• 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?

Night_Trekker

Member
Jan 27, 2005
17,174
2
1,465
39
South Carolina
JudgeN said:
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.

Did you somehow miss the part where the OP contacted the original artist who indicated he had no idea what Infamous is?

Jesus Christ...
 

chubigans

y'all should be ashamed
Dec 7, 2006
27,115
0
1,290
www.vertigogaming.net
All of this was obviously done by the hands of Evil Cole. :mad:

"Hmmm...I could create an original art piece...or I could just steal this other guy's photo and add some things to make it my own..."

 
Jan 12, 2007
61,079
1
0
Toronto, ON. Canada
Gravijah said:
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.

You know what the fuck I meant. Instead of making it a scene, contact the dev team and get over with it. I'm just SICK and tired of lawsuits. Settlement? Sure. Lawsuit? Fuck that shit.

chubigans said:
All of this was obviously done by the hands of Evil Cole. :mad:

"Hmmm...I could create an original art piece...or I could just steal this other guy's photo and add some things to make it my own..."


:lol :lol :lol SHIIIIEEEEEETTTTTTTT!!!!!!
 

McBacon

SHOOTY McRAD DICK
Mar 7, 2006
13,311
0
0
United Kingdom
chubigans said:
All of this was obviously done by the hands of Evil Cole. :mad:

"Hmmm...I could create an original art piece...or I could just steal this other guy's photo and add some things to make it my own..."


:lol :lol :lol
 

vazel

Member
Aug 9, 2005
7,543
3
1,450
You can claim copyright to a skyline? Or should I say the composition of a photograph. Filmmakers use techniques from each other all the time.
 

JudgeN

Member
Apr 12, 2007
3,961
1
1,260
Night_Trekker said:
Did you somehow miss the part where the OP contacted the original artist who indicated he had no idea what Infamous is?

Jesus Christ...

I saw that but we still don't know if the artist owns the rights or if the employer at the time of the photo being taken does. Or At least that's what I got from this cluster fuck of a thread. There is also the whole "reference" thing at the end of the day calling it stolen is to harsh for now.
 

Dali

Member
Jan 2, 2007
25,558
0
0
Seventh Ring
BeeDog said:
And the best one thus far...




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.
So true. A bunch of people voice their disappointment in FF14 being a golfham MMO and the knee jerk, illiterate masses start crying about butthurt 360 fans. It really is an amazing phenomenon to witness.

On the subject of the paint-over (which is what it is). Paint-overs can sometimes be impressive works that require a lot of effort, but the fact that it is a paint-over and not an original work definitely detracts from its value as an artistic work IMO. It's like a fan made sprite, created using another sprite as a base.
 

Great Rumbler

Member
Feb 12, 2006
4,640
0
1,305
Oklahoma
shagg_187 said:
If this leads to a lawsuit (which it shouldn't), the OP is going in my blocked list...

Seriously, doesn't that artist know how awesome Infamous is? He should be PROUD that Sucker Puncher decided to use his little picture in the promotional artwork for their game. If he sues over something like this then he deserves not never make another dime off his "works".

And the OP should be ashamed that he ever thought to question the actions of Sony or Sucker Punch.
 

sprocket

Banned
Sep 10, 2006
4,384
0
0
they added building, signs and people. the street is totally different.

the end pic is 85% new stuff.


What dumb thing to complain about. Even more so right after a super E3 likw we just had.


edit: oh yeah 360 fans butt hurt.. ect ect.. ;)
 

Ephemeris

Member
Sep 11, 2007
13,398
0
930
Orlando, FL
chubigans said:
All of this was obviously done by the hands of Evil Cole. :mad:

"Hmmm...I could create an original art piece...or I could just steal this other guy's photo and add some things to make it my own..."

Dear Chubigans,


You win.


With regards,


Ephemeris.
 

gkryhewy

Member
Dec 28, 2004
9,505
0
0
OMG at the hive jumping right down the OPs throat instantly - as if there were even a remote chance of the artist having granted permission :lol .

I hope you people are being paid, and paid well.
 
Apr 4, 2008
1,529
0
0
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 :)

...

vazel said:
You can claim copyright to a skyline? Or should I say the composition of a photograph. Filmmakers use techniques from each other all the time.

See what I mean now?

To be clear some people in this thread need to have their eyes checked if they keep claiming that this has to do with "composition" after people have done all the work of showing it's a copy.
 

Wolves Evolve

Member
Sep 11, 2006
3,655
0
0
This thread makes it okay for governments to ban violent videogames. We are clearly too fucking stupid to cope with the simplest of concepts. Ban away. Close it up. Close it up, Germany!
 

Gravijah

Member
Dec 7, 2008
39,071
1
765
Florida
Wolves Evolve said:
This thread makes it okay for governments to ban violent videogames. We are clearly too fucking stupid to cope with the simplest of concepts. Ban away. Close it up. Close it up, Germany!

Germans are ahead of the curve again. Damn it damn it damn it.
 

Oxymoron

Member
Jun 10, 2004
1,119
0
1,400
gkrykewy said:
OMG at the fucking sony hive jumping right down the OPs throat instantly - as if there were even a remote chance of the artist having granted permission :lol .

I hope you people are being paid, and paid well.
Hey, at least this thread is useful in my ongoing goal to get every single fanboy on GAF on my ignore list.
 

forgeforsaken

Member
May 5, 2006
3,710
0
0
And suddenly were realize the real problem with Limbo of the Lost was that it was from a no name developer and looked to be a crappy game, otherwise it would have all been ok.
 

Mamesj

Banned
Jul 30, 2007
8,124
0
0
TheBranca18 said:
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



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



fish in a barrel
 
Jan 12, 2007
61,079
1
0
Toronto, ON. Canada
Great Rumbler said:
Seriously, doesn't that artist know how awesome Infamous is? He should be PROUD that Sucker Puncher decided to use his little picture in the promotional artwork for their game. If he sues over something like this then he deserves not never make another dime off his "works".

And the OP should be ashamed that he ever thought to question the actions of Sony or Sucker Punch.

And another "SMART PERSON" who is NOT being an "ASSHOLE" uses sarcasm. Read my post above. I'm definitely in favor of justice and royalty cheques but in no favor of lawsuits for they lead to a waste of time and money and at-times lead to the product being pulled from the shelves (in this case: Infamous).
 

Gravijah

Member
Dec 7, 2008
39,071
1
765
Florida
shagg_187 said:
And another "SMART PERSON" who is NOT being an "ASSHOLE" uses sarcasm. Read my post above. I'm definitely in favor of justice and royalty cheques but in no favor of lawsuits for they lead to a waste of time and money and at-times lead to the product being pulled from the shelves (in this case: Infamous).

Dude, there's no way the product would get pulled from the shelf. At most dude would want a check, and I'm pretty sure Sony would write that shit way before it gets that far.
 

Grecco

Member
May 3, 2006
21,525
0
0
Nobody is criticizing inFamous or the PS3 just mentioning how blatant the stolen art is. But lol at the rush to defend it none the less.
 

sprocket

Banned
Sep 10, 2006
4,384
0
0
Gravijah said:
Dude, there's no way the product would get pulled from the shelf. At most dude would want a check, and I'm pretty sure Sony would write that shit way before it gets that far.


was sony even the ones behind the image? Im pretty sure it would have been an ad agency.
 

Great Rumbler

Member
Feb 12, 2006
4,640
0
1,305
Oklahoma
shagg_187 said:
And another "SMART PERSON" who is NOT being an "ASSHOLE" uses sarcasm. Read my post above. I'm definitely in favor of justice and royalty cheques but in no favor of lawsuits for they lead to a waste of time and money and at-times lead to the product being pulled from the shelves (in this case: Infamous).

And if he contacts Sony and they say "Bugger off, we're not paying you a dime"? He should just throw his hands up and walk away because lawsuits "lead to a waste of time and money"?
 

Gravijah

Member
Dec 7, 2008
39,071
1
765
Florida
sprocket said:
was sony even the ones behind the image? Im pretty sure it would have been an ad agency.

Whoever is responsible I suppose, though I could see Sony themselves paying the guy.
 

antiloop

Member
Jun 20, 2006
6,905
1
0
forgeforsaken said:
And suddenly were realize the real problem with Limbo of the Lost was that it was from a no name developer and looked to be a crappy game, otherwise it would have all been ok.

:lol
 

Tutomos

Member
Jan 14, 2006
1,022
529
1,535
I was just wondering if the OP can be sued with defamation by Sucker Punch's graphic artist if this thing turned out to be false.

This should just be between the OP and the photographer, until a lawsuit is filed then someone can post it in public.
 

sprocket

Banned
Sep 10, 2006
4,384
0
0
god look at the comparison above! Proof you guys complain too much. that picture is clearly way more added than the other. its barely any resemblance at all.

I can see if it was just copy and pasting the pic but there is barely anything fromt he old image left.
 

charlequin

Banned
Oct 19, 2005
26,635
1
1,405
Haunted said:
But I doubt Sucker Punch/Sony would make such a huge blunder and don't ask for permission from the photographer

Er, why would you doubt this?

This isn't really, in any meaningful sense, "Sony" or "Sucker Punch" at work, it's some individual graphic designer who is either an employee or contractor of one of the above companies who was commissioned to put this artwork together. People in these positions take shortcuts and use work without properly sourcing it all the time. Ideally, it's caught early; sometimes, no one up the chain finds out about it until the original artist or photographer contacts them about it.

I mean, yeah, it would be preferrable if people really did always think rationally and ethically about this sort of thing and go, "shit, maybe I shouldn't use unsourced, copyrighted material that'll open my bosses up to a lawsuit!" but, well. :lol The Okami box is a pretty good example of the sort of thing that happens.

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

The specific license being used here makes it very unlikely that this photo is independently licensed for stock photo use elsewhere on the Internet where someone can resell it without the author's knowledge.

(I'd also guess that the piece was found by someone who didn't understand the terms of the CC license rather than someone purposely lookng to use artwork illicitly.)

sprocket said:
the end pic is 85% new stuff.

And that is completely and totally irrelevant on both a legal and ethical level to the case at hand.
 

Kestastrophe

Member
Aug 15, 2007
2,119
0
0
sprocket said:
they added building, signs and people. the street is totally different.

the end pic is 85% new stuff.
lol

Gravijah said:
Just so everyone is aware, promotional artwork affects how good or bad a game is.


Grecco said:
Nobody is criticizing inFamous or the PS3 just mentioning how blatant the stolen art is. But lol at the rush to defend it none the less.
Yup. Thank God there are at least a few intelligent people in this thread
 

templeusox

Banned
Feb 18, 2008
2,344
0
0
A substantial part of any fair use claim is transfomation. I imagine that would be what Sony would claim here.
 

Wolves Evolve

Member
Sep 11, 2006
3,655
0
0
Fair use applies only in the most limited sense when its a commercial object, like this.

Do all the sane people in this thread want to hold hands? A rudimentary prayer circle, if you will. But since the stupidity of this thread precludes absolutely the existence of a divine ruler, we can pray to nature. Perhaps the earth mother will forgive us. Excuse me while I go download some images and put some BAD ASS filters on them for my ad campaign.
 
Jan 12, 2007
61,079
1
0
Toronto, ON. Canada
Great Rumbler said:
And if he contacts Sony and they say "Bugger off, we're not paying you a dime"? He should just throw his hands up and walk away because lawsuits "lead to a waste of time and money"?

Don't you feel awesome with your sarcasms?

