• 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?

zoukka

Member
Nov 18, 2006
36,148
2
940
Finland
There's a really big difference in using reference material and just slapping an image below your "artwork".

This is really common though.
 

Plaguefox

Member
May 12, 2007
1,218
0
1,245
It's pretty obvious that the photograph in question was used as a base for the concept art. Anyone who is trying to suggest that the concept art was "just another drawing of the same angle" or used the photo as a reference without using it as the source asset doesn't understand the things that "fingerprint" it.

It may not even be a big deal because as some said, the photographer may not have the only rights to the original photograph and the concept artist might have actually obtained the right to use the work.

But to be frank, I really don't think the original poster made this thread to call out "the PS3 exclusive", so it's pretty sad to see people defending the concept artist against speculation. People really do have ownership problems. It wasn't a console war, don't make it a console war.

It's also a bit silly to see people chomping at the bit about suing people. Now that the photographer is aware of the situation, I'm sure he either knows—or will soon know—what the deal is and will take the appropriate action.

Awesome digital editing and animation in this thread to emphasize the aforementioned obvious spots, though. Kudos.
 

Jocchan

Ὁ μεμβερος -ου
Feb 16, 2007
17,255
0
0
Silent Hill
www.jocchan.com
zoukka said:
There's a really big difference in using reference material and just slapping an image below your "artwork".

This is really common though.
Of course it is. 99.9% of the times people simply don't notice, because reference material is used in a subtle way (or isn't well-known enough).
Using stock photos is also pretty important: last month I saw a book by some Italian author sporting the same cover as Free Radical's Second Sight (minus the gun).
It wasn't a theft, I had already heard (don't know if it was here on GAF or somewhere else) it was just a stock photo used by both publishers.

EDIT: also, reposting for the new page:
Jocchan said:
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):

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.
 

Zenith

Banned
Feb 17, 2006
12,579
1
0
Wow, the first couple of posters were way too defensive. talk about hive mentality.
 

Haunted

Member
Nov 16, 2006
78,220
18
965
It's clearly using the photo as reference/starting point for the shop, there's no denying that.


But I doubt Sucker Punch/Sony would make such a huge blunder and don't ask for permission from the photographer, so it's probably a non-issue. I don't know how these things work, maybe this photograph is in a stockphoto database as well or something?


Jocchan said:
Of course it is. 99.9% of the times people simply don't notice, because reference material is used in a subtle way (or isn't well-known enough).
Using stock photos is also pretty important: last month I saw a book by some Italian author sporting the same cover as Free Radical's Second Sight (minus the gun).
It wasn't a theft, I had already heard (don't know if it was here on GAF or somewhere else) it was just a stock photo used by both publishers.
link it! I want to see. :)
 

Rad Agast

Member
Jun 7, 2007
1,947
11
1,275
I really hope whoever was responsible for the inFamous art obtained permission to use the original photograph. What happened to dev teams taking their own photos of the landscape to use in their games/art design?

Haunted said:
But I doubt Sucker Punch/Sony would make such a huge blunder and don't ask for permission from the photographer, so it's probably a non-issue. I don't know how these things work, maybe this photograph is in a stockphoto database as well or something?

It's most likely the case. I can't imagine them making such a big fuck up to be honest.
 

Jocchan

Ὁ μεμβερος -ου
Feb 16, 2007
17,255
0
0
Silent Hill
www.jocchan.com
Haunted said:
But I doubt Sucker Punch/Sony would make such a huge blunder and don't ask for permission from the photographer, so it's probably a non-issue.
Yep. I sincerely doubt one of their artists would risk this much when working on artwork for such an anticipated game. It's not like he could have thought "who cares, no one is going to notice".

Haunted said:
link it! I want to see. :)
Sorry, I can't remember neither the title nor the author :(
 

Chrange

Banned
Jul 29, 2007
3,826
0
0
Jocchan said:
Yep. I sincerely doubt one of their artists would risk this much when working on artwork for such an anticipated game. It's not like he could have thought "who cares, no one is going to notice".(

Okami/IGN. Nuff said.
 

test_account

XP-39C²
Mar 22, 2007
23,612
2
1,130
TheFallen said:
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.
No problem for me about making a thread about this :) I think it is cool that you saw that the picture were the same as another one, good eye :)

And i hope that the original maker of the skyline picture gets payed by Sucker Punch and/or Sony if they did use this picture without his permission. It is indeed a good looking picture as well in my opinion :)


Jocchan said:
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".
Ye, that is true :) What does "very big" does in Google Image search by the way, search for big pictures?

By the way, i am an idiot lol :\ In my previous post 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.


Chrange said:
Okami/IGN. Nuff said.
What is this about?
 

kitchenmotors

Banned
Jun 7, 2004
9,293
0
1,425
40
:lol Seems like this place has gone to hell after E3. What's with all the new extremists lately? Then again, this is GAF. :lol
 

antiloop

Member
Jun 20, 2006
6,905
1
0
kitchenmotors said:
:lol Seems like this place has gone to hell after E3. What's with all the new extremists lately? Then again, this is GAF. :lol

The console war is really heating up again. AC2 VS UC2, Natal VS wand, MS conference VS Sony conference, Forza VS GT, Heavy Rain VS Alan Wake and so on.

It will calm down. Let the dust after E3 settle. ;)
 

Fafalada

Fafracer forever
Jun 22, 2004
7,878
713
1,795
Jocchan said:
Yep. I sincerely doubt one of their artists would risk this much when working on artwork for such an anticipated game. It's not like he could have thought "who cares, no one is going to notice".
Indeed - and anparticularly when it comes to promotional material, companies(at least bigger ones) are incredibly pedantic about avoiding legal issues - I've seen one of our recent games go through being forced to change the main promo-material simply because it used a similar (perhaps remarkably so) angle to another popular game for the shot - even though the art itself was 100% original.
 

revolverjgw

Member
Sep 21, 2006
17,907
5
0
Nova Scotia
rateyourmusic.com
This is like the 9 millionth time I've seen that picture via the internet. I've downloaded huge photography databases of various types from torrent sites and this one is ALWAYS in them, it seems like it would be a stock photo. I'm also pretty sure I've seen deviantart or whatever artists use it as a reference for photo manipulations.
 

kitchenmotors

Banned
Jun 7, 2004
9,293
0
1,425
40
I'm sorry, but it's obvious the artists took the original photograph and used it. Look at the light rays coming off the building in the middle, they're still present in the final artwork!

Regardless of what developer it is or what system it's on, stealing is bad, mmkay? Maybe I'm more sensitive to this issue, being a photographer myself.

 

itxaka

Defeatist
Feb 21, 2007
11,446
0
1,445
Bioshock
LiquidMetal14 said:
Yes, inFAMOUS is awesome.


Exactly.

And probably they used with permission. And if not, well they will probably settle with the author or something.

For me, they look identical, just with a bit of retouching on top of the original picture.
 
Aug 19, 2006
25,598
1
0
Thanks for the Okami/IGN story, that was far more entertaining than this one.


kitchenmotors said:
I'm sorry, but it's obvious the artists took the original photograph and used it. Look at the light rays coming off the building in the middle, they're still present in the final artwork!

Regardless of what developer it is or what system it's on, stealing is bad, mmkay?

Yeah it looks like they covered over all the other rays from the bright light, but left those ones in because they look like they're coming from the building.
 

Dead Man

Member
Aug 24, 2007
54,233
0
0
For what it's worth, the original on Flickr has a creative commons license.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/deed.en

You are free:

* to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
* to Remix — to adapt the work
*

Under the following conditions:

*

Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).

Attribute this work:
Information
What does "Attribute this work" mean?
The page you came from contained embedded licensing metadata, including how the creator wishes to be attributed for re-use. You can use the HTML here to cite the work. Doing so will also include metadata on your page so that others can find the original work as well.
*

Noncommercial — You may not use this work for commercial purposes.

With the understanding that:

* Waiver — Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.
* Other Rights — In no way are any of the following rights affected by the license:
o Your fair dealing or fair use rights;
o The author's moral rights;
o Rights other persons may have either in the work itself or in how the work is used, such as publicity or privacy rights.
* Notice — For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to this web page.

I don't know if this would be possible if it was also licensed as a stock photo. Would they not want to ensure no one could use it for free if it was part of their stock collection?
 

J-Rzez

Member
Oct 19, 2005
14,485
3
0
Hmm. Yes it is striking similar, probably used the one for a reference. I doubt it was used with permission, and it was probably "stolen" like the OP labeled it in the thread title. I'm calling my Congressman. Right. Now.

A shame, because inFamous is such a great game.
 

Jocchan

Ὁ μεμβερος -ου
Feb 16, 2007
17,255
0
0
Silent Hill
www.jocchan.com
The Okami/IGN story is completely different: in Okami's case, the artist used a Capcom artwork made specifically for the game. He had to download it from IGN because, apparently, Ready at Dawn (the team responsible for the port) didn't get many hi-res art assets from Capcom itself.
But he didn't steal anything from anyone, it was already their property.
 

itxaka

Defeatist
Feb 21, 2007
11,446
0
1,445
Bioshock
idahoblue said:
For what it's worth, the original on Flickr has a creative commons license.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/deed.en



I don't know if this would be possible if it was also licensed as a stock photo. Would they not want to ensure no one could use it for free if it was part of their stock collection?



well, that is fucked up. CC allows it to be used for non-comercial uses. The author should have changed the license if it was gonna be used for commercial uses even with his permission.

Looks like or they fucked up or the author broke his own license. :lol

CC is sometimes stupid.
 

medrew

Member
Jan 14, 2006
4,386
0
0
Enzed
itxaka said:
well, that is fucked up. CC allows it to be used for non-comercial uses. The author should have changed the license if it was gonna be used for commercial uses even with his permission.

Looks like or they fucked up or the author broke his own license. :lol

CC is sometimes stupid.

Ahh, CC clearly states that:

"Waiver — Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder."

So an artist can't 'break' their own license.

I would not be surprised if someone from Sucker Punch used this without permission. This sort of shit goes on all the time, but with the internet what it is today it's only a matter of time until you get found out.
 

itxaka

Defeatist
Feb 21, 2007
11,446
0
1,445
Bioshock
medrew said:
Ahh, CC clearly states that:

"Waiver — Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder."

So an artist can't 'break' their own license.

I would not be surprised if someone from Sucker Punch used this without permission. This sort of shit goes on all the time, but with the internet what it is today it's only a matter of time until you get found out.


Good, because I was looking the word Waiver in the dictionary, you saved me some time :lol
 

Dibbz

Member
Oct 6, 2007
8,835
0
0
I thought with images if you change more than a certain percentage of the image then it essentially becomes a new piece of work. Dunno where I heard that though.

To me it looks like the Infamous pic has more than enough of the origianl image changed to be accepeted as a new piece.
 

Xyphie

Member
Oct 4, 2007
2,938
659
1,415
Somewhere
Makes you wonder how much under the table use of copyrighted assets there's in the gaming business. I remember someone found a GPL violation in ICO a few years ago.
 

tfur

Member
Oct 21, 2007
3,596
1,004
1,445
This would probably fall under the "derivative work", section of the copyright act.
 
Apr 4, 2008
1,529
0
0
I thought PS3 owners were supposed to have the most discerning vision since they were drawn to the best (console) graphics of this gen.

This thread makes me think that a lot of people need slink off quietly to monoprice.com.
 

Dead Man

Member
Aug 24, 2007
54,233
0
0
lowlylowlycook said:
I thought PS3 owners were supposed to have the most discerning vision since they were drawn to the best (console) graphics of this gen.

This thread makes me think that a lot of people need slink off quietly to monoprice.com.
Really?
 

test_account

XP-39C²
Mar 22, 2007
23,612
2
1,130
kitchenmotors said:
:lol Seems like this place has gone to hell after E3. What's with all the new extremists lately? Then again, this is GAF. :lol
Are there someone who are extremist in this thread though? :) Or are you talking in general, and not just about this thread?


OnPoint said:
Okami/IGN:

http://kotaku.com/381846/ign-watermark-in-okami-cover-art

Short version: the original Wii release of Okami had an IGN watermark on the cover. Barely noticable, but definitely there. One of those "can't be unseen" deals.

http://i42.tinypic.com/21eyvqb.jpg
Ah ok, i didnt know about this, thanks for the info :)


lowlylowlycook said:
I thought PS3 owners were supposed to have the most discerning vision since they were drawn to the best (console) graphics of this gen.

This thread makes me think that a lot of people need slink off quietly to monoprice.com.
Out of curiousity, in what context does this have to do with this thread? This thread is about if Sucker Punch were allowed to use this skyline picture or not, because it is so to say 100% sure that they used that skyline picture as a refference when they made the inFamous artwork, so what does this have to do with "discerning vision"? English isnt my first language, so maybe i dont understand, sorry :\ I am not trying to be rude or anything, i am just curious on what you mean :)
 

Dre

Member
Jul 13, 2007
1,104
2
860
Munich, Germany
test_account said:
Out of curiousity, in what context does this have to do with this thread? This thread is about if Sucker Punch were allowed to use this skyline picture or not, because it is so to say 100% sure that they used that skyline picture as a refference when they made the inFamous artwork, so what does this have to do with "discerning vision"? English isnt my first language, so maybe i dont understand, sorry :\ I am not trying to be rude or anything, i am just curious on what you mean :)
I'm guessing it was a semi-stealth troll attempt, since like you said, it has absolutely nothing to do with Sucker Punch allegedly using copyrighted material for commercial use.
 

Mamesj

Banned
Jul 30, 2007
8,124
0
0
Well, I was going to buy this game today but between the mediocre reviews and stolen art work, I don't think I will.
 
N

NinjaFridge

Unconfirmed Member
This thread is full of trolls and fanboys.

Sucker Punch made the game, not Sony. Thought that would be helpful to you guys (but probably not the trolls).
Also, we don't know shit yet so i don't know why you guys are jumping on them already for this. Amateur lawyer GAF sucks, it is Innocent until proven guilty not the other way around.

Mamesj said:
Well, I was going to buy this game today but between the mediocre reviews and stolen art work, I don't think I will.

:lol
 

GodofWine

Member
May 8, 2008
7,382
2
0
If you don't know it was used without permission / or wasn't altered enough to be used, then you don't point fingers (question marks do not make this non accusatory)
(?)
 

Dragon

Banned
Jul 7, 2007
24,878
0
0
Mamesj said:
Well, I was going to buy this game today but between the mediocre reviews and stolen art work, I don't think I will.

Yeah I wouldn't bother playing the demo. Those other things you listed are far more important to figuring out if it's a good game :lol

lowlylowlycook said:
I thought PS3 owners were supposed to have the most discerning vision since they were drawn to the best (console) graphics of this gen.

This thread makes me think that a lot of people need slink off quietly to monoprice.com.

Yo man. I got a piece of advice. The PS3 didn't have sex with your sister. All this angst is unnecessary and pointless.
 

Kestastrophe

Member
Aug 15, 2007
2,119
0
0
This is indefensible, as far as it being the same basic image. The lights in each respective window on each building are identical to the original photograph. Not commenting on whether or not this image was "stolen" or not, but way to take the moral highground and defend a corporate entity
 

JudgeN

Member
Apr 12, 2007
3,961
1
1,260
So this thread was created based on an assumption that the image was stolen? Jesus people make thread when you have facts, all your doing is stirring up shit without any information.

By the grace of god, lets lock this thread.
 

Kinitari

Black Canada Mafia
Feb 10, 2008
20,293
0
0
Well its obvious the photo is used as a base for that artwork - but I'd like to think it wasn't stolen. Hopefully it was just a stock photo available to him, and the artist doesn't really keep track of where all his stock photo's go.
 

Gravijah

Member
Dec 7, 2008
39,071
1
765
Florida
shagg_187 said:
If this leads to a lawsuit (which it shouldn't), the OP is going in my blocked list...

You should. Fuck the copyrighted material of small artists. Little bitches. Always complaining because their parents money funded their art school and they haven't done shit with it since.