The Last Of Us Faces Another Rip-Off Accusation - UPDATED
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm not sure why people don't get this. If he made it, not only does he have the right but he deserves to be paid for it. You could give Naughty Dog the benefit of the doubt; maybe they did think it was a freebee - doesn't change the fact they owe him something, and should be up front about it.
There are plenty of misuses of copyright law, but this isn't one of them. Artists - freelance, contracted, amateur, whatever - should have the right to be paid for their work, especially if someone is profiting from it. It doesn't matter if it's not an integral part of the final piece: if it was so easy to make, perhaps they should've mocked one up themselves.
PS: I agree, the guy does seem to be making a song and dance about it, but I don't accept people's assertions that this is nothing more than someone trying to undeservedly jump on the back of a AAA game.
There are plenty of misuses of copyright law, but this isn't one of them. Artists - freelance, contracted, amateur, whatever - should have the right to be paid for their work, especially if someone is profiting from it. It doesn't matter if it's not an integral part of the final piece: if it was so easy to make, perhaps they should've mocked one up themselves.
PS: I agree, the guy does seem to be making a song and dance about it, but I don't accept people's assertions that this is nothing more than someone trying to undeservedly jump on the back of a AAA game.
Too bad this Booth fellow fails to mention that his modified transit map heavily rips off the design style of the maps issued by the London Underground.
Nevertheless, it was he who put those motifs to work on a Boston Underground map. I'm pretty certain he'll have constructed that image from the ground up, even though you're right - it reminds me of London's too.KeyMaster45 said:
Hmm. It seems hard to make a judgement call on this one without actually knowing how much work he put into the map, and how different it is from the original. If it was me I would have tweeted at them sarcastically saying thanks for using my shit without my permission, but that would have been the end of it.
This article is the reason why I think Amazon's licensed fanfiction idea is so bad. Whether or not I agree with any one side in this particular debate, it nonetheless stands to reason that writers would have no recourse for compensation if a company just ripped off their ideas.
Granted, the likelihood of making a profit off of fanfiction is something reserved for tripe-mongers like Stephanie Myer, but still, the point stands.
Granted, the likelihood of making a profit off of fanfiction is something reserved for tripe-mongers like Stephanie Myer, but still, the point stands.
1. Nobody was suing.IshimaruHayato said:
2. I really hope you understand the irony of saying that we should just let people make money for being creative when the people in question are ripping off someone else's work.
I was going to point out it was resolved and both sides apologised, but it appears you know this, so...chozo_hybrid said:
Carry on.
That was either brilliant satire or a gross misrepresentation, and I'm not sure which.Kalezian said:
I would point out that "in the style of" or "reminiscent of" aren't likely to get you anywhere legally, while "taking a work wholesale" which ND did regardless of origin is an actual issue.KeyMaster45 said:
Well, if a town didn't exist, they don't have any commerce or any places of interest... so one would ask why are you trying to get there?kailus13 said:
My gosh, it's ridiculous how many people on this site think they're suddenly lawyers any time something about intellectual property comes up (note: I'm not talking to those of you who have rightly said that this guy does have a copyright claim).
Just because you've read some articles that mention intellectual property doesn't mean you know the law. The law does not always follow your personal logic, conscience, ethics, beliefs, etc. It's incredibly unproductive when people with no legal education comment as if they are giving a factual account of the law. It's silly, lazy, and, worst of all, it perpetuates that misinformation.
This guy probably has a damn good case (I can't say anything for sure since I, like the rest of you, can't possibly know every fact in the case). First off, those of you saying he merely changed a couple of things on the map should actually compare the original and his map before actually making that assertion. The changes he made were quite significant, not only from an aesthetic point of view, but from a legal one. The changes are sufficient to make it an original work under the law.
For those saying that Naughty Dog might have just made an honest mistake, this is an understandable view, but it's almost completely certain not to be the case. Videogame companies are very well-versed in intellectual property law. A company like Naughty Dog likely has in-house lawyers to work on this stuff (and, even if they don't, it doesn't really matter). They know what can and can't be used without permission, and they know better than to simply do a search on something and then assume they can use it because it turned up on google (heck, even most of the people here know that).
For those saying that this is just a case of some guy trying to "extort" money from someone who is more successful: what's your point? First off, it's not extortion. Let's just get that straight. This guy created an original work, and somebody else used it without permission or payment. That is illegal, no matter who you are. To design the map themselves would have taken labor and time, which costs what? It costs MONEY. They avoided paying that money by using his work; therefore, the money should go to him, as he did work for them that otherwise would have to be done by actual paid employees. Just because ND has a successful game out does not in any way mean that they get to do what they want when it comes to the law. Could you imagine what kind of world this would be if your philosophy was actually the prevailing wisdom?
Finally, for those who say it's just a small part of the game: again, what's your point? So, if someone steals your work, but uses it as just a small part of a larger work, that's ok? Just because it's a small part of something larger means that they shouldn't ask for your permission or pay you for the work you did, which they would otherwise have to pay to someone else to use their work?
As the facts stand before us right now, ND stole from this guy. It's as simple as that. Nothing else matters. Not your personal beliefs, not the work's significance in the whole of the game, not whether the work was based on a different map, not whether you believe certain things about the law that aren't true.
EDIT: and, of course, I would be remiss not to add one more comment about the sad, cruel irony of people defending a videogame company stealing intellectual property from some single graphic designer in MA.
EDIT 2: considering the effects the gaming community has had on both EA's policies (their recent decision to back away from insisting on online passes) and Microsoft's next console, people should really be happy that they have more of a voice than they thought and that they might sometimes actually be able to change the predatory practices of these huge videogame companies. Instead of defending ND with fallacies and faulty legal reasoning, people should stand against game companies appropriating the works of others to fill out their games instead of paying someone to do that work or paying to obtain work that has already been done. Remember, one day you might be trying to live off your own creativity, only to find that someone is stealing your work for their own uses, AND the projects in which they're used end up making a ton of money. You won't feel so good about it then.
Just because you've read some articles that mention intellectual property doesn't mean you know the law. The law does not always follow your personal logic, conscience, ethics, beliefs, etc. It's incredibly unproductive when people with no legal education comment as if they are giving a factual account of the law. It's silly, lazy, and, worst of all, it perpetuates that misinformation.
This guy probably has a damn good case (I can't say anything for sure since I, like the rest of you, can't possibly know every fact in the case). First off, those of you saying he merely changed a couple of things on the map should actually compare the original and his map before actually making that assertion. The changes he made were quite significant, not only from an aesthetic point of view, but from a legal one. The changes are sufficient to make it an original work under the law.
For those saying that Naughty Dog might have just made an honest mistake, this is an understandable view, but it's almost completely certain not to be the case. Videogame companies are very well-versed in intellectual property law. A company like Naughty Dog likely has in-house lawyers to work on this stuff (and, even if they don't, it doesn't really matter). They know what can and can't be used without permission, and they know better than to simply do a search on something and then assume they can use it because it turned up on google (heck, even most of the people here know that).
For those saying that this is just a case of some guy trying to "extort" money from someone who is more successful: what's your point? First off, it's not extortion. Let's just get that straight. This guy created an original work, and somebody else used it without permission or payment. That is illegal, no matter who you are. To design the map themselves would have taken labor and time, which costs what? It costs MONEY. They avoided paying that money by using his work; therefore, the money should go to him, as he did work for them that otherwise would have to be done by actual paid employees. Just because ND has a successful game out does not in any way mean that they get to do what they want when it comes to the law. Could you imagine what kind of world this would be if your philosophy was actually the prevailing wisdom?
Finally, for those who say it's just a small part of the game: again, what's your point? So, if someone steals your work, but uses it as just a small part of a larger work, that's ok? Just because it's a small part of something larger means that they shouldn't ask for your permission or pay you for the work you did, which they would otherwise have to pay to someone else to use their work?
As the facts stand before us right now, ND stole from this guy. It's as simple as that. Nothing else matters. Not your personal beliefs, not the work's significance in the whole of the game, not whether the work was based on a different map, not whether you believe certain things about the law that aren't true.
EDIT: and, of course, I would be remiss not to add one more comment about the sad, cruel irony of people defending a videogame company stealing intellectual property from some single graphic designer in MA.
EDIT 2: considering the effects the gaming community has had on both EA's policies (their recent decision to back away from insisting on online passes) and Microsoft's next console, people should really be happy that they have more of a voice than they thought and that they might sometimes actually be able to change the predatory practices of these huge videogame companies. Instead of defending ND with fallacies and faulty legal reasoning, people should stand against game companies appropriating the works of others to fill out their games instead of paying someone to do that work or paying to obtain work that has already been done. Remember, one day you might be trying to live off your own creativity, only to find that someone is stealing your work for their own uses, AND the projects in which they're used end up making a ton of money. You won't feel so good about it then.
to be honest when i first saw the trailer for "last of us" i thought it was suppose to be ellen page for sure. Then i saw the trailer for "beyond two souls" and was like she is voice acting in both games!?
just assumed she was getting heavy into gaming. had no idea "last of us" character wasn't meant to be based off her.
just assumed she was getting heavy into gaming. had no idea "last of us" character wasn't meant to be based off her.
Haha I had the same experience! Though I think that it's very unlikely they appropriated her likeness (what's really to be gained from that anyway? It's not like they advertised her being in the game, so the chances of them having sold even a single unit based on someone thinking that she was in the game is almost zero, so why even take such a chance?), it definitely looked like her. Still, that was a good line about how she doesn't hold the rights to being a 4'9 brunette.Ghadente said:
Actually anything created is automatically covered under copyright. If I take a photo I own the copyright, if I draw a picture its covered and if I make a fictional map based off a real location it is also covered. He created a map to show how he thinks the network needs changing, if thats his map then yes it is legally a breach of copyright to use it.Quiotu said:
I thought Ellen Page's rip-off comment was just a poor choice of words. It seens kind of small compared to the accusations that this guy is throwing about. I can make improvements to Mickey Mouse's apperance that doesn't mean I own Mickey Mouse. Shouldn't it fall under fair use?
While I suppose it is true that seeing as how he did technically create the design and changed a few routes, I can't help but wonder how far we can push copyright. Since when have maps of areas been copyright protected? Like, come on, next thing you know basic shapes will be copyright protected.
Too late, Apple already has a patent on rounded rectangles.bug_of_war said:
No, really.
I'm just sick and tired of intellectual property law on the whole. It's getting to where I don't care whether it's a little guy or a big corporation, I have no sympathy for anyone trying to make a claim under that branch of the law. It's supposed to spur creativity[footnote]Yes, that is what it's about. It's not supposed to reimburse the creator, it's supposed to encourage people to create by allowing them to be reimbursed. What it's doing instead is preventing people from creating new things, because someone somewhere owns the rights to every idea past, present, and future. Or at least they do if you ask the lawyers.[/footnote], and instead it stifles it. I can't understand how anyone would support something like that.
Copyright is something you opt-out of owning, not opt-in. So long as he can prove himself to be the original maker then he legally owns the copyright. The only reason you would file any of this with the government is to prove the date of your creation of the work and to make your ownership better known as copyrights filed with the government can be easily searched to avoid all this kind of crap in the first place therefore it also puts a limit on the damages he could sue for, if he was even suing. The only way an image you make would be public domain is if the work is explicitly labelled as being public domain. Therefore he does have a leg to stand on in the conversation.Quiotu said:
This conversation played out so many times in the case of Christopher Torres/Charles Schmidt vs Warner Bros for their inclusion of Nyan Cat/Keyboard Cat in the Scribblenauts series. It's giving me flashbacks so bad. So instead let's all focus on the pun in a title like "The Last Of Us Faces Another Rip-Off Accusation" when the first accusation was of the last of us doing an actual rip-off of another's face.
Wow... Now I know why people make fantasy worlds instead using more real places. Also why is Ellen Page getting all pissy if Ellie looks like her? Anna Paquin looks like Lisa from the original 98 Silent Hill game cutscenes and she's never said anything about that. Celebrities are nuts.