Let me add to what I was trying to say: He has every right to sue Sony lawyers if he can prove that Sony used his work for profit and made money out of it AND if sorry says "Bugger Off". It's used in their concept art and alot of concept artists look for inspiration and this happens to be one of them.

When it comes to that "art" being used in the game or the boxart or the sleeve: It is INDEED used in the sleeve but the one available in the sleeve is modified and only includes Cole. It's modified to the extend that it can be called their own work (Ofcourse, you can start pinpointing stuff in that too. The only thing that's taking from the photograph is the road).
 
Apr 4, 2008
1,529
0
0
Wolves Evolve said:
Fair use applies only in the most limited sense when its a commercial object, like this.

Do all the sane people in this thread want to hold hands? A rudimentary prayer circle, if you will. But since the stupidity of this thread precludes absolutely the existence of a divine ruler, we can pray to nature. Perhaps the earth mother will forgive us. Excuse me while I go download some images and put some BAD ASS filters on them for my ad campaign.

I don't know, the pattern of lights being off or on in the big building to the right of the water tower could be considered a representation of a binary number. I don't think you can patent a number so Sony or whoever should be in the clear.
 

Chrange

Banned
Jul 29, 2007
3,826
0
0
Wolves Evolve said:
Fair use applies only in the most limited sense when its a commercial object, like this.

Do all the sane people in this thread want to hold hands? A rudimentary prayer circle, if you will. But since the stupidity of this thread precludes absolutely the existence of a divine ruler, we can pray to nature. Perhaps the earth mother will forgive us. Excuse me while I go download some images and put some BAD ASS filters on them for my ad campaign.

I can't believe you would say Infamous is a bad game.

What? Seems to be what the defenders are reading when people post anything with a lick of intelligence behind it.
 

Future PhaZe

Member
Oct 4, 2007
26,271
0
1,060
You can tell a lot about the allegiances of gaffers by some of the vehement championing going on in this thread :lol
 

vandalvideo

Banned
Jul 18, 2008
1,571
0
0
Looks like Deliverance
Big assumption being used; There isn't a unifying source that both artworks could have relied on in creating this schematic. For all intents and purposes, it could just be a generic eagle eye shot of a city somewhere.
 

test_account

XP-39C²
Mar 22, 2007
23,612
2
1,130
Dre said:
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.
Ye, maybe, i dont know, i was just wondering what he ment with the PS3 stuff :)


lowlylowlycook said:
...

See what I mean now?

To be clear some people in this thread need to have their eyes checked if they keep claiming that this has to do with "composition" after people have done all the work of showing it's a copy.
Ye, i think that i see what you mean, but i dont think that anyone are disagreeing that this inFamous artwork isnt based on that skyline picture. I think that what they are saying is that even though the baseline (as how the shapes of the buildings are and where the building are located) in the inFamous artwork is the same as the skyline picture, some work has still been done with the inFamous artwork. It is not exactly a direct copy of the skyline picture in this way, at least in my opinion :)
 

Gravijah

Member
Dec 7, 2008
39,071
1
765
Florida
test_account said:
Ye, maybe, i dont know, i was just wondering what he ment with the PS3 stuff :)



Ye, i think that i see what you mean, but i dont think that anyone are disagreeing that this inFamous artwork isnt based on that skyline picture. I think that what they are saying is that even though the baseline (as how the shapes of the buildings are and where the building are located) in the inFamous artwork is the same as the skyline picture, some work has still been done with the inFamous artwork. It is not exactly a direct copy of the skyline picture in this way, at least in my opinion :)

The problem is there are lights and other details, not just buildings and shapes, located in BOTH pictures.
 

Truespeed

Member
May 6, 2007
7,275
365
1,410
Chrange said:
Slander is verbal. Might want to brush up on the Internet lawyering.

He verbally accused Sucker Punch of stealing and by inference calling them thieves. So you may want to brush up on comprehension.

