Infamous artwork stolen from popular photographer?

May 17, 2006
13,359
0
0
toronto
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.
I truly don't care whether they knowingly stole or not, or if it even is plagarism to begin with. I just find the following things funny:
a) People denying the obvious similarities between the two works.
b) People scrambling to find justifications and downplay the significance of this if it actually is theft.
 
Oct 14, 2006
53,474
1
0
i.imgur.com
Shinjitsu said:
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?
Subtract the console warriors and I'm pretty sure there's a minority in the thread genuinely curious if the infamous artwork was based on the photograph and to what extent the original was used in the final product. Its an interesting piece of detective work that too many have been quick to decry as unneeded and have been equally as quick to remind others that "I don't care so neither should you."
 
Mar 22, 2007
23,613
2
1,000
charsace said:
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.
I agree that it makes sense to question it as NinjaFridge said, but if the artist who made the inFamous artwork did it with good intentions (as in not knowing that the skyline picture is copyrighted), i think that this is a bit different than if he knew that the skyline picture was copyrighted, but still used it without permission.

I still think that the artist of the inFamous artwork should have looked up if the picture was copyrighted at first though. But hopefully we will get some more answers around this case in the next few days.


BobFromPikeCreek said:
I truly don't care whether they knowingly stole or not, or if it even is plagarism to begin with. I just find the following things funny:
a) People denying the obvious similarities between the two works.
b) People scrambling to find justifications and downplay the significance of this if it actually is theft.
Did anyone still denied the obvious similarities between the two works even after the gifs and pictures were shown?

EDIT: I added some text.
 
Oct 10, 2007
1,772
0
0
S. Korea
Narag said:
Subtract the console warriors and I'm pretty sure there's a minority in the thread genuinely curious if the infamous artwork was based on the photograph and to what extent the original was used in the final product. Its an interesting piece of detective work that too many have been quick to decry as unneeded and have been equally as quick to remind others that "I don't care so neither should you."
Then contact the original creator of the art and let him settle it in court. People are getting to worked up over this. Seriously.
 
N

NinjaFridge

Unconfirmed Member
charsace said:
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.
Of course it makes sense to question it. It doesn't make sense to automatically assume they stole it and call them thieves though, does it?


test_account said:
If the artist who made the inFamous artwork did it with good intentions (as in not knowing that the skyline picture is copyrighted), i think that this is a bit different than if he knew that the skyline picture was copyrighted, but still used it without permission.

I still think that the artist of the inFamous artwork should have looked up if the picture was copyrighted at first though. But hopefully we will get some more answers around this case in the next few days.



Did anyone still denied the obvious similarities between the two works even after the gifs and pictures were shown?
We probaly won't hear anything until Monday.
 
Aug 20, 2007
13,897
12
915
Bridgeport, CT
BobFromPikeCreek said:
I truly don't care whether they knowingly stole or not, or if it even is plagarism to begin with. I just find the following things funny:
a) People denying the obvious similarities between the two works.
b) People scrambling to find justifications and downplay the significance of this if it actually is theft.
Well for what its worth I think its obviously an altered version of the original. But we haven't heard anything from Sony's side. And just because the artist didn't know what infamous was it doesn't mean that he (or someone representing him) didn't sell it to Sony or Sucker Punch or some sub division.
 

Dali

Member
Jan 2, 2007
25,588
0
0
Seventh Ring
karasu said:
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.
Yes it is. On that note I'd like to unveil my newest piece.



All mine.
 
Mar 22, 2007
23,613
2
1,000
NinjaFridge said:
We probaly won't hear anything until Monday.
Ye, i would guess so too.


McLovin said:
Well for what its worth I think its obviously an altered version of the original. But we haven't heard anything from Sony's side. And just because the artist didn't know what infamous was it doesn't mean that he (or someone representing him) didn't sell it to Sony or Sucker Punch or some sub division.
I think that this is actually a very good point. I dont think that the OP wrote exactly what he asked the guy who took the skyline picture. Maybe he just asked if the guy who took the skyline picture if he know that his picture were used in inFamous. Or did he ask if he had given permission to Sucker Punch and/or did he mention that inFamous was a Sony published game?


mood said:
I opened this thread and was slightly amused at the theft of someones artwork, but then taken aback by the people actually DEFENDING the potential plagiarism. Jesus Christ.
We dont know 100% sure if this is theft though. I guess that this is what several of people here are discussing or defending.


BobFromPikeCreek said:
What did they say?
 

mood

Member
Sep 3, 2006
1,276
0
0
In your bellybutton.
test_account said:
We dont know 100% sure if this is theft though. I guess that this is what several of people here are discussing or defending.
It's obviously a valid question, I'm talking more about some of the people claiming he didnt invent the city so its OK.

Oh, you ARE one of those people.
 

squatingyeti

non-sanctioned troll
May 14, 2006
3,415
0
0
test_account said:
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.
Holy shit you're daft. I bet they would have captured the EXACT same cloud formations as well. Probably the EXACT same windows being lit. They probably stood in the EXACT same MILLIMETER that he stood in to get that EXACT shot.

It's like the magic bullet of photography!
 
Mar 22, 2007
23,613
2
1,000
mood said:
It's obviously a valid question, I'm talking more about some of the people claiming he didnt invent the city so its OK.
Ye, i dont mean to say that it isnt a valid question, i just wanted to say that it hasnt been 100% confirmed yet if the usage of the skyline picture in this case has been theft or not :)

But ye, i see what you mean. If people say that he didnt invent the city, that doesnt matter to much in this case. The skyline picture that was used is most likely copyrighted and/or under some license, so it would most likely be theft to use this picture (at least for commercial usage, which is the case with inFamous) without permission, i agree :)


EDIT:

mood said:
Oh, you ARE one of those people.
I am? What did i say? If you are reffering to my comment that i dont know if i would call these 2 pictures as copies because the pictures have several of different things, i still never said that it was ok to use someone else's work without permission, and i even said that i hope that the guy who took the skyline pictures get credited and payed by Sucker Punch and Sony if he wants that.
 
Jun 7, 2004
77,909
2
0
Oregon
Pretty obvious from the various gifs and comparisons that they used the artists' image, which is no big deal if they have permission. But they didn't. They should use a new, original work or get the artists' permission to use it. Pretty simple.
 
Apr 9, 2007
2,490
0
0
GhaleonEB said:
Pretty obvious from the various gifs and comparisons that they used the artists' image, which is no big deal if they have permission. But they didn't. They should use a new, original work or get the artists' permission to use it. Pretty simple.
where is the response by the photographer?
 
Mar 22, 2007
23,613
2
1,000
squatingyeti said:
Holy shit you're daft. I bet they would have captured the EXACT same cloud formations as well. Probably the EXACT same windows being lit. They probably stood in the EXACT same MILLIMETER that he stood in to get that EXACT shot.

It's like the magic bullet of photography!
Why do you come with a personal insult? Isnt it better to ask me what i mean with this quote that you quoted instead of comming with a personal insult to me?

I dont think that it is needed to capture the exact same picture. I mean, i really doubt that the inFamous artwork was depended on the exact same cloud formation and the exact same windows that are being lit as you see in this skyline picture. If you go to the exact same place now and take a picture, the cloud formation will different and different windows will most likely be lit, but the skyline itself in general (the shape of the buildings and the locations of the buildings) is pretty much exactly the same.

That was my point, that you most likely dont need this exact skyline picture to make the inFamous artwork. If you copy a essay (and add your own text to it), that is someone people's specific writing, history and/or thought. That is why i questioned if it was the same. Do you see what i mean?

So why do you mean that i am daft? :p

That said, i never ment to say that it was ok to use this exact skyline picture without permission.

EDIT: I added some text.
 
Oct 14, 2006
53,474
1
0
i.imgur.com
test_account said:
What do you mean? It is not like that the inFamous artwork was depended on the exact same cloud formation and the exact same windows that are being lit as you see in this skyline picture. If you go to the exact same place now and take a picture, the cloud formation will different and different windows will most likely be lit, but the skyline is pretty much exactly the same.

That was my point, that you didnt need this exact skyline picture to make the inFamous artwork. If you copy a essay, that is someone people's specific writing, history and/or thought. That is why i questioned if it was the same. Do you see what i mean?

That said, i never said that it was ok to use this exact skyline picture without permission.
IIRC someone in the thread said they were messing with levels and the clouds are the same, just darkened in the promo art.
 
May 6, 2007
7,119
0
930
Narag said:
After 16 messages were posted after the 'inFamous' question mark. Some of the comments in those messages would have probably been worded differently if this information was present in the original message.

Here's a novel idea, let's wait for all of the information to come out and then make a conclusion.
 
Mar 22, 2007
23,613
2
1,000
Narag said:
IIRC someone in the thread said they were messing with levels and the clouds are the same, just darkened in the promo art.
How do you mean with "messing with levels"? Ye, the clouds might be the same in both pictures, but i mean that even if this skyline picture were taken on a cloudless day, it would probably still be possible to make so to say the exact inFamous artwork. I dont think that the inFamous artwork were really that depended on that the cloud formation were exactly like they were in the skyline picture :)


Truespeed said:
Here's a novel idea, let's wait for all of the information to come out and then make a conclusion.
Yep, i agree :)
 
Oct 14, 2006
53,474
1
0
i.imgur.com
Truespeed said:
After 16 messages were posted after the 'inFamous' question mark. Some of the comments in those messages would have probably been worded differently if this information was present in the original message.

Here's a novel idea, let's wait for all of the information to come out and then make a conclusion.
I agree entirely. The last line in the OP was needlessly inflammatory in placing blame.

test_account said:
How do you mean with "messing with levels"? Ye, the clouds might be the same in both pictures, but i mean that even if this skyline picture were taken on a cloudless day, it would probably still be possible to make so to say the exact inFamous artwork. I dont think that the inFamous artwork were really that depended on that the cloud formation were exactly like they were in the skyline picture :)
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=16202445&postcount=205 I know you're playing Devil's Advocate and quite fond of doing so but its more than just the skyline. Its the angle of the shot, window details, use of the existing skyline, sources of light, etc that are the drawn comparisons. Someone could've been handed a one line drawing of the skyline and produced this exact same promo art from that. But you'll agree that while not impossible, its highly improbable.
 
Apr 9, 2007
2,490
0
0
Truespeed said:
After 16 messages were posted after the 'inFamous' question mark. Some of the comments in those messages would have probably been worded differently if this information was present in the original message.

Here's a novel idea, let's wait for all of the information to come out and then make a conclusion.
thats why i was like....a picture was found on the internet and this thread was started...

then it was worded as if it was a question but the op had already spoken to the photographer confirming it was stolen?...

then some things come up about copyrights that still arent known

surprised the photographer wouldn't have said anything on a blog or something after finding out about this

not to mention some other things people dont know....
 
Mar 22, 2007
23,613
2
1,000
Narag said:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=16202445&postcount=205 I know you're playing Devil's Advocate and quite fond of doing so but its more than just the skyline. Its the angle of the shot, window details, use of the existing skyline, sources of light, etc that are the drawn comparisons. Someone could've been handed a one line drawing of the skyline and produced this exact same promo art from that. But you'll agree that while not impossible, its highly improbable.
Ok, i see what you mean with "messing with levels" :)

Ye, i agree that there are several of things between the 2 pictures that are similar. I am no artist myself, so i have no idea how difficult it would be to produce so to say the exact same promo art from just a one line drawing as you say, but i do agree that using this skyline picture as reference probly made the work quite more easy.

But this comment that i first made about taking a similar picture from the exact same spot was more related to the similarity to copying an essay and adding your own words to that. I just wanted to question if these two things were similar.

And i must underline that eventhough i asked alot of questions around this subject, i never ment to say that it was okay to use someone else's work, edit it, and then take fully credit for the work themself.
 
Jun 7, 2004
2,919
0
0
Truespeed said:
After 16 messages were posted after the 'inFamous' question mark. Some of the comments in those messages would have probably been worded differently if this information was present in the original message.

Here's a novel idea, let's wait for all of the information to come out and then make a conclusion.
Nice save :)
 
Oct 19, 2005
26,635
1
0
test_account, you're rapidly leaving the realm of rational, reasonable doubt and moving into... well, I don't know what, but it's not a very good direction to move in.

It's the same picture, retouched and with the Cole character art and lightning effects added on top. That has been pretty much conclusively proven in this thread; there's no point in debating that part of the issue any further. That's why most people have moved on to working out whether there was a fashion in which the piece could have been used legally.

Hamfam said:
I think it's hillarious watching all the Sony haters trying to convince themselves there's a similarity between the images.
Yes, this is all part of the constant and inescapable GAF vendetta against Sony. It certainly has nothing to do with the similar way GAF posters have responded to other allegations of infringing reuse in other games in the past, or the fact that it's the same fucking picture retouched.
 

squatingyeti

non-sanctioned troll
May 14, 2006
3,415
0
0
Rad Agast said:
Please stop saying "similarities", it's the same picture.
Thus the reason I said he was daft. People keep saying it's possible to have a similar picture. It's IMPOSSIBLE to have the same cloud formations, light sources, and to have stood in the EXACT spot, down to the INCH, to have two pictures match exactly. It's not similar, it is the same.

Find me the exact same cloud formations, down to the inch, in the same city on two different days. I'm sorry folks, the reason there's "similarities" is because they are the same.
 
Umm... are people ACTUALLY debating whether it's a copy or not? Jeez. It IS a copy/paste/blend job. That everyone should admit. The problem here is concerning whether this particular artwork was used for commercial use or not and whether they made money off of it. Everything is fair in CC (including remixing/photoshops) as long as it's not used for profit.
 
Jun 7, 2004
2,919
0
0
Dirtbag said:
I'm sure the photo was licensed for usage.
Huge assumption that it wasn't...

And I really don't understand why it would be considered a big deal for a marketing piece. It's no worse then using a CGI trailer.
Before spouting off about assumptions, you should probably read the entire thread.
 
Dec 6, 2008
16,806
0
0
Jesus christ...

Now someone provided this information "Some rights reserved"

Now we can see that this image can be used and adapted (which is what Sucker punch did in this case) but did anyone really know you could reserve rights on Flickr? I highly doubt this is common knowledge. So yes Sucker punch was wrong but Im PRETTY sure it was a mistake. Someone was poking around Flickr and saw this photo and adapted it, probably without knowing there were certain rights reserved.

So was it a mistake? Yes. Was it malicious? I HIGHLY doubt it. They simply didnt do enough research. So they forgot to pay the guy $200 and Im pretty sure itll be taken care of if it ever came to that.

I dont see how you guys argued about this for so many pages. Its unreal. SP was wrong but Im pretty sure it was an accident. And even if it was done maliciously so this company would avoid paying a whopping TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS I doubt theyll admit as much. So youre arguing for nothing because in the end this will be handled rather quickly Im sure.

And fuck whoever is calling them lazy because Ive found myself in this situation MANY times as a designer. Its not lazy its called SAVING YOUR CLIENT MONEY. When dealing with things like this, youd have to hire a photographer, reimburse him for his travel etc etc. That shit is expensive. Fact of the matter is, if my client wanted to save money and I could do so by using stock photography I would do just that. Not to mention the time saved. So all in all, this saved the company thousands of dollars and many hours. Its not lazy, its efficient.
 
Jun 7, 2004
2,919
0
0
.GqueB. said:
And fuck whoever is calling them lazy because Ive found myself in this situation MANY times as a designer. Its not lazy its called SAVING YOUR CLIENT MONEY. When dealing with things like this, youd have to hire a photographer, reimburse him for his travel etc etc. That shit is expensive. Fact of the matter is, if my client wanted to save money and I could do so by using stock photography I would do just that. Not to mention the time saved. So all in all, this saved the company thousands of dollars and many hours. Its not lazy, its efficient.
bahahahahaha.
 
Jun 2, 2007
6,563
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 :lol Awesome.
 
Dec 6, 2008
16,806
0
0
And heres another glaring hole in this argument:

Night_Trekker said:
The photographer claims he has no idea what Infamous is.
When you buy a piece of artwork from anyone its EXTREMELY RARE to come out and say "oh this is for our game infamous for the PS3". You always give vague answers like "its for a poster thats going to be used for commercial use". SP could have EASILY purchased this photo (FOR A WHOPPING $200) without telling him what its for because that simply isnt a common practice. And I doubt the guy even asked them.

Jumping to conclusions indeed.