Support NeoGAF

[FuzzyDunlop]

I remember seeing a mcdonald's ad that used album art from Nine Inch Nails- The Fragile.

this shit happens all the time. what can you do?

And to clarify, sony didnt steal it. some poorly paid artist who was hired to create artwork stole it.

If you even wanna call it stealing. christ.

 

[lowlylowlycook]

Umm... are people ACTUALLY debating whether it's a copy or not? Jeez. It IS a copy/paste/blend job. That everyone should admit. The problem here is concerning whether this particular artwork was used for commercial use or not and whether they made money off of it. Everything is fair in CC (including remixing/photoshops) as long as it's not used for profit.

But that means that Sucker Punch or Sony or whoever put their art under the CC license.

So Microsoft could modify it and use it for some anti-InFamous campaign of theirs?

The only way this isn't bad is if the photograph was in fact purchased but in a way that didn't involve the original artist directly. It's absolutely possible to release the work under more than one license, e.g. the CC and to some stock photo company, so that's possible.

 

[Dot50Cal]

But that means that Sucker Punch or Sony or whoever put their art under the CC license.

So Microsoft could modify it and use it for some anti-InFamous campaign of theirs?

The only way this isn't bad is if the photograph was in fact purchased but in a way that didn't involve the original artist directly. It's absolutely possible to release the work under more than one license, e.g. the CC and to some stock photo company, so that's possible.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOUR BRAIN!?!?!?!

 

[Raist]

It's obviously a "remake" no one can deny that. Is Sony responsible? No. Sucker Punch? Not really. More like the artist who made that inFamous artwork.

If it wasn't used to make profit, it's fair game as far as the CC goes. Now you could always argue that as long as it promotes the game, in anyway, it could be considered as an indirect way to make profit.

Maybe SP should contact him. And patch the game to put him in the credits or something

 

[neojubei]

Have the OP contacted the original artist before making this topic?

He has his own website, cool

http://www.paulobarcellosjr.com/Barcellos/Welcome.html

I do like his photography work. Thanks to the OP for exposing me to his cool artist.

 

[test_account]

Please stop saying "similarities", it's the same picture.

I think that i might have written poorly in my previous posts, i am sorry. I never ment to say that Sucker Punch used a similar skyline picture. The inFamous artwork is based on the skyline picture taken by Paulo Barcellos, i dont mean to say anything against that. If what i said was understood like this, then i am sorry :\ I know for sure that it is the same copyrighted skyline picture that was used to make the inFamous artwork

What i ment with similarities is that the inFamous artwork and the skyline picture arent identical looking at the whole pictures. One of the pictures as added lighting effects, added fire, a bit different color "tint" (or what it is called) etc. That is why i said similarities and not the same pictures.

test_account, you're rapidly leaving the realm of rational, reasonable doubt and moving into... well, I don't know what, but it's not a very good direction to move in.

It's the same picture, retouched and with the Cole character art and lightning effects added on top. That has been pretty much conclusively proven in this thread; there's no point in debating that part of the issue any further. That's why most people have moved on to working out whether there was a fashion in which the piece could have been used legally.

What exactly have i said that is so "crazy"? I have said several of times that i know that the inFamous artwork is based on the skyline picture. When i have refered to "the skyline picture" or to "this skyline picture" i have been refering to the skyline picture taken by by Paulo Barcellos, just so that is said

I never claimed that the inFamous artwork was original and made from scratch, i said that effect were added to the skyline picture, just like you say here. I have asked several of questions around if it was confirmed that the use of this skyline picture was theft. I never claimed that it wasnt theft, or at least i never ment to claim that at least. I also said that i hope that they guy who took the skyline picture will be payed by Sucker Punch and/or Sony and to be credited for his work, if he wants this.

So what have i said that is so "crazy"?


EDIT 2: Or did you think that i ment to say that there are 2 different skyline pictures that looks similar? If so, then i understand that you think that i am "crazy" for writing that, but i never ment to say that there were 2 different skyline pictures that are used here. It is definitly the same skyline picture that Paulo Barcellos took that is used in the inFamous artwork, i dont deny that at all.

Maybe my previous posts looked like i ment that there were 2 different skyline pictures, but if that is the case, then i am sorry for writing my previous posts poorly :\

Thus the reason I said he was daft. People keep saying it's possible to have a similar picture. It's IMPOSSIBLE to have the same cloud formations, light sources, and to have stood in the EXACT spot, down to the INCH, to have two pictures match exactly. