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

[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.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

You have a very odd definition of "deserve".

No, I'm using the standard definition.

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

Notice the "if" there? I don't think he ever expected his work to be used in a commercial project, or to make money from it. He wasn't going around saying "I made these maps, now give me money!"

It's more that he was shocked to the the work used in an unauthorized manner. I'm not aware that he ever even offered these maps for sale in the first place.

The Last of Us is making money.

Ergo, he thinks that they have to pay him.

Again, I'll remind you of the "if". If he had been approached by them first, he may have simply not allowed them to use it.

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

Sorry, but no. He says that they have resolved the matter, but there's been no mention of money changing hands. If you have proof of that, I'd like to see it.

 

[lacktheknack]

You have a very odd definition of "deserve".

No, I'm using the standard definition.

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

Notice the "if" there? I don't think he ever expected his work to be used in a commercial project, or to make money from it. He wasn't going around saying "I made these maps, now give me money!"

It's more that he was shocked to the the work used in an unauthorized manner. I'm not aware that he ever even offered these maps for sale in the first place.

The Last of Us is making money.

Ergo, he thinks that they have to pay him.

Again, I'll remind you of the "if". If he had been approached by them first, he may have simply not allowed them to use it.

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

Sorry, but no. He says that they have resolved the matter, but there's been no mention of money changing hands. If you have proof of that, I'd like to see it.

We're never going to agree because we're using completely different versions of English.

 

[FalloutJack]

Snip

Dude, you're taking this way too seriously, and you're doing that thing where you divide my post up into little snippets and I hate that. Cut it out. In any case, my points are not what you call irrelvent, but a different perspective which also applies in the reality we live in. Now, you can get bent out of shape over that, like our man of the map does, or you can take it in stride like me and not sweat the small stuff. It's just a map, not even anything really personal. If there's anything here that's irrelevent, it's the original claim. This guy is not going to be taken seriously.

 

[Lieju]

Snip

Dude, you're taking this way too seriously, and you're doing that thing where you divide my post up into little snippets and I hate that.

Really?

Cut it out.

Okay.

In any case, my points are not what you call irrelvent, but a different perspective which also applies in the reality we live in. Now, you can get bent out of shape over that, like our man of the map does, or you can take it in stride like me and not sweat the small stuff. It's just a map, not even anything really personal. If there's anything here that's irrelevent, it's the original claim. This guy is not going to be taken seriously.

Your perspective was that you wouldn't mind if someone stole your work, so this guy shouldn't either.
Look, if you don't want to have discussions, don't post on discussion-forums.

Isn't it interesting that this game is being called out on several "rip-offs" only after it's received enough praise that many seem to consider it as one of the best games of the current console generation? I wonder if this game had been a total flop, if we would have heard from either of these two about how it's so offensive to them that their works are ripped off and yada yada.

Because it's so good and has gotten so much publicity, the chances of people noticing their work was used was higher. As was the chances of this kind of stuff getting reported.

Also, if the game hadn't been so good, I suspect there's be less people jumping to defend Naughty Dog.

I think both this guy and Ellen just smelled money and jumped for it.

How did Ellen try to profit from it, exactly?

That doesn't mean it's okay for Naughty Dog to rip-off other people, mind. Only that I sincerely doubt the motives of these two "poor victims" were as pure as they pretend to be. They just want a piece of the pie like everyone else. Justified or not, greed is still greed, and it's disgusting to look at.

Yes, people should not get paid for their work. That's greedy.

Unless they're multi-million corporations, of course.

 

[FalloutJack]

....

That isn't what I said and you know it. If you don't want to understand what I said, don't call me out on things. I say it isn't work it isn't worth anything, and it's lying on the ground like a mislaid button. And you missed out on all of it. Now, you will cut the instigating. You're already reported.

 

[Dragonbums]

Now that they know it is his, I agree they should respond, but to be honest depending on how they discovered it I can't see it being difficult to not realise that it was made by a graphic designer, it's not like it was a well known intellectual property or anything. I wouldn't be surprised if they just image searched for a map and it came up somewhere.

Although of course they should still have done their research and looked into it properly.

As a company, and a big one at that, just because you find something on Google images, doesn't mean it automatically means it's up for grabs.
You have to take the time to find out the source of the image you want to use, and finding out whether or not it's legally protected or not.

That's like me finding a picture of Mickey Mouse online, and using it in a selling product.
Turns out it was official art, and Disney wants to sue me to bankruptcy.
Me saying I found it on Google images is not going to protect me in court.

 

[Dragonbums]

....

That isn't what I said and you know it. If you don't want to understand what I said, don't call me out on things. I say it isn't work it isn't worth anything, and it's lying on the ground like a mislaid button. And you missed out on all of it. Now, you will cut the instigating. You're already reported.

I think people seriously undervalue the time and energy it takes to make an accurate map of the subway system. Especially in a Graphic Design setting.
How is what he did not work exactly?
You'd be surprised how difficult it is to get everything in correct position. Especially when it's supposed to resemble something from real life.

It can get easily cluttered. It can get easily inaccurate by just a single half-inch.
He can easily skip over a location by accident that might be unimportant to him, but very important to one who needs to find said location if they ever look at that map in real life.
He even has to account for the "You are here" dot depending on where he's told the maps would be located.

It's like as the years go by, the general public take less and less into consideration how much work is put into this stuff and in art in general.

 

[Kukakkau]

Well since the creator of that map's image has the MBTA logo and website on it as per the original and he posted segments of his map version on tumbler without providing a source link to his page or saying who made it I'm finding it hard to build up any sympathy

Granted his website is on the finished image in a very small font size in the bottom left, so if someone can find that on the image in game it should be easy to tell. Unless it was intentionally hidden

 

[BarkBarker]

They could have just made one themselves, there are means of creation beyond ripping from the internet when you have all that uncharted money you know.

 

[Edl01]

But I think he is over-reacting by saying that he is "fucking furious". I mean I admit I would be a bit annoyed, but I don't think I would get all that angry at a game using something that I created. Granted that doesn't mean I wouldn't press charges against the company like it seems our man over here threatened to do, but I feel he is kind of over-reacting there.

Honestly it just seems like a dumb mistake on Naughty Dogs behalf, I highly doubt they where maliciously using his updated map, they probably just didn't notice that it was updated. I doubt this will end up going anywhere either, Naughty Dog if they aren't stupid will just pay the man his dues and then they can sweep it under the rug.

P.S. I still think the whole Ellie=Ellen Paige thing is a complete coincidence. It looks like the Last of Us is running into all sorts of random bit of trouble here.