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

[Lieju]

If she's not already in talks with the studio to settle the situation, then she'll be looking to file suit. Just you wait..

If that happens, then it happens.
But the fact is, you're saying she is greedy because she mentioned (when asked) in an interview that she thought her likeness was ripped off.
I don't think she will, though, because I don't think she has grounds for it, and I don't think she expressed anything else than annoyance that people will get those two games mixed up.

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

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

That, of course, presumes that the work(s) in question were actually ripped off and not just similar, but okay, we can play that game.

Let's pretend this was genuinely ripped off piece of work in both cases. That Naughty Dog definitely intended to make their character into Ellen, and that they clearly stole this subway layout from this person, and that in both cases it was done with utterly malicious intent. How much do they "deserve" for this tiny contribution of work that barely encompasses a fraction of the overall product?

Accreditation in the end credits? A financial sum? And if the latter, how much?

I don't think intent really matters, in the case of the map, at least.

With Ellen, I don't think she should be compensated (ND should probably admit they based Ellie on her, and changed her design because they found out Ellen was acting in Two souls), but with this guy, where they used his work, he should get paid.
I have no idea how much licenses for maps like that cost (maps can be expensive, though)...

But if it was really such a small amount of work he did, then it shouldn't have been a big deal for ND to make a map themselves, from scratch, right?
Or find an image they can use and pay for it in the first place?

 

[FalloutJack]

A more interesting view.

It could be. It MIGHT be. But I don't really think what I call serious graphics work would be handled in this fashion. Noe, obviously he and people of the game have come to an accord on the matter and he admits himself that his blustery attitude was a mistake, but I still think that things you value that much should - if you're going to put it on the internet like that - have some kind of proviso or disclaimer covering you, so as to say "Hey, you were warned". I don't think this would happen if at least that were observed, what about you?

 

[Dragonbums]

A more interesting view.

It could be. It MIGHT be. But I don't really think what I call serious graphics work would be handled in this fashion. Noe, obviously he and people of the game have come to an accord on the matter and he admits himself that his blustery attitude was a mistake, but I still think that things you value that much should - if you're going to put it on the internet like that - have some kind of proviso or disclaimer covering you, so as to say "Hey, you were warned". I don't think this would happen if at least that were observed, what about you?

It's a public map though.
Chances are, his map was displayed on whatever social media site his puts up his works.
Which in that case is in fair show to be displayed on Google images. Not to mention the fact that Metropolis themselves would've displayed it on their site.
However most people often resort to these measures of ruckus because in the real world, had he of gone in and asked them to politely credit him for his work, then he would've been ignored. Completely.
So instead of wasting his time, he caused a huge ruckus. That always leads to something being done.

 

[FalloutJack]

A more interesting view.

It could be. It MIGHT be. But I don't really think what I call serious graphics work would be handled in this fashion. Noe, obviously he and people of the game have come to an accord on the matter and he admits himself that his blustery attitude was a mistake, but I still think that things you value that much should - if you're going to put it on the internet like that - have some kind of proviso or disclaimer covering you, so as to say "Hey, you were warned". I don't think this would happen if at least that were observed, what about you?

It's a public map though.
Chances are, his map was displayed on whatever social media site his puts up his works.
Which in that case is in fair show to be displayed on Google images. Not to mention the fact that Metropolis themselves would've displayed it on their site.
However most people often resort to these measures of ruckus because in the real world, had he of gone in and asked them to politely credit him for his work, then he would've been ignored. Completely.
So instead of wasting his time, he caused a huge ruckus. That always leads to something being done.

Considering his apologetic update, I disagree that ruckus was the right move. I don't think we CAN see eye to eye on that one.

 

[Roman Monaghan]

So it's that Nyan Cat in Scribblenauts thing again?

Cool, so I can just let Jim express the rational not retarded opinion for me http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7230-Lawsuits-Memes-and-Tasty-Medicine?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=videos

 

[Roman Monaghan]

Accidental double post.

 

[Mersadeon]

Wait, am I understanding this right? This guy made a map that was more accurate than the official one, then basically uploaded it for everyone (since a traffic map is not really something you want to keep for yourself), and then gripes about his more accurate version being thought of as the official one? Dude, you made a subway map. Chill. Had they used the official map, the city wouldn't have sued either. You made this for the public. Now it's even more public. It's not like Naughty Dog made a single dollar more just because they had an accurate subway map.

Edit: I mean, don't get me wrong, I understand he technically has the right to sue. But really? You made this for public consumption! So that people can use it to get around. Wouldn't you WANT it to be seen as THE map and used in other media?

 

[Therumancer]

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.

You might be right in some states, but for the most part I'm going to say flat out that your wrong. They have even done shows about cartography on "History Channel" and the like and the bottom line to it is that the business can be pretty cutthroat because maps tend to only be valuable when your the only source for them. Once a map is out there the fact that anyone can copy it greatly reduces the value. Thus if your say doing underwater surveying for example, your charts become inherently valuable to begin with if nobody else has them for the region, but once you sell them a few times people are going to run off millions of copies of your info and unless you cut a deal to get royalties your pretty much SOOL. Granted I saw stuff on this years ago.

At any rate, we might eventually find out who is right and who is wrong depending on whether he successfully wins the case.

 

[Willard13]

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.

It's already been done. Apple has copyright on the colors white and grey, and the rectangular shape.