# words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another
# defame: charge falsely or with malicious intent; attack the good name and reputation of someone
 

Chrange

Banned
Jul 29, 2007
3,826
0
0
test_account said:
Ye, i think that i see what you mean, but i dont think that anyone are disagreeing that this inFamous artwork isnt based on that skyline picture. I think that what they are saying is that even though the baseline (as how the shapes of the buildings are and where the building are located) in the inFamous artwork is the same as the skyline picture, some work has still been done with the inFamous artwork. It is not exactly a direct copy of the skyline picture in this way, at least in my opinion :)

You should probably read the thread again. There are at least a few who deny it was even a reference picture.

Truespeed said:
He verbally accused Sucker Punch of stealing and by inference calling them thieves. So you may want to brush up on comprehension.

Verbally...on the Internet? Looks more like writing, champ.
 

Dead Man

Member
Aug 24, 2007
54,233
0
0
Tutomos said:
I was just wondering if the OP can be sued with defamation by Sucker Punch's graphic artist if this thing turned out to be false.

This should just be between the OP and the photographer, until a lawsuit is filed then someone can post it in public.
:lol

Truespeed said:
He verbally accused Sucker Punch of stealing and by inference calling them thieves. So you may want to brush up on comprehension.
Questioning is now accusing! :lol
 

test_account

XP-39C²
Mar 22, 2007
23,612
2
1,130
Gravijah said:
The problem is there are lights and other details, not just buildings and shapes, located in BOTH pictures.
Ok, but i ment that there are still much work done to the inFamous artwork, it is not exactly a copy in this way, at least in my opinion. Fire is added to some of the building, there are more lights on some of the buildings, a new building is added to the down left corner, Cole is added and some trees are removed from the street.

How much of the details are located in both pictures by the way? I noticed that some of the lights on the skyscrapers are basicly the same. What else is there?

I guess that what "copy" is can be discussed though, since the inFamous artwork is most likely based on that skyline picture, so in this way i guess that it can be defined as a copy, i agree. But there have been done some work with this skyline picture, so it is not exactly the same picture eventhough that the buildings got the same shapes, that the buildings are in the same locations, and that there are lights and other details that are located in both of the pictures. So i dont know know if i would call the inFamous artwork exactly for a copy in this way, but that is just my opinion :)

But i do think that the guy who took the skyline picture should be payed a bit of money by Sucker Punch and/or Sony for using the picture, if he wants money and if Sucker Punch didnt have permission to use the picture that is (i know that the guy who took the skyline picture said he didnt give permission, but does he own the copyright to the picture? I guess that this guy would have mentioned that he didnt own the copyright to the picture if this was the case though).

EDIT: I added some text.
 

Dali

Member
Jan 2, 2007
25,558
0
0
Seventh Ring
Gravijah said:
My favorite part is the light next to his knee/the bag on his leg being in both pictures.
Yeah you can still see some of exact same rays given off by that light in the Infamous version.

Oh hey guys check out this Superman. It's like 85% different from teh original so we may as well ignore the fact that the creator didn't have the time/talent to create something entirely of his own design or that it wouldn't exist without its source.
 
Apr 4, 2008
1,529
0
0
test_account said:
Ye, i think that i see what you mean, but i dont think that anyone are disagreeing that this inFamous artwork isnt based on that skyline picture. I think that what they are saying is that even though the baseline (as how the shapes of the buildings are and where the building are located) in the inFamous artwork is the same as the skyline picture, some work has still been done with the inFamous artwork. It is not exactly a direct copy of the skyline picture in this way, at least in my opinion :)

Take a look at CO_Andy's comparison gif. See the water towers next to the hand in the center of the pic? Now look at the building to the right of that. Concentrate on the windows. It's a copy.

If the denials keep up, no doubt someone will soon show exactly which filters were applied before the artists starting adding to the pic.

This soooo reminds me of Rathergate.