Infamous artwork stolen from popular photographer?

Jul 18, 2008
1,571
0
0
Looks like Deliverance
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.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=16202426&postcount=203


Which doesn't necessarily prove that they used the skybox from the artist's rendition. There could be any number of mitigating circumstances here; Both relying on a previous peice of work like a postcard or open sourced material of some kind, both being in the same place at the same time, or timed lights in the city. It could also merely be a coincidence.
 

speedpop

Has problems recognising girls
Jun 9, 2004
27,616
0
0
Brisbane, Australia
Truespeed said:
I think we all have to ask ourselves - What would Milo do?
I like the fact that you were quite vocal in your attacks upon the OP's original intent within the first page of the thread - and then consequently started posting gibberish when the OP had stipulated he had contacted the photographer, as well as the comparison .gifs popping up showing better evidence.
 
Jun 7, 2004
17,367
8
1,340
VA
www.twitch.tv
JasonUresti said:
Lazy work by the artist, nothing will come of it.

If Greg Land can photoshop the entire porn industry into Marvel Comics, along side Hollywood actors, for years and get away with it, Sony's not catching any flack on this one.

Artists have been doing this for centuries. Google Venus of Urbino sometime and look at how many celebrated artists have 'stolen' that composition. All of this 'theft' talk is just absurd.
 
Mar 22, 2007
23,613
2
1,000
PantherLotus said:
That's pretty fucking definitive.
Indeed. It has also been confirmed that the guy who took the skyline picture didnt give permission to Sucker Punch (the developers of inFamous) to use the skyline picture, but i dont think that it has been confirmed that the guy who took the skyline picture is the only person that can give permission to other to use the picture.

I would assume that the guy who took the skyline picture is the only one who can give out permission to use the picture, or else i would wonder why he didnt mention anything about this when he was asked if he gave Sucker Punch permission to use his skyline picture.
 

Dali

Member
Jan 2, 2007
25,588
0
0
Seventh Ring
JasonUresti said:
Lazy work by the artist, nothing will come of it.

If Greg Land can photoshop the entire porn industry into Marvel Comics, along side Hollywood actors, for years and get away with it, Sony's not catching any flack on this one.
Second Greg Land mention so far. Liefeld is starting to feel left out. Or is it more acceptable when it's same-medium copying?
 
Mar 22, 2007
23,613
2
1,000
vandalvideo said:
Which doesn't necessarily prove that they used the skybox from the artist's rendition. There could be any number of mitigating circumstances here; Both relying on a previous peice of work like a postcard or open sourced material of some kind, both being in the same place at the same time, or timed lights in the city. It could also merely be a coincidence.
Ye, that is true. I think that it would be quite the coinsidence if there are 2 different pictures that were used when the lights in the windows are exactly the same, but i guess that it isnt impossible :) I wonder if Sucker Punch will give a comment on this picture and tell if they used this skyline picture or not.
 
May 6, 2007
7,119
0
930
speedpop said:
I like the fact that you were quite vocal in your attacks upon the OP's original intent within the first page of the thread - and then consequently started posting gibberish when the OP had stipulated he had contacted the photographer, as well as the comparison .gifs popping up showing better evidence.
Well, the thread has deteriorated to such a level that it's now a joke post. Jump in. By the way, the OP didn't mention in his original message that he contacted the artist.

If this was done without his permission, I am disappointed in Sony's team
Why would the OP state this if he had contacted him already? Perhaps he should have waited a bit longer.

But, I feel slightly disheartened at the fact that I'm not surprised the thread started off the way it did, and to a point, continues to do so.
 
Mar 22, 2007
23,613
2
1,000
vandalvideo said:
Which doesn't necessarily prove that they used the skybox from the artist's rendition. There could be any number of mitigating circumstances here; Both relying on a previous peice of work like a postcard or open sourced material of some kind, both being in the same place at the same time, or timed lights in the city. It could also merely be a coincidence.
Ye, that is true. I think that it would be quite the coincidence if there are 2 different pictures that were used when the lights in the windows are exactly the same. That would mean (most likely) that the 2 pictures were taken so to say at the same time, but i guess that it isnt 100% impossible :) I wonder if Sucker Punch will give a comment on this picture and tell if they used this skyline picture or not.
 

koam

Member
Jun 17, 2004
16,912
0
1,600
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
I see your bold and raise you this underline
 
Jun 6, 2004
6,218
0
1,290
Truespeed said:
Well, the thread has deteriorated to such a level that it's now a joke post. Jump in. By the way, the OP didn't mention in his original message that he contacted the artist.



Why would the OP state this if he had contacted him already? Perhaps he should have waited a bit longer.

But, I feel slightly disheartened at the fact that I'm not surprised the thread started off the way it did, and to a point, continues to do so.
You do realize you're the worst thing in this thread? Peoples' lives must really be empty enough that they'll get in a huff and waste time protecting the honor of faceless corporations.
 
Apr 5, 2006
3,321
0
0
Goddamn a lot of you are enormous fucking shitheels. "ABLOO BLOO BLOO Don't tell this worthless photographer to sue our precious precious Sony Overlords"

You talk shit to the OP telling him that he doesn't know the situation but you don't know shit either. In my job we buy a lot of stock art and manipulate it. It's not *lazy*-why do you think iStock exists? I don't have time to make intricately rendered icons, objects or sweet photographs when I'm working on a piece that is due in two days and more than likely will go through many *many* revisions. That's why we pay other artists for their work!

Now I hope that whoever did this cover was smart enough to pay the guy, because it's not different enough to just let it slide. It would be one thing if they just plucked one building from his photo and used it, but most of that background is that guys work, and he should be compensated.
 

beelzebozo

Jealous Bastard
Apr 24, 2006
30,299
0
0
McLovin said:
It seems like some people care more about the artist's work being "stolen" then the artist himself.
probably because what may have once seemed original and interesting now seems cheap and deceptive.

imagine if one of your friends played this awesome song on his guitar for you, and told you he wrote it, then you heard it on a led zeppelin album. would led zeppelin give a shit? no. but you'd feel a little betrayed by your buddy.

p.s. the song was "over the hills and far away," the best led zeppelin song.
 
Oct 14, 2006
53,474
1
0
i.imgur.com
beelzebozo said:
probably because what may have once seemed original and interesting now seems cheap and deceptive.

imagine if one of your friends played this awesome song on his guitar for you, and told you he wrote it, then you heard it on a led zeppelin album. would led zeppelin give a shit? no. but you'd feel a little betrayed by your buddy.

p.s. the song was "over the hills and far away," the best led zeppelin song.
You've impeccable taste in all things, sir.
 
Aug 20, 2007
13,897
12
915
Bridgeport, CT
beelzebozo said:
probably because what may have once seemed original and interesting now seems cheap and deceptive.

imagine if one of your friends played this awesome song on his guitar for you, and told you he wrote it, then you heard it on a led zeppelin album. would led zeppelin give a shit? no. but you'd feel a little betrayed by your buddy.

p.s. the song was "over the hills and far away," the best led zeppelin song.
True.. Its not like Sucker Punch or Sony went out of their way to do this. Maybe they paid an artist to do an original work and he was the lazy one that did it. I don't see why anyone would go out of their way to find out if they got permission when their not getting paid or have anything to do with the painting. It just seems strange.
 
May 6, 2007
7,119
0
930
reggieandTFE said:
You do realize you're the worst thing in this thread? Peoples' lives must really be empty enough that they'll get in a huff and waste time protecting the honor of faceless corporations.
Ya, I'm so much in a huff that I can't stop posting digital image forensics and analysis to prove plagiarism. Got to go, photoshop is calling.
 
Aug 24, 2007
54,266
0
0
RSLAEV said:
Goddamn a lot of you are enormous fucking shitheels. "ABLOO BLOO BLOO Don't tell this worthless photographer to sue our precious precious Sony Overlords"

You talk shit to the OP telling him that he doesn't know the situation but you don't know shit either. In my job we buy a lot of stock art and manipulate it. It's not *lazy*-why do you think iStock exists? I don't have time to make intricately rendered icons, objects or sweet photographs when I'm working on a piece that is due in two days and more than likely will go through many *many* revisions. That's why we pay other artists for their work!

Now I hope that whoever did this cover was smart enough to pay the guy, because it's not different enough to just let it slide. It would be one thing if they just plucked one building from his photo and used it, but most of that background is that guys work, and he should be compensated.
Did you read the thread? Have you noticed the discussion about CC licenses? Have you realised this means it is probably not a stock image? :lol
 
Apr 6, 2007
8,223
0
0
I'm always amazed that people think they'll get away with something like this, especially a reputable, big-ticket developer like Sucker Punch. The guy should at the very least be given a credit on future pressings of the game and some sort of stipend.
 
Mar 22, 2007
23,613
2
1,000
Dot50Cal said:
Why are people defending theft?
Dot50Cal said:
If thats the real reason, then some mods aren't doing their jobs. I'd expect this kind of shit at Gamespot, but not here. Damn.
As far as i know, it has not been 100% confirmed that this is theft. All we know is that the guy who took the skyline picture didnt give permission to Sucker Punch (the developers of inFamous) to use use the picture, but i dont think that we know if this guy is the only one who can give the permission to use the picture. I would assume so though, but i dont think that we know for sure.
 
Aug 20, 2007
13,897
12
915
Bridgeport, CT
Not defending theft but I like how you guys assume sucker punch or sony knew about it. I bet some of you imagined them drinking booze and laughing about what they did to that artist you didn't know about until today. Anywho lets get the pitchforks ready.. lets not stop until they sue sucker punch for everything they got.. those heartless bastards.
 
Sep 5, 2007
3,151
0
0
Is this promotional art or concept? If its the later what is the problem with developers being directly influenced by something? Look at Muramasa. In this case they saw the picture. Put their spin on it and were like "this is what we want our city to look like" They didn't make money off of it. They are just using it to represent the game.
 
Apr 4, 2008
1,529
0
0
idahoblue said:
Did you read the thread? Have you noticed the discussion about CC licenses? Have you realised this means it is probably not a stock image? :lol
I don' think you caught his meaning. If I'm not wrong, he is saying modifying someone else's art is not wrong or lazy per se, but that the other artist has to be compensated which, as far as we know, hasn't happened in this case.

Or maybe I've misunderstood you. You don't think that Sucker Punch puts it's promotional art out there under the CC license do you?
 
Jul 20, 2007
4,071
0
0
TheFallen said:
Now obviously this isn't something completely new. People steal photos and artwork and modify it enough so that others don't recognize the original piece behind it. However, I realized one of the main artworks used for Sony's Infamous title was a modified version of Paulo Barcellos' New York City / Sin City skyline (posted in 2006). Here's the Infamous artwork in question. To show you this, I'm going to flip the Barcellos photo so that it matches up with the Infamous artwork, so that you may see how Sony's graphic designers have (likely?) stolen his work.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.
So SONYs graphic designers made this? SONYs team made the game?
 
Apr 4, 2008
1,529
0
0
Shinjitsu said:
Wow interesting, I could really give two shits if the image was stolen or not. Clearly though because I play inFamous I'm defending it right? Fucking finger pointers everywhere.
Why are you posting in a thread that's about whether the image was stolen or not? I'm not following...
 
Mar 22, 2007
23,613
2
1,000
McLovin said:
Not defending theft but I like how you guys assume sucker punch or sony knew about it. I bet some of you imagined them drinking booze and laughing about what they did to that artist you didn't know about until today. Anywho lets get the pitchforks ready.. lets not stop until they sue sucker punch for everything they got.. those heartless bastards.
Ye, i think that it might be a possibility that Sucker Punch didnt know about this, i agree. But if they found the picture after doing a Google picture search or so, then i think that they have a responisibility to find out if the picture is copyrighted or not. Maybe the artist who made the inFamous artwork didnt think too much about that, but i have no idea. I wish that we had more info around this.
 
Oct 10, 2007
1,772
0
0
S. Korea
lowlylowlycook said:
Why are you posting in a thread that's about whether the image was stolen or not? I'm not following...

Not hard to follow. Who cares if the image was stolen or not, I think it's dumb that there's multiple pages of people fighting with each other about it.

Follow that?
 
Mar 23, 2007
26,626
0
0
McLovin said:
Not defending theft but I like how you guys assume sucker punch or sony knew about it. I bet some of you imagined them drinking booze and laughing about what they did to that artist you didn't know about until today. Anywho lets get the pitchforks ready.. lets not stop until they sue sucker punch for everything they got.. those heartless bastards.
Who cares about who knew about it? It's still theft.

The artwork is an obvious copy. The artist himself said he doesn't know what Infamous is. It makes sense to question whether or not this is theft.
 
Aug 24, 2007
54,266
0
0
lowlylowlycook said:
I don' think you caught his meaning. If I'm not wrong, he is saying modifying someone else's art is not wrong or lazy per se, but that the other artist has to be compensated which, as far as we know, hasn't happened in this case.

Or maybe I've misunderstood you. You don't think that Sucker Punch puts it's promotional art out there under the CC license do you?
No, I don't think they did. I think he missed the point of the complaint in this thread. It is not about money, since the image probably is not licensed as a stock picture. It is about attribution, and the lack of a very simple requirement. Or maybe I did miss the point of his post. Shit, I can't even tell any more. Anyway, I'm out of this thread, too crazy in here.