The Last Of Us Faces Another Rip-Off Accusation - UPDATED

[s_h_a_d_o]

[snip]

Except the map wasn't his livelihood. it was made as part of a hobby. And as others have pointed out, he used the logo of the MBTA... meaning he violated copyright in his creation of the map in the first place.

Um, no. It's part of his job as a graphic designer... http://www.cambooth.net/about

Did you not even bother checking the source material for this news?

Yes he's a graphic designer, but he wasn't paid to make the map. Its just something he made. Only related to his job as a graphic designer in that he knows how to make things like that because he is a graphic designer.

Jesus.
The map(s - there were a number produced) in question was part of an exercise in critique (I'll wait right here while you go and look up those last couple of words). It doesn't matter in the slightest that he wasn't paid - what matters is that the work in question is his own - a fact you have just acknowledged... "Its just something he made".

 

[FalloutJack]

Bloop

Ideas are work if built upon. I'm a writer, so it's effectively my work. However, I don't go around REALLY telling companies that they're copying me. That would be far too petty.

 

[OneTwoThreeBlast]

[snip]

Except the map wasn't his livelihood. it was made as part of a hobby. And as others have pointed out, he used the logo of the MBTA... meaning he violated copyright in his creation of the map in the first place.

Um, no. It's part of his job as a graphic designer... http://www.cambooth.net/about

Did you not even bother checking the source material for this news?

Yes he's a graphic designer, but he wasn't paid to make the map. Its just something he made. Only related to his job as a graphic designer in that he knows how to make things like that because he is a graphic designer.

So? What's your point? What relevance does it have whether he made it out of hobby or for pay? If I build Cessnas for a hobby, you should just be able to steal one because, hey, it's just a hobby?

The fact that it's a hobby is not in any way relevant, except in your own head. And you yourself just admitted it was part of his job. Oh, he wasn't paid to make the map? Well then surely he couldn't have posted it in the hopes that someone would pay to use it, you know, like thousands and thousands of other graphic designers on the internet. Seriously, what in the world are you talking about?

 

[OneTwoThreeBlast]

snip


Except literally nothing has gone into the public domain since Steamboat Willie was released, at least not through the usual channels of copyright expiring. Ever hear of a mickey mouse law? The technical term is the "Copyright Term Extension Act," and it's something that Disney forced through congress the last time Steamboat Willie was due to go into the public domain. It even retroactively brought some works that were in the public domain back out of it.

As for the rest of it, I know that system works because it's the system that existed for the vast majority of human history. This isn't me preaching some crazy Star Trek future, it's me complaining about the obnoxious Blade Runner present.

Edit: Forgot the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

I do know about the Act, but it things still eventually expire. Moreover, this proves my point that it is huge corporate entities with near-unlimited resources that are protected by and which are abusing the system, not people like this graphic designer.

I feel like you still haven't answered most of the points I made. So what if that's how things were done earlier in human history? We don't live in that same world anymore. Most of human history was not based on capitalist principles and did not revolve around money, but rather barter and trade, which, like I said, is the only system in which your idea of what the law should be could possibly work. Just because you don't like the current state of things -- and hopefully I made it clear that I don't like it either -- doesn't mean we should go to the opposite extreme. Please, tell me what's wrong with a middle ground? I did not defend Disney doing the things they do, nor did I defend this current system. What I said is that what you're suggesting is too extreme and isn't workable in the current economic system.

Moreover, even in earlier days as capitalism developed but there was still much bartering and trading going around, people STILL got paid for their creative works. Artists were commissioned by people to paint things, they didn't have those paintings stolen from them. Etc. etc.

Finally, your point about the whole of human history also doesn't stand in this debate because the whole of human history didn't have electronic transmission of properties (read: being able to post creative works on the internet for all to see). Today's world makes it insanely easy to steal from others, whereas this was not the case at any time before. At no other time in human history could you go online, find the thing you need to put in your project that you expect to sell and make money from, and use it without the person knowing or paying them. You might occasionally find something you needed, but today you can go online and find anything. Back then, you still had to PAY someone to do the things you needed. The electronic age has changed that. There is no going back.

Here are just a few other things that were perfectly acceptable and/or workable for the whole of human history until recently: trading women as property; slavery; a farming-based society; and I won't bother to continue listing examples because I think I've made the point.

Please tell me how your system can work in today's world. Also, please tell me why everything should automatically become public domain instead of us finding a middle ground between today's laws and what you're suggesting. Additionally, tell me how people like graphic designers and the thousands of other industries based on individual's creativity are supposed to do in your world, how they are supposed to live off their talents, etc. Finally, please tell me why a middle ground would stifle creativity and be a burden on humanity.

The reason we need to go to the opposite extreme is right there in your post -- the big corporations who have lots of money to use to pervert the laws. The term of copyright only expires on paper, if you think there won't be another law passed the next time Steamboat Willie is up to go into the public domain, I have a bridge in brooklyn to sell you.
Essentially, any middle ground would only remain middle ground for as long as it takes the first massively profitable property to go into the public domain, and then we'd have yet another extension.

As for copyright coming into existence along with capitalism: hah, no. Most of the world (even the developed world) either didn't have it or played fast and loose with it straight through the end of the 19th century, a period which was, if anything, even more capitalism focused than we are now. Don't even bother to compare this to slavery, that's effectively a reductio ad hitlerium (Hitler did it, therefore it's bad. Even if it's just something like brushing your teeth).

At any rate, people would still get paid for their work. Graphic designers, for example, like the guy in the picture, really don't have a problem, because anyone who wants custom work done would have to buy it from them. They may even be on salary somewhere, you know, like they are more often than not already. Sure, once it was released other people could profit from it, but they'd have the benefit of having released it first. Kind of like how people still buy Colgate toothpaste despite there being cheaper but functionally identical alternatives.

Other countries have perfectly acceptable IP laws. The excuse of "well, if we do implement the right system, they'll just take it apart anyway" is not a reason to not try the system. Every new system has had this argument made against it.

How was the 19th century "even more capitalism focused" than today? IP law in this country rose during the industrial revolution. It was a perfectly fine system then. It has developed into something completely different now. I don't know what you're talking about here.

You're smart enough and I wrote clearly enough for you to know that I was in no way making a comparison to slavery. Let's not belittle each others points through obfuscation. The very clear point was that you argument of "we did X throughout human history, therefore it should still be done today" is a ridiculous argument. It has no bearing on the issue.

As for your final point, you managed to completely ignore my points about the digital age and globalization. Your last paragraph describes what would happen in the localized world of yesterday. It is no longer possible today.

 

[Seracen]

Granted, the likelihood of making a profit off of fanfiction is something reserved for tripe-mongers like Stephanie Myer, but still, the point stands.

I'd like to point out, that no matter what you think of Meyers' writing talent, it was E. L. James who made money off stuff based on Meyer's work.

Everyone is in the mood to sue sue sue. Good god its like we cant just let people make money for being creative.

Um, you do realise that's what this is about, right?
Naughty Dog, instead of creating art-assets themselves, or paying for them, took someone else's work.
And the guy wants to be paid for his creation.

Well, alrighty then. That sort of reminds me of the shenanigans that went on during the Matrix script-writing. Still, there are no shortage of novelists who make bank off of less than immaculate writing styles. As long as people are reading, I suppose, however painful those books may be.

Anyhoo, as much as I agree that we seem to be a litigation heavy society, it is still far to often that people are indeed stealing ideas, or doing half measures, in what should be a triple-A experience.

If corporate is claiming that they need more money for triple-A coffers, they shouldn't cheap out on things such as:

1) not creating original assets (Ellie from Last of Us, Tali from ME3)
2) ripping off others' work (map from Last of Us, apparently)
3) not compensating others for work (Too Human, apparently, altho for such a terrible game...)
4) overworking employees without proper compensation (EA in general, hence the lawsuits)

Because really, if they are screwing over the consumer, where is all that money going?

Shareholders and CEO's, b/c you know, THEY care about quality products...

Still, my main point is fear in what Amazon intends. While it's cool that folks can make a little extra from fanfics, the idea that others could simply steal ideas for their own works galls me.

"Why sure, I don't care about the writers' strike, just raid Amazon's fanfic section. We can get a script for our next comic movie from the 'unwashed masses.'"

 

[MindFragged]

"I likewise apologized for my initial vitriolic post."
Translation: They paid me tons of money.

Are you that cynical?

