The Last Of Us Faces Another Rip-Off Accusation - UPDATED
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
I would just like to point out that -regardless of ND's ethics in this- if he can claim that this is an original work by stretching
out into
then he can hardly complain when ND further improved upon the design by
If his work is derivative of the original map, so is Naughty Dog's derivative of his alteration.
then he can hardly complain when ND further improved upon the design by
If his work is derivative of the original map, so is Naughty Dog's derivative of his alteration.
It's interesting to see people's reactions to this. If EA had done the same thing everyone would be saying "OMG EA ARE TEH EVILS, BURN THEIR STUFF", but as it's Naughty Dog, most people are auto-exonerating the dev and...blaming the artist for having the temerity for complaining that his art got stolen?
So many people are posting half-baked ad-hominem attacks on the guy. Because if a company makes a good game it therefore cannot be guilty of plagiarism, right? Which means that the accuser must therefore be a liar, right? This smacks of hypocrisy a little.
At least it's good to see the whole thing has been resolved well.
So many people are posting half-baked ad-hominem attacks on the guy. Because if a company makes a good game it therefore cannot be guilty of plagiarism, right? Which means that the accuser must therefore be a liar, right? This smacks of hypocrisy a little.
At least it's good to see the whole thing has been resolved well.
It's quite funny you put that up really, because his map has actually got a number of significant differences from the original. It's much cleaner, easier to read and has several lines shifted to more sensible places. ND's version is a direct copy-paste of the improved version.Scars Unseen said:I would just like to point out that -regardless of ND's ethics in this- if he can claim that this is an original work by stretching
out into
then he can hardly complain when ND further improved upon the design by
If his work is derivative of the original map, so is Naughty Dog's derivative of his alteration.
If I remember the case he made was not based entirely on how he looked, but also on other similarities to the character and some of the details in the back story, combined with him having allegedly met and talked to people from Rockstar. I might be thinking of the wrong thing, but I vaguely remember this, and I think that the gist of it was him claiming that Rockstar wound up making money by loosely basing the game off of his life story (very loosely).Bix96 said:
A similar case would be the whole "Space Channel 5" controversy where Lady Miss Kier (from Dee-lite, I think I have her stage name right) was used as the basis for Ulala, something they were up front about in trying to get her on the project, but when they couldn't come to an agreement they did it anyway and just cut her out entirely. In this case though the feud revolves less around the specifics of the likeness as much as the imitation of someone's stage persona and routine... which can be a big deal, while she wasn't successful, it was very similar to the more successful case where Gallager (the dude who smashes fruit with a hammer) sued his brother for stealing his show/material and
performing it for money without permission.
At any rate, the thing about maps of well traveled areas is that they tend to be very generic, most money made off of them largely comes from the distribution rather than the imagery itself, and it's possible to get free maps and such if you know where to look, in part because the information is pretty much public domain. At the end of the day you can't copyright an image of Boston's streets or whatever. On a lot of levels this particular complaint does seem like a
greedy opportunist.
When it comes to Ellen Page, I think she's being an idiot. As I mentioned in another post we recently got official confirmation that a young Alyssa Milano (Charmed, Who's The Boss, etc...) was used as the basis for the character "Ariel" in "The Little Mermaid", something she (and others) suspected, but never knew for sure. When it was confirmed it was pretty much "cool, no big deal, I'm really flattered to learn this" at least in the articles I read. In comparison Ellen seems to be being a twit with a lot less to go on.
Not to mention that if you start saying artists can't base their work on real people or models without paying royalties, that's a big problem, since that's a big part of what artists do, especially when it comes to public people like celebrities and politicians. I don't think this kind of thing negatively impacts anyone's career as there is a substantial difference between an image based on an image or observation, and actually having someone there to model for you directly, or actually act/mocap on your behalf. If Ellen Page had a very distinctive persona or routine that was being duplicated, well that would be different, but this isn't a case like this... unlike say stealing someone's show routine/comedy material/etc... and using it yourself. Of course even in those cases legally speaking there hasn't been much of a leg to stand on when it comes to video game (Lady Miss Kier did not win her case, though I personally think she should have for the same reason Gallager was apparently successful).
You know what's funny? That as "derivative" as the work might seem, your post just made me realize that they DID rip-off the guys's map. It's very different to redesign the whole map(if your pictures are the actual ones, he did a lot of changes) than to add some filters into it to make it rusty/old.Scars Unseen said:I would just like to point out that -regardless of ND's ethics in this- if he can claim that this is an original work by stretching
out into
then he can hardly complain when ND further improved upon the design by
If his work is derivative of the original map, so is Naughty Dog's derivative of his alteration.
What a stupid dickhead. He designed his "map" from an already existing source, it's not like he created the first mapping of the Boston Transit System. He even used the official naming on his own work. By his own accusation, he should be sued first.
So sick of this stupid crap. This petty nonsense actually inhibits growth of intellectual property, it doesn't protect it. It's along the same ground as patenting technologies you intend to never use or create, only to enforce lawsuits for those who try to actually create it in the future.
I hope he is counter-sued and loses a lot of money, if he does try to make a lawsuit out of it.
So sick of this stupid crap. This petty nonsense actually inhibits growth of intellectual property, it doesn't protect it. It's along the same ground as patenting technologies you intend to never use or create, only to enforce lawsuits for those who try to actually create it in the future.
I hope he is counter-sued and loses a lot of money, if he does try to make a lawsuit out of it.
I'm sorry, I'd hardly consider the opportunity to get financial compensation from a AAA video game developer/publisher to be "hell".erbkaiser said:
Are all artists or graphic designers such pretentious or dramatic knobends? Would he have turned up to court with his neck in a brace?
I'm an artist and graphic designer.Abomination said:
Yes we are, believe me. It took myself a lot of time to break my ego to the point that I don't really care unless someone blatantly steals something. Some are REALLY anal about stuff though. But you gotta be careful today with the internet and such because it's REALLY easy to get your stuff stolen without you even knowing. And not just by little shady companies in the middle of nowhere, but sometimes big companies too who'll just roam around and take whatever they see fit for an advertisement or whatnot. Although most of the time it's just laziness to check for the source than actual will to steal. It's still pretty nasty though
The guy does blow it out of proportion though. Shouldn't be worthy of a headline. Probably one of the workers at naughty dog took the map thinking it was just public domain (I would've too, tbh...didn't know subway maps had a copyright, rather they belonged to a public service company), put it in the game, nobody really questionned it and boom, there you go. But glad everything is resolved
I would say there's a significant difference from finding an imagine on the internet that could be esaily confused with being official and incorporating an identical cover of a song.BarelyAudible said:
I certainly agree he has a case here and I also agree that it was more than likely a completely innocent mistake on Naughty Dog's part.Busard said:
But at the same time he's been handling this in a most hysterial fashion and coming off as a right twat.
Please don't strawman me. If you don't like my argument, either formulate an actual reasonable defense or just let it go as irrational.Makabriel said:
I'm going to assume you know better here. That you're aware of the difference between infringing on a trademark of the MBTA (using someone's intellectual property) and modeling something after a public landmark.
If you really do need help with this and aren't trying to falsely equate an obviously more ridiculous case to this one, please reply and perhaps I can help get you sorted on that front.
Which isn't really relevant, since nobody's really "hating" on this game being successful.
I hope you're this ardent a defender of Vanilla Ice, man.
I will never understand why people will rush to defend a large company that can utilize a multi-million dollar budget against a small independent artist. They used his work without permission. They were in the wrong. Period.
Thankfully it seems to have been resolved amicably enough.
Thankfully it seems to have been resolved amicably enough.
There is, but you're sort of asking people to let reason get in the way of a good rant.Abomination said:
That being said, there was a LEGITIMATE question in the Glee cover, in that Coulton suggested that some of the musical elements may have been taken exactly from his version of the song. If that's true, there's certainly an analogue here. However, that's not what most people hopped onboard and argued. they instead argued an obligation to give credit or possibly royalties, and even a "derivative works" protection would be hard pressed there. I bring this last part up because a lot of people tried to argue the letter of the law with Coulton, even though in practice it never works that way. Or almost never.
There are notable differences between the two instances, though.
Only half-related, but I will similarly never understand why an industry (industries, really) so obsessed with piracy and "theft" will so readily "steal" from others without a single thought.bluepotatosack said:
Yes they were wrong but it's pretty obvious it was an innocent mistake. Very few people are saying the artist should get squat, I believe they should receive some financial compensation - what they would charge for someone else to use their work in the production of a for-profit product. Guy suddenly gets maybe $500 he wasn't expecting and everyone walks away satisfied.bluepotatosack said: