Support NeoGAF

[zoukka]

There's a really big difference in using reference material and just slapping an image below your "artwork".

This is really common though.

 

[anddo0]

Never change GAF!

why do you care?

That's a good question. I'm guessing he wants in on the lawsuit:lol

 

[Plaguefox]

It's pretty obvious that the photograph in question was used as a base for the concept art. Anyone who is trying to suggest that the concept art was "just another drawing of the same angle" or used the photo as a reference without using it as the source asset doesn't understand the things that "fingerprint" it.

It may not even be a big deal because as some said, the photographer may not have the only rights to the original photograph and the concept artist might have actually obtained the right to use the work.

But to be frank, I really don't think the original poster made this thread to call out "the PS3 exclusive", so it's pretty sad to see people defending the concept artist against speculation. People really do have ownership problems. It wasn't a console war, don't make it a console war.

It's also a bit silly to see people chomping at the bit about suing people. Now that the photographer is aware of the situation, I'm sure he either knows—or will soon know—what the deal is and will take the appropriate action.

Awesome digital editing and animation in this thread to emphasize the aforementioned obvious spots, though. Kudos.

 

[Jocchan]

There's a really big difference in using reference material and just slapping an image below your "artwork".

This is really common though.

Of course it is. 99.9% of the times people simply don't notice, because reference material is used in a subtle way (or isn't well-known enough).
Using stock photos is also pretty important: last month I saw a book by some Italian author sporting the same cover as Free Radical's Second Sight (minus the gun).
It wasn't a theft, I had already heard (don't know if it was here on GAF or somewhere else) it was just a stock photo used by both publishers.

EDIT: also, reposting for the new page:

I tried getting to the next step, and quickly shopped the original photo (it's not exactly the same and I didn't bother adding lights, fire and smoke, but it's still pretty close if you ask me):

I think I could have achieved a much more similar result with a bit more time, so I'm pretty positive the background in the artwork could just be a photoshop with a few details painted over here and there.

 

[Zenith]

Wow, the first couple of posters were way too defensive. talk about hive mentality.

 

[Haunted]

It's clearly using the photo as reference/starting point for the shop, there's no denying that.


But I doubt Sucker Punch/Sony would make such a huge blunder and don't ask for permission from the photographer, so it's probably a non-issue. I don't know how these things work, maybe this photograph is in a stockphoto database as well or something?

Of course it is. 99.9% of the times people simply don't notice, because reference material is used in a subtle way (or isn't well-known enough).
Using stock photos is also pretty important: last month I saw a book by some Italian author sporting the same cover as Free Radical's Second Sight (minus the gun).
It wasn't a theft, I had already heard (don't know if it was here on GAF or somewhere else) it was just a stock photo used by both publishers.

link it! I want to see.

 

[Rad Agast]

I really hope whoever was responsible for the inFamous art obtained permission to use the original photograph. What happened to dev teams taking their own photos of the landscape to use in their games/art design?

But I doubt Sucker Punch/Sony would make such a huge blunder and don't ask for permission from the photographer, so it's probably a non-issue. I don't know how these things work, maybe this photograph is in a stockphoto database as well or something?

It's most likely the case. I can't imagine them making such a big fuck up to be honest.

 

[Jocchan]

But I doubt Sucker Punch/Sony would make such a huge blunder and don't ask for permission from the photographer, so it's probably a non-issue.

Yep. I sincerely doubt one of their artists would risk this much when working on artwork for such an anticipated game. It's not like he could have thought "who cares, no one is going to notice".

link it! I want to see.

Sorry, I can't remember neither the title nor the author

 

[Chrange]

Yep. I sincerely doubt one of their artists would risk this much when working on artwork for such an anticipated game. It's not like he could have thought "who cares, no one is going to notice".(

Okami/IGN. Nuff said.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

Yes, inFAMOUS is awesome.

 

[test_account]

Edit: Figured I should mention this thread has nothing to do with Infamous hating. Quite clearly intending on playing the game once it arrives from Gamefly. The demo was great. I simply noticed the similarity when viewing the Wallpaper thread on GAF, since this photo was my iphone wallpaper recently.

No problem for me about making a thread about this I think it is cool that you saw that the picture were the same as another one, good eye

And i hope that the original maker of the skyline picture gets payed by Sucker Punch and/or Sony if they did use this picture without his permission. It is indeed a good looking picture as well in my opinion

This is also a possibility. The photo could simply have been part of a stock archive, so there's no need for the author to know who bought it.
Or the artist could have found it in the first page of Google Images when you search for "new york skyline" and restrict your search to "very big".

Ye, that is true What does "very big" does in Google Image search by the way, search for big pictures?

By the way, i am an idiot lol :\ In my previous post i thought that Post-Production was a company becuse it had capital letters, but i think that he ment that he worked with post-production, and not a company that was named Post-Production, i am sorry about that mistake :\ It also says on his website that he is a freelancer now. But it says on Paulo Barcellos' website that he has been employed in many different places, so maybe some other company owns the right to this picture, but i dont know.

Okami/IGN. Nuff said.

What is this about?

 

[kitchenmotors]

:lol Seems like this place has gone to hell after E3. What's with all the new extremists lately? Then again, this is GAF. :lol

 

[OnPoint]

Okami/IGN:

http://kotaku.com/381846/ign-watermark-in-okami-cover-art

Short version: the original Wii release of Okami had an IGN watermark on the cover. Barely noticable, but definitely there. One of those "can't be unseen" deals.

 

[antiloop]

:lol Seems like this place has gone to hell after E3. What's with all the new extremists lately? Then again, this is GAF. :lol

The console war is really heating up again. AC2 VS UC2, Natal VS wand, MS conference VS Sony conference, Forza VS GT, Heavy Rain VS Alan Wake and so on.

It will calm down. Let the dust after E3 settle.

 

[Fafalada]

Yep. I sincerely doubt one of their artists would risk this much when working on artwork for such an anticipated game. It's not like he could have thought "who cares, no one is going to notice".

Indeed - and anparticularly when it comes to promotional material, companies(at least bigger ones) are incredibly pedantic about avoiding legal issues - I've seen one of our recent games go through being forced to change the main promo-material simply because it used a similar (perhaps remarkably so) angle to another popular game for the shot - even though the art itself was 100% original.

 

[revolverjgw]

This is like the 9 millionth time I've seen that picture via the internet. I've downloaded huge photography databases of various types from torrent sites and this one is ALWAYS in them, it seems like it would be a stock photo. I'm also pretty sure I've seen deviantart or whatever artists use it as a reference for photo manipulations.

 

[kitchenmotors]

I'm sorry, but it's obvious the artists took the original photograph and used it. Look at the light rays coming off the building in the middle, they're still present in the final artwork!

Regardless of what developer it is or what system it's on, stealing is bad, mmkay? Maybe I'm more sensitive to this issue, being a photographer myself.

 

[itxaka]

Yes, inFAMOUS is awesome.

Exactly.

And probably they used with permission. And if not, well they will probably settle with the author or something.

For me, they look identical, just with a bit of retouching on top of the original picture.

 

[Graphics Horse]

Thanks for the Okami/IGN story, that was far more entertaining than this one.

I'm sorry, but it's obvious the artists took the original photograph and used it. Look at the light rays coming off the building in the middle, they're still present in the final artwork!

Regardless of what developer it is or what system it's on, stealing is bad, mmkay?

Yeah it looks like they covered over all the other rays from the bright light, but left those ones in because they look like they're coming from the building.

 

[Dead Man]

For what it's worth, the original on Flickr has a creative commons license.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/deed.en

You are free:

* to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
* to Remix — to adapt the work
*

Under the following conditions:

*

Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).

Attribute this work:
Information
What does "Attribute this work" mean?
The page you came from contained embedded licensing metadata, including how the creator wishes to be attributed for re-use. You can use the HTML here to cite the work. Doing so will also include metadata on your page so that others can find the original work as well.
*

Noncommercial — You may not use this work for commercial purposes.

With the understanding that:

* Waiver — Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.
* Other Rights — In no way are any of the following rights affected by the license:
o Your fair dealing or fair use rights;
o The author's moral rights;
o Rights other persons may have either in the work itself or in how the work is used, such as publicity or privacy rights.
* Notice — For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to this web page.

I don't know if this would be possible if it was also licensed as a stock photo. Would they not want to ensure no one could use it for free if it was part of their stock collection?

 

[J-Rzez]

Hmm. Yes it is striking similar, probably used the one for a reference. I doubt it was used with permission, and it was probably "stolen" like the OP labeled it in the thread title. I'm calling my Congressman. Right. Now.

A shame, because inFamous is such a great game.

 

[Jocchan]

The Okami/IGN story is completely different: in Okami's case, the artist used a Capcom artwork made specifically for the game. He had to download it from IGN because, apparently, Ready at Dawn (the team responsible for the port) didn't get many hi-res art assets from Capcom itself.
But he didn't steal anything from anyone, it was already their property.

 

[itxaka]

For what it's worth, the original on Flickr has a creative commons license.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/deed.en



I don't know if this would be possible if it was also licensed as a stock photo. Would they not want to ensure no one could use it for free if it was part of their stock collection?

well, that is fucked up. CC allows it to be used for non-comercial uses. The author should have changed the license if it was gonna be used for commercial uses even with his permission.

Looks like or they fucked up or the author broke his own license. :lol

CC is sometimes stupid.

 

[medrew]

well, that is fucked up. CC allows it to be used for non-comercial uses. The author should have changed the license if it was gonna be used for commercial uses even with his permission.

Looks like or they fucked up or the author broke his own license. :lol

CC is sometimes stupid.

Ahh, CC clearly states that:

"Waiver — Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder."

So an artist can't 'break' their own license.

I would not be surprised if someone from Sucker Punch used this without permission. This sort of shit goes on all the time, but with the internet what it is today it's only a matter of time until you get found out.

 

[itxaka]

Ahh, CC clearly states that:

"Waiver — Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder."

So an artist can't 'break' their own license.

I would not be surprised if someone from Sucker Punch used this without permission. This sort of shit goes on all the time, but with the internet what it is today it's only a matter of time until you get found out.

Good, because I was looking the word Waiver in the dictionary, you saved me some time :lol

 

[xbhaskarx]

http://i44.tinypic.com/2yzlhdv.gif

It seems pretty clear here.

Pretty clear that it's different enough, the other image was merely used as a reference, and this thread is unsubstantiated slander trying to stir up shit.

Spoiler

God some of you are truly insane

 

[Dibbz]

I thought with images if you change more than a certain percentage of the image then it essentially becomes a new piece of work. Dunno where I heard that though.

To me it looks like the Infamous pic has more than enough of the origianl image changed to be accepeted as a new piece.

 

[Xyphie]

Makes you wonder how much under the table use of copyrighted assets there's in the gaming business. I remember someone found a GPL violation in ICO a few years ago.

 

[tfur]

This would probably fall under the "derivative work", section of the copyright act.

 

[lowlylowlycook]

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.

 

[JB1981]

Slander is verbal. Might want to brush up on the Internet lawyering.

I learned that from the Sam Raimi Spiderman movie.....

 

[Dead Man]

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.

Really?

 

[test_account]

:lol Seems like this place has gone to hell after E3. What's with all the new extremists lately? Then again, this is GAF. :lol

Are there someone who are extremist in this thread though? Or are you talking in general, and not just about this thread?

Okami/IGN:

http://kotaku.com/381846/ign-watermark-in-okami-cover-art

Short version: the original Wii release of Okami had an IGN watermark on the cover. Barely noticable, but definitely there. One of those "can't be unseen" deals.

http://i42.tinypic.com/21eyvqb.jpg

Ah ok, i didnt know about this, thanks for the info

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.

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

 

[Boss Man]

Did Sony steal inFAMOUS from popular developer?

 

[commissar]

Did Sony steal inFAMOUS from popular developer?

Is Activision actually that popular?

 

[Roi]

Okami/IGN:

http://kotaku.com/381846/ign-watermark-in-okami-cover-art

Short version: the original Wii release of Okami had an IGN watermark on the cover. Barely noticable, but definitely there. One of those "can't be unseen" deals.

In this case CAPCOM owned the rights of the image so no real problem.


Sony is in big trouble because of the NonCommercial CC.

 

[sazabirules]

Is anyone going to try and contact Sucker Punch about this?

 

[Battlezone]

Thats fucked. This probably happens everywhere. Its fun to spot though.

http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com/

 

[Dre]

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

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.

 

[Mamesj]

Well, I was going to buy this game today but between the mediocre reviews and stolen art work, I don't think I will.

 

[NinjaFridge]

This thread is full of trolls and fanboys.

Sucker Punch made the game, not Sony. Thought that would be helpful to you guys (but probably not the trolls).
Also, we don't know shit yet so i don't know why you guys are jumping on them already for this. Amateur lawyer GAF sucks, it is Innocent until proven guilty not the other way around.

Well, I was going to buy this game today but between the mediocre reviews and stolen art work, I don't think I will.

:lol

 

[GodofWine]

If you don't know it was used without permission / or wasn't altered enough to be used, then you don't point fingers (question marks do not make this non accusatory)
(?)

 

[Dragon]

Well, I was going to buy this game today but between the mediocre reviews and stolen art work, I don't think I will.

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

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.

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

 

[Slightly Live]

Has anyone contacted Sucker Punch about this? Maybe someone should tip off a few gaming sites to get a response. This is certainly interesting.

Paging Kotaku news tips.

 

[Kestastrophe]

This is indefensible, as far as it being the same basic image. The lights in each respective window on each building are identical to the original photograph. Not commenting on whether or not this image was "stolen" or not, but way to take the moral highground and defend a corporate entity

 

[JudgeN]

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.

 

[Kinitari]

Well its obvious the photo is used as a base for that artwork - but I'd like to think it wasn't stolen. Hopefully it was just a stock photo available to him, and the artist doesn't really keep track of where all his stock photo's go.

 

[Draft]

It's clearly the same image, but why immediately assume it was "stolen."

 

[Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew]

If this leads to a lawsuit (which it shouldn't), the OP is going in my blocked list...

 

[Gravijah]

If this leads to a lawsuit (which it shouldn't), the OP is going in my blocked list...

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.