Wolves Evolve

Member
Sep 11, 2006
3,655
0
0
IS EVERYONE AWARE THAT THE OP CONTACTED THE ARTIST, WHO DID NOT GIVE PERMISSION?

Reading is fundamental.

Am I the only one that reads an entire thread before posting?
 

karasu

Member
Jun 7, 2004
17,547
254
1,600
VA
www.twitch.tv
Wolves Evolve said:
IS EVERYONE AWARE THAT THE OP CONTACTED THE ARTIST, WHO DID NOT GIVE PERMISSION?

Reading is fundamental.

Am I the only one that reads an entire thread before posting?


Congratulations. You're special.
 

test_account

XP-39C²
Mar 22, 2007
23,612
2
1,130
devilhawk said:
He only said it would be a fuckup IF they didn't get permission. Don't put words in his mouth.
How am i putting words in his mouth by asking him questions?

But i missread what he said, sorry. For some reason i read "if it was done with permission", so i was wondering how it was a grand fuck up to use artwork if someone had the permission to use it. But i now see that he said "if it was done without permission", and then i agree with him :)
 

Truant

Member
Apr 23, 2007
12,311
3
0
What's that theory again about cult members becoming even more dedicated the more ridiculous the lie is?
 

McBacon

SHOOTY McRAD DICK
Mar 7, 2006
13,311
0
0
United Kingdom
I actually own the original PSD of this image, but its 240MB so I'm not gonna upload it.

Unfortuantly there aren't as many layers to this one as the other artworks, so the base background image, without all the filters, looks like this:



Sorry I couldn't be of more help
 

BeeDog

Member
Aug 2, 2007
15,495
0
0
Sweden
Musashi Wins! said:
It is misleading.

But more importantly PROTECT THE HIVE!1!

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.

Monsterland said:
My precious ps3 exclusive.

Truant said:
What's that theory again about cult members becoming even more dedicated the more ridiculous the lie is?

And the best one thus far...

kitchenmotors said:
Jesus, the fucking PS3 hive is annoying. This has nothing to do with your PS3 exclusive, it has to do with the rights of someone's work and it being used without permission. As a photographer and designer myself, I would be pissed if a company as big as Sony used my artwork without my permission and I found out about it from someone on the Internet.

Don't be a douche. Stealing is stealing. If this was Microsoft or Nintendo, I'm sure all the PS3 bots in this thread would be throwing a bitch-fit!


Only me finding these types of post annoying lately? "Quick, pull the PS3/(insert PS3 exclusive game) fanboy card!". Not saying everything's correct, but please.
 

Wario64

works for Gamestop (lol)
Jun 6, 2004
74,312
18
0
I like how people are trying to shoot this thread down because they automatically assumed Sony got permission to use the picture.
 

Wolves Evolve

Member
Sep 11, 2006
3,655
0
0
BeeDog, I would agree usually, but there's some mentally ill statements on page one. Its less to do with fanboyism though and wilful blindness to how lazy and disorganised *all* media corporations are with this stuff.
 

Raytow

Member
Mar 10, 2005
2,926
0
0
BeeDog said:
Only me finding these types of post annoying lately? "Quick, pull the PS3/(insert PS3 exclusive game) fanboy card!". Not saying everything's correct, but please.
It's also funny that some of those posters, keep repeating the same bullshit in almost every thread.
 

BeeDog

Member
Aug 2, 2007
15,495
0
0
Sweden
Wolves Evolve said:
BeeDog, I would agree usually, but there's some mentally ill statements on page one. Its less to do with fanboyism though and wilful blindness to how lazy and disorganised *all* media corporations are with this stuff.

Quite true. But regardless, this matter has been brought to the attention of the photographer, so there's really nothing more to do, unless bitching, whining and stupid defending is one's thing.
 

kitchenmotors

Banned
Jun 7, 2004
9,293
0
1,425
40
Jesus, the fucking PS3 hive is annoying. This has nothing to do with your PS3 exclusive, it has to do with the rights of someone's work and it being used without permission. As a photographer and designer myself, I would be pissed if a company as big as Sony used my artwork without my permission and I found out about it from someone on the Internet.

Don't be a douche. Stealing is stealing. If this was Microsoft or Nintendo, I'm sure all the PS3 bots in this thread would be throwing a bitch-fit!
 

antiloop

Member
Jun 20, 2006
6,905
1
0
Seems pretty impossible for the original creator to claim that the city is his? But go for it, I say.

The over-generalizing fanboys in this thread are pathetic at best. Guess it's too much for your brains to handle.
 

Gravijah

Member
Dec 7, 2008
39,071
1
765
Florida
antiloop said:
Seems pretty impossible for the original creator to claim that the city is his? But go for it, I say.

I'd check some of the gifs here. This isn't a matter of saying he owns the city.
 

Wolves Evolve

Member
Sep 11, 2006
3,655
0
0
Its not the city thats belongs to the photographer. Its the particular representation. The same applies to game design. The thing itself is never the issue, its the representation of it. This shot is clearly part of the composite artwork. They should have paid for it if they wanted to use it. It would have been cheap. They didn't. Someone is lazy.
 

test_account

XP-39C²
Mar 22, 2007
23,612
2
1,130
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.
To be fair, i think that most of those comments were made before the OP mentioned that he had asked the original artist of the skyline picture if he had given permission to Sucker Punch to use this picture or not. Maybe they thought that the OP just made asumptions or was guessing that the picture was stolen, but i dont know. But later the OP said that he had contacted the original artist of the skyline picture and that he got in reply that he hadnt given Sucker Punch the permission to use it.

I guess it also depends on what people means with "it's not a problem". I mean, if they didnt get permission to use the skyline picture, then this doesnt make the game/gameplay itself any worse or so, in this way it shouldnt really be a problem, at least in my opinion. And if the case was that Sucker Punch had the permission to use this picture from the original artist of the skyline picture, would it then be a problem? :)
 

Wolves Evolve

Member
Sep 11, 2006
3,655
0
0
kamorra said:
So this is bad because a artist uses a pic of a existing city as a reference to draw his own city?

Nobody drew their own city. Someone stole a soup stock and added their own vegetables.
 

billy.sea

Banned
Dec 10, 2008
1,666
0
0
This is obviously using the original artwork and modified it a little and published.

Everyone can interpret the same landscape, but it will definitely be interpreted differently. What Sony did was they took the artist's own interpretation of the landscape and used it as their own product.
 

GDGF

Soothsayer
Jun 6, 2004
23,913
2
0
44
Savannah, GA
kamorra said:
The mayor?

If it worked that way, no one would ever be able to sell a photograph, as every landscape/monument photo is a copy of an existing landscape/monument. It's pretty obvious that they threw his photo into Painter (or some such art program) and went to town.
 

Jocchan

Ὁ μεμβερος -ου
Feb 16, 2007
17,255
0
0
Silent Hill
www.jocchan.com
Wario64 said:
Made a quick GIF here

http://i44.tinypic.com/2yzlhdv.gif[IMG]

It seems pretty clear here.[/QUOTE]
I tried getting to the next step, and quickly shopped the original photo (it's not exactly the same and I didn't bother adding lights, fire and smoke, but it's still pretty close if you ask me):
[IMG]http://i41.tinypic.com/4tm3ig.gif
I think I could have achieved a much more similar result with a bit more time, so I'm pretty positive the background in the artwork could just be a photoshop with a few details painted over here and there.
 

Wolves Evolve

Member
Sep 11, 2006
3,655
0
0
Seriously, how can anybody defend this with a straight face? You think Sucker Punch sent up a photographer to the rooftop at exactly the same spot and took the same shot and went from there?

Maybe I need to step away. This is making me too crazy.
 

test_account

XP-39C²
Mar 22, 2007
23,612
2
1,130
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.
Ye, this might be one possibility. According to Paulo Barcellos' website, it says that he is working for Post-Production. Maybe Post-production owns the right to this skyline photography? It doesnt say how long he has been working for Post-production though. And i wonder why he didnt mention that Post-production owns the right (if they do) to this skyline picture when you asked him if he had given Sucker Punch the permission to use this picture. Based on what he replied, i would guess that he still owns the rights to the picture though, but i am just wondering if it could be a possibility that Post-Production owns the right to this skyline picture :)

EDIT: I am an idiot lol :\ I thought that Post-Production was a company becuse it had capital letters, but i think that he ment that he worked with post-production, and not a company that was named Post-Production, i am sorry about that mistake :\ It also says on his website that he is a freelancer now. But it says on Paulo Barcellos' website that he has been employed in many different places, so maybe some other company owns the right to this picture, but i dont know.
 

Jocchan

Ὁ μεμβερος -ου
Feb 16, 2007
17,255
0
0
Silent Hill
www.jocchan.com
Wolves Evolve said:
Seriously, how can anybody defend this with a straight face? You think Sucker Punch sent up a photographer to the rooftop at exactly the same spot and took the same shot and went from there?
Actually, you can use a photo as a reference for your own work. What you can't do is shop that photo and call it a day.
This case is pretty borderline if you ask me, so there's no need to add stupidity like the one I bolded.

test_account said:
Ye, this might be one possibility. According to Paulo Barcellos' website, it says that he is working for Post-Production. Maybe Post-production owns the right to this skyline photography? It doesnt say how long he has been working for Post-production though. And i wonder why he didnt mention that Post-production owns the right (if they do) to this skyline picture when you asked him if he had given Sucker Punch the permission to use this picture. Based on what he replied, i would guess that he still owns the rights to the picture though, but i am just wondering if it could be a possibility that Post-Production owns the right to this skyline picture :)
This is also a possibility. The photo could simply have been part of a stock archive, so there's no need for the author to know who bought it.
Or the artist could have found it in the first page of Google Images when you search for "new york skyline" and restrict your search to "very big".
 

soco

Member
Oct 3, 2006
10,685
2
0
there's enough differences that i don't really see the problem. it's a cityscape.