Infamous artwork stolen from popular photographer?

Jul 29, 2007
3,826
0
0
Graphics Horse said:
Tried matching it up myself, not going to post the huge one.

[PIC]
If you want real hilarity, use levels or shadow/highlight to brighten the area in the upper right of the Infamous cover. They didn't even 'paint' over the original, just darkened it - so the same cloud pattern is there.
 
Jan 6, 2008
2,992
22
760
vandalvideo said:
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.
And all the details like the lights seen through the windows are exactly the same. But perhaps those specific lights seen through the window are on/off at a certain time? Nevermind, the lights in other buildings seem to line up, too?

test_account said:
Ok, but i ment that there are still much work done to the inFamous artwork, it is not a exactly 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.

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 :)
It is a photomanipulation, that much we can agree with. But that does not make it okay to use someones work, unless the author sold them to stock sites. Still, they should have considered talking to the author of the photograph just to make things certain if they haven't. Just because you changed much of it doesn't mean jack shit.
 
Jun 13, 2006
2,733
0
0
Can't wait to hear the company line on this.

Also cut the sympathizers on the first few pages some slack - it wasn't made blatantly obvious until the shops started rolling in.
 

Wario64

works for Gamestop (lol)
Jun 6, 2004
74,323
3
0
Between this and Sony PR canceling Infamous interviews without notice, this game is gonna bomb in June's NPD due to negative press.
 
May 6, 2007
7,119
0
930
EmCeeGramr said:
Okay now you're just joke posting.
Actually, wasn't there a federal law that passed that prohibited Internet slander?

In a Bill signed into law this week it prohibits using a false identity to otherwise annoy, slander, libel or harass anyone on the Internet. Some who are posters on Blogs decry this because they say that that it is a violation of free speech, unfair and it should not be a Federal Crime.
 
Mar 22, 2007
23,613
2
1,000
Chrange said:
You should probably read the thread again. There are at least a few who deny it was even a reference picture.
Hm, have someone denied that the inFamous artwork isnt based on the skyline picture even after the comparison .gifs have been shown? I admit that i havnt read all post in this thread, so if anyone had said something like this, then i must have missed it.


lowlylowlycook said:
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.
I only see that CO_Andy have posted a .png picture, or do you mean someone else? I see that Graphics Horse have made a comparison .gif though, so i see what you are refering to. That building definitly look pretty much identical to the skyline picture, except that it have a bit different color, but the building have the exact same shape and lights in the windows in both pictures.

I havnt read all the posts in this thread, but have someone really claimed that the pictures are completely different? If so, then i fully understand what you mean :) I was first mostly talking about how the pictures looks a bit different while looking at the whole picture.

But ye, some parts of both the pictures looks pretty much identical to eachother, i agree. The inFamous artwork has several of things added to it though, so in my opinion it looks a bit like a picture of its own, at least in my opinion. That is why i dont know if i would directly call the inFamous artwork a copy of the skyline picture even if some parts look identical. Those parts are copies, i agree to that, but i dont know if i would call the inFamous artwork as a copy when looking at the whole picture, but that is just my opinion :)
 
Mar 22, 2007
23,613
2
1,000
PSYGN said:
It is a photomanipulation, that much we can agree with. But that does not make it okay to use someones work, unless the author sold them to stock sites. Still, they should have considered talking to the author of the photograph just to make things certain if they haven't.
Of course, i never ment to say that it was okay to use someones work like this without paying the guy who took the first picture (if he owns the righs to that picture, which i guess that he does) :) I even wrote in some of my previous posts in this thread that i hope that the guy who took the skyline picture gets payed by Sucker Punch and/or Sony if they used the pictures without any permission from the copyright holder of the picture, which i assume is the guy who took the skyline picture. Has this been confirmed by the way, if the guy who took the skyline picture is also the same guy who owns the copyright to the picture?


PSYGN said:
Just because you changed much of it doesn't mean jack shit.
Doesnt that depends on exactly how much is changed? I dont know if the inFamous artwork has enough changes to it compared to the skyline picture though, but speaking about things in general.
 
Feb 20, 2005
10,927
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.
This post is so stupid that I weep for humanity because of it.
 
Nov 20, 2007
167
0
0
I did some research and the pic is under CC-SA-2.0 or

"CC-BY-SA
In the Creative Commons Attribution and Share Alike license (CC-BY-SA), re-users are free to make derivative works and copy, distribute, display, and perform the work, even commercially.

When re-using the work or distributing it, you must attribute the work to the author(s) and you must mention the license terms or a link to them. You must make your version available under CC-BY-SA."

Now if they can prove that they attributed the stock to the guy and can prove that their new image is under the same licence, then there is no problem and they never needed his consent.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:picture_of_the_Year/2007
 
Jun 15, 2004
13,888
0
0
36
So Sucker Punch are a group of thieves and criminals. That's it, guys, lock 'em up. Lock up the fantards too, for harboring a criminal and hindering an investigation.
 
May 16, 2006
16,437
0
0
I'm a pro photographer. This looks bad. The photographer should try to settle out of court and get paid first. If he has to go to court, he's got a pretty compelling case, IMO. It's probably best for everyone to get this settled quickly and quietly though. If it goes to court, it gets costly for everyone.

If it were just a matter of the angle, it'd be pretty tough for the photographer. You can't copyright an angle on a landscape. But there's so much else there that is pulled right from the photograph that it is obviously his work underneath all that.
 

Wario64

works for Gamestop (lol)
Jun 6, 2004
74,323
3
0
BobFromPikeCreek said:
:lol :lol :lol I can't believe there are people trying to argue the contrary. It's an exact fucking match.
But they added lighting and other things to make it original! I bet these same people have no problems googling an essay topic and copy/paste information while adding their own words to make it their own work.
 
Dec 7, 2008
39,071
0
0
Florida
thefoxtrot said:
I did some research and the pic is under CC-SA-2.0 or

"CC-BY-SA
In the Creative Commons Attribution and Share Alike license (CC-BY-SA), re-users are free to make derivative works and copy, distribute, display, and perform the work, even commercially.

When re-using the work or distributing it, you must attribute the work to the author(s) and you must mention the license terms or a link to them. You must make your version available under CC-BY-SA."

Now if they can prove that they attributed the stock to the guy and can prove that their new image is under the same licence, then there is no problem and they never needed his consent.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:picture_of_the_Year/2007
Wait does this mean I can copy the inFamous artwork freely now?
 
Nov 20, 2007
167
0
0
BrandNew said:
What makes you think they did provide the source to the artwork?
I wrote in my original post that it may not exist, but if it is out there then there is no problem or legal recourse.

Not saying they did, but the second they provide it this isn't a problem.
 
Nov 25, 2005
16,088
1
1,070
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.
Truespeed said:
He verbally accused Sucker Punch of stealing and by inference calling them thieves. So you may want to brush up on comprehension.
Is thread for real?
 
Aug 24, 2007
54,266
0
0
thefoxtrot said:
Is everyone illiterate, I just posted the reason why they don't have to pay, didn't need his consent, and wont be sued.
You missed the key point about the license, which was pointed out some pages back. The actual license on the Flickr page is http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/deed.en

Non Commercial, which apparently the original owner of the work can ignore, so that's fine, but attribution is a key requirement which has not been performed here.

Gravijah said:
Wait does this mean I can copy the inFamous artwork freely now?
Yep, that is my understanding. IF that is the license they used, and complied with it.
 
Oct 12, 2008
1,693
0
0
TheFallen said:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/deed.en

oy.

And to those that are asking, I already contacted him, would have been silly if I didn't. He was unaware.
Probably not that uncommon. Some stuff probably doesn't even go through him to be approved.

Also it's pretty hard to say it's copied when it's a replica of New York City. I mean come on anyone can go to that same location and have the same image.
 
Jun 25, 2005
38,456
0
0
Cellbomber said:
Probably not that uncommon. Some stuff probably doesn't even go through him to be approved.

Also it's pretty hard to say it's copied when it's a replica of New York City. I mean come on anyone can go to that same location and have the same image.
Same lights are on and off in the same location. Same angles. Same clouds.
 
Dec 7, 2008
39,071
0
0
Florida
Cellbomber said:
Probably not that uncommon. Some stuff probably doesn't even go through him to be approved.

Also it's pretty hard to say it's copied when it's a replica of New York City. I mean come on anyone can go to that same location and have the same image.
You aren't going to make exact light rays. EXACT.
 
Oct 16, 2005
22,708
0
0
Cellbomber said:
Probably not that uncommon. Some stuff probably doesn't even go through him to be approved.

Also it's pretty hard to say it's copied when it's a replica of New York City. I mean come on anyone can go to that same location and have the same image.
...

It's a bit for fucking bit match. You can't just say "oh they just went to this generic place and snapped a photo." ITS THE SAME FUCKING PICTURE
 

Dali

Member
Jan 2, 2007
25,588
0
0
Seventh Ring
thefoxtrot said:
Is everyone illiterate, I just posted the reason why they don't have to pay, didn't need his consent, and wont be sued.
Wouldn't this mean that on the inFamous/Sucker Punch page where this image is the banner and downloadable as a bg, there should be credit given to the original photographer and a link to the license. I see neither... at least not in plain site.
 
Aug 15, 2007
2,119
0
0
BobFromPikeCreek said:
:lol :lol :lol I can't believe there are people trying to argue the contrary. It's an exact fucking match.
*several posts down the page*
.
.
.
.
.
Cellbomber said:
Also it's pretty hard to say it's copied when it's a replica of New York City. I mean come on anyone can go to that same location and have the same image.