Where did you find this? Because the licensing on the flickr page (OP) is Creative Commons - Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0 Generic, specifically stating "You may not use this work for commercial purposes" without permission from the copyright holder.thefoxtrot said:I did some research and the pic is under CC-SA-2.0
Gravijah said:I'm legitimately curious, does this apply to everything in the picture including Cole? Like I could manipulate the image of him in the picture?
idahoblue said: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.
Yep, that is my understanding. IF that is the license they used, and complied with it.
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.
Even the less restrictive one requires attribution, which has not been done here.thefoxtrot said:I see, on wiki commons, he used a less restrictive, now says:
" licence, Please note: This image was originally uploaded to Wikimedia Commons licensed as noted below. The Flickr user has since changed the licensing to be more restrictive. Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable."
which proves that:
1: internet licencing sucks.
2: he's boned with regards to seeking compensation or credit due to numerou slicences and so on.
It was the first time for me as well. Further proof that there is no such thing as bad publicity, eh?Kestastrophe said:wow, I just went to the inFAMOUS site for the first time and saw that the image is the placeholder :lol
Pretty fucking ballsy if they didn't get consent from the original photographer
idahoblue said:Even the less restrictive one requires attribution, which has not been done here.
Is that really the same thing though? I mean, "anyone" could have gone to the exact same spot, taken a picture, and then added effect to the picture. To get a picture of that skyline shouldnt really be a problem on its own, at least in my opinion. With an essay, then that is peoples writing, histories and thoughts, and this isnt exactly something that you can pick up outside or so, compared to taking a picture.Wario64 said: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.
Dali said: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.
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.
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)
Okay, did some more research. It sounds like you can change the license, but it does not effect any copies used before the change: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQthefoxtrot said:True, but we have yet to prove that Sony or Suckerpunch has not done that. Their commercial sites may not say it, but it may appear somewhere else.
Not saying this isn't shady, but that we should be sure before we going marching around saying stuff that may not be true.
What if I change my mind?
Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. This means that you cannot stop someone, who has obtained your work under a Creative Commons license, from using the work according to that license. You can stop distributing your work under a Creative Commons license at any time you wish; but this will not withdraw any copies of your work that already exist under a Creative Commons license from circulation, be they verbatim copies, copies included in collective works and/or adaptations of your work. So you need to think carefully when choosing a Creative Commons license to make sure that you are happy for people to be using your work consistent with the terms of the license, even if you later stop distributing your work.
Attribution. You let people copy, distribute, display, perform, and remix your copyrighted work, as long as they give you credit the way you request. All CC licenses contain this property.
How do I properly attribute a Creative Commons licensed work?
If you are using a work licensed under one of our core licenses, then the proper way of accrediting your use of a work when you're making a verbatim use is: (1) to keep intact any copyright notices for the Work; (2) credit the author, licensor and/or other parties (such as a wiki or journal) in the manner they specify; (3) the title of the Work; and (4) the URL for the work if applicable.
You also need to provide the URL for the Creative Commons license selected with each copy of the work that you make available.
If you are making a derivative use of a work licensed under one of our core licenses, in addition to the above, you need to identify that your work is a derivative work, ie. This is a Finnish translation of the [original work] by [author] or Screenplay based on [original work] by [author].
Further recommendations and guidelines for marking works can be found at the CC Marking project.
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
I know, i just wanted to ask if copying text from an essay and adding your own words to it (assuming that an amount of the writing in the original essay is unchanged) was the same thing as adding effects to someone else's picture. And i agree that it isnt necessarily ok to take someone else's work and change/add things to it and take full credits to it, i fully agree to that. I never ment to say anything against thisBobFromPikeCreek said:Could have, but didn't. Again, it's an exact match.
I am also wondering about this, has it been confirmed that the guy who took the skyline picture is the only one who can give approval for the use of this skyline picture?Cellbomber said:My first point was totally ignored though. Just cause he's not aware of it being used, doesn't mean that nobody gave it's approval. It's common especially if he has people working for him he may not even bother with that aspect of his photography business.
Maybe, but i think that they would have a problem to explain how both pictures have the exact same lights in the windows on some buildings.Cellbomber said:After looking at it again, I see your point on the similarities but it's a tough call. Like I said they can always say they used this location of NYC and made enough subtle changes to defend themselves in court.
Not nearly as hilarious as the Limbo of the Lost thread. This is a murky argument about licensing for a promotional pic, whereas Limbo was clear cut theft on a massive scale.BobFromPikeCreek said:Put this thread in the archive. It's hilarious.
oneHeero said:That's what we call "stealth trolling"
Holy Shit!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.
Hehe, nice onechubigans said:All of this was obviously done by the hands of Evil Cole.
"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..."
I am no artist myself, but does it take much work to make the inFamous artwork even with the use of the skyline picture? Or do you mean lazy as in not making the inFamous artwork from scratch without the use of this skyline picture?Averon said:Wow!! The level of stupid in this thread is off the scales. You got people denying that Sucker Punch's artwork isn't at least a lazy job if not outright theft. And you got some anti-Sony folk trying to use this as a way to troll Sony. The agendas here are so blatant. :lol
They used the skyline picture in the inFamous artwork. I think that post #203 in this thread shows it pretty good. You can see that the lights in the windows on those buildings are exactly the same in both pictures.PantherLotus said:Interesting.
1. One cannot copyright the layout of the city, but they can copyright their artwork. Can it be proven that the image is a replica of the artist in question?
test_account said:The used the skyline picture in the inFamous artwork. I think that post #203 in this thread shows it pretty good. You can see that the lights in the windows on those buildings are exactly the same in both pictures.