 

[lacktheknack]

That's not demanding money - that's complaining that the company used his work without negotiating terms or asking permission. Again - where is the demand for money?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

Read the exchange from before again:

He knew that, yet after putting his redundant map online at a resource that makes it clear the maps are unofficial, he now suddenly believes he deserves money for this.

When did he say he deserves money for this?

Presumably at the part where he says he deserves money for this.

"To be clear: at no point have Naughty Dog contacted me about using my intellectual property (this visual representation of the Boston rapid transit network) in their product. To be even more clear: if you want to use my work commercially, payment before usage is required. If you're making money from your product, then you can pay me for my work as well."

That part.

Now, where did the word "demand" come into play? It totally didn't. Don't move goalposts, it's intellectually dishonest and as irritating as hell.

You asked where he said he DESERVED money, and he did so right where he said:
To be even more clear: if you want to use my work commercially, payment before usage is required. If you're making money from your product, then you can pay me for my work as well.

So there's your answer. Don't try to extend an argument by changing the question and acting as though I never answered it correctly - that's a good way to end up on ignore lists.

 

[bug_of_war]

So, if a painter makes a portrait of a real person, or a painting based on a real landscape, it should not have copyright protection, because it's based on a real thing?

Like I said in my response to PhantomEcho, there is a very fine line between what's okay to borrow and what's not when it comes to creation and ideas. I've never said that they guy doesn't deserve compensation, what I am saying though is that I've seen so many copyright claims in the past 12 months that I think it's getting a bit ridiculous.

Whatever the outcome, I just hope something good happens.

 

[Requia]

Huh... didn't even think of maps being copyrighted, but apparently it's a big business. Some manufacturers even have copyright traps in their maps, adding towns or points of interest on their maps that don't actually exist to make it easier to tell if the map is theirs or not.

But here's the trick in this case. Sounds like this guy didn't publish or distribute the map they used, he just did it for S&Gs to show what was wrong. Naughty Dog basically found a way to use a non-copyright map, which is pretty rare, and now this guy doesn't have a leg to stand on in the conversation. Posting an edited map on your blog doesn't make it copyrighted.

Sure it's a bit conniving on Naughty Dog's end, but this guy isn't a victim either. Hell, he just got free publicity for a map edit he's received ZERO money for... past, present and future. Take the publicity and shut up, dude.

Copyright law in the US does not cover facts, instructions, rules, etc, though there might be enough creativity in a map (colors, thickness of lines, etc). I wouldn't be sure the guy has a leg to stand on period, depends on how closely they really copied his design.

However, if it is subject to copyright, then there's absolutely nothing that would keep him from having it. If copyright applies, then the creator has copyright, period, end of story, no special actions needed, though since he didn't register he can't sue for more than whatever he usually charges for a job (only actual damages, no punitive damages).

I wouldn't call it free publicity if ND didn't cite it, any publicity comes from him freaking out over it.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

You asked where he said he DESERVED money, and he did so right where he said:
To be even more clear: if you want to use my work commercially, payment before usage is required. If you're making money from your product, then you can pay me for my work as well.

So there's your answer. Don't try to extend an argument by changing the question and acting as though I never answered it correctly - that's a good way to end up on ignore lists.

I'm not moving any goalposts or changing the question. There is nothing here about demanding money - it's just saying that if you want to use his work, you should negotiate payment (or lack thereof) with him first. Which is perfectly reasonable.

There is no indication that he has demanded money after the fact of Naughty Dog ripping off this map.

 

[lacktheknack]

You asked where he said he DESERVED money, and he did so right where he said:
To be even more clear: if you want to use my work commercially, payment before usage is required. If you're making money from your product, then you can pay me for my work as well.

So there's your answer. Don't try to extend an argument by changing the question and acting as though I never answered it correctly - that's a good way to end up on ignore lists.

I'm not moving any goalposts or changing the question. There is nothing here about demanding money - it's just saying that if you want to use his work, you should negotiate payment (or lack thereof) with him first. Which is perfectly reasonable.

There is no indication that he has demanded money after the fact of Naughty Dog ripping off this map.

But that's not what you asked first.

You asked "When did he say he deserves money for this?"

Which is a completely different thing.

 

[KungFuJazzHands]

I can't believe some people here are trying to justify Naughty Dog's bad behavior in this whole debacle by claiming they are using the map "in a creative way" therefore the guy's frustration is moot. Even worse are rants like "ND are getting picked on because they're successful". WTF is wrong with you dorks?

First they rip off Ellen Page's likeness and use it as the basis for a character design, then they rip off Booth's modified work and use it as a background graphic. Both in the same fucking game. It's pretty obvious Naughty Dog is pulling some dubious crap, yet we still get fanboys with their fanboy logic attempting to deflect blame away from the company. Dear sweet Jeebus, what the hell is wrong with the gaming community?

 

[Lieju]

Bloop

Ideas are work if built upon. I'm a writer, so it's effectively my work. However, I don't go around REALLY telling companies that they're copying me. That would be far too petty.

Ideas are cheap.

But if you do actual work, spend time and money on something (like writing a book, or designing a map) that is worth something.

So you'd think it was ok if a company took your actual work, a piece you wrote, put it in their product, and then charged money off that product?

"Why sure, I don't care about the writers' strike, just raid Amazon's fanfic section. We can get a script for our next comic movie from the 'unwashed masses.'"

What would stop them now? Just go in ff.net and you'll find lots of fanfiction, some even good, and the person you stole from wouldn't probaly sue or even mind. And considering you can't use a written story as a direct script, they wouldn't even have much of a legal leg to stand on.

But the thing is, even if a story is really good, they'd still have to do work on it to turn it into a movie-script.
(And if they really wanted to growd-source the script, just hold a competition or something, and you'll have fans giving their work for free.)

 

[FalloutJack]

Boing

I'm not sure this frigging map is work. Presumably, it's a hobby. If my Wild Wasteland roleplay here on the Escapist somehow got lifted by Bethesda to be somehow either integral or at least referenced on their next Fallout game or something, I'd ask for some credit, my name (likely the names of the other players) as a contributor, a bit of acknowledgement. Not freakin' money. And I wouldn't cop half the attitude this guy is. Stuff I publish online or use as roleplay material online? Public domain until I otherwise protect it with at least some kind of disclaimer.

 

[Lieju]

Boing

I'm not sure this frigging map is work. Presumably, it's a hobby.

Irrelevant.

If my Wild Wasteland roleplay here on the Escapist somehow got lifted by Bethesda to be somehow either integral or at least referenced on their next Fallout game or something, I'd ask for some credit, my name (likely the names of the other players) as a contributor, a bit of acknowledgement. Not freakin' money.

So, you're fine with doing free work for a company you like. This guy is not.

(And it's not like he even made that map for any video-game-related stuff, and probably doesn't care about video-games.)

And I wouldn't cop half the attitude this guy is.

Really? I think you're assuming your work would be used in something you're a fan of. But imagine your work being profited by someone you don't know or even like. Not that 'attitude' matters in whether ND stole assets or not.

Stuff I publish online or use as roleplay material online? Public domain until I otherwise protect it with at least some kind of disclaimer.

You don't have to proclaim copyright to own something. In fact, from what I understand (I'm no lawyer) you'd need to state something you made is public domain for it to be that.

Putting something on the Internet =/= public domain

 

[Seracen]

Bloop

Ideas are work if built upon. I'm a writer, so it's effectively my work. However, I don't go around REALLY telling companies that they're copying me. That would be far too petty.

Ideas are cheap.

But if you do actual work, spend time and money on something (like writing a book, or designing a map) that is worth something.

So you'd think it was ok if a company took your actual work, a piece you wrote, put it in their product, and then charged money off that product?

"Why sure, I don't care about the writers' strike, just raid Amazon's fanfic section. We can get a script for our next comic movie from the 'unwashed masses.'"

What would stop them now? Just go in ff.net and you'll find lots of fanfiction, some even good, and the person you stole from wouldn't probaly sue or even mind. And considering you can't use a written story as a direct script, they wouldn't even have much of a legal leg to stand on.

But the thing is, even if a story is really good, they'd still have to do work on it to turn it into a movie-script.
(And if they really wanted to growd-source the script, just hold a competition or something, and you'll have fans giving their work for free.)

True, to a certain extent, but at least you can always claim the "poor man's copyright" on the idea. It isn't likely that you'll win the lawsuit, as corporate has more money than you, but the principle is there. There are plenty of frivolous lawsuits that don't go anywhere over supposed "stolen ideas."

Again, I agree, and doubt this will cause any practical ramifications. I'm just more concerned with the precedence than anything else. However fragile a foundation I have for my personal rights over my own ideas, it's still better than nothing...in the way that syphilis is preferable to terminal cancer.

 

[Therumancer]

At the end of the day you can't copyright an image of Boston's streets or whatever.

Why not?

It's certainly possible to do so. You could copyright a photograph, a satellite image, or a drawn map of Boston streets. What law are you referring to that prevents this?

No you can't. It's not one specific law, but rather the protections inherent in public or publically accessible property. Otherwise everything would be copyrighted and art and any kind of expression at all would be impossible, since showing anything at all could make you liable to pay someone royalties.

I'm familiar with the issue mostly through photography and video as the question has in the past arose that if you say show someone's house in the scope of filming a documentary if that person is owed royalties. Perhaps more relevantly to a case like this, whether a photographer has to pay the subject of a photograph on public property royalties if they make money off of it. This kind of thing has come up both in terms of people using photography for things like artwork to show the plight of the homeless, or digitally altering photos for purposes of entertainment, and perhaps most frequently in the case of Paparazzi chasing celebrities around when they step into public (or can be seen on private property with a public view). If celebrities could copyright their image and charge prohibitive costs nobody would be involved in that kind of thing. The same logic applies to a landscape, a house, or whatever else, if it's visible from public property as shown, then it's fair game.

When your dealing with something like a street map, your dealing with the very ideal of public property, what's more it's a fairly unchanging thing (it does change, but slowly, over a period of time). The streets are where the streets are. One guy being able to say definitively "I drew that particular map" becomes ambigious by it's very nature in a
case like that. It's similar to the case with a professional photographer, they sell their wares directly and try and get to publishers before anyone else has an equivalent to a valuable shot.

Overall this is similar to the old joke about TSR trying to copyright "Nazi" (though to be fair, they were copyrighting a specific image of a Nazi someone drew on a cardboard playing piece for an Indiana Jones game, but they did it badly, and when questioned their response was comedy gold given how ambigious they were being about their intent. It was later immortalized in an RPG parody book called "Murphy's Rules"). Arguably for this guy to have a serious case he'd pretty much have to say he has exclusive ownership to the streets of Boston.

At any rate, it's not one specific law, but a lot of them, and precedents. The best way I can explain it is to point out similar things. You might feel there is a difference, but there really isn't one. Oddly enough one of the few things US law has done a fairly good job of is protecting people's rights to public property. While this had the benefit of preventing everyone out to make a dime from sueing movie/TV/documentary film makers about what might have found it's way into a shot, it's also caused the whole Paparazzi problem.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

When your dealing with something like a street map, your dealing with the very ideal of public property, what's more it's a fairly unchanging thing (it does change, but slowly, over a period of time). The streets are where the streets are.

But that's not what the issue is. You can't copyright the streets themselves, but you can certainly copyright a representation of them such as a map or photograph. Just look at Google Maps, satellite images, street view, etc - all copyrighted views of public areas. Look at maps for GPS systems like TomTom and Garmin, etc. Copyrighted out the wazoo.

At any rate, it's not one specific law, but a lot of them, and precedents.

Except that's not true. The legal precedents are overwhelmingly that maps can be copyrighted. I prefer facts to making things up that suit your idea of how things should be.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

But that's not what you asked first.

You asked "When did he say he deserves money for this?"

Which is a completely different thing.

And he never said he deserved money for this.

He said he was pissed off that the map was used without permission. That's all. Unless you can cite something that shows he went to the company asking for money.

 

[lacktheknack]

But that's not what you asked first.

You asked "When did he say he deserves money for this?"

Which is a completely different thing.

And he never said he deserved money for this.

He said he was pissed off that the map was used without permission. That's all. Unless you can cite something that shows he went to the company asking for money.

You have a very odd definition of "deserve".

He said that if someone's going to make money from his stuff, then they have to pay him.

The Last of Us is making money.

Ergo, he thinks that they have to pay him.

Burden's on you to prove otherwise, because simple observation supports the assertion that he thinks he deserves money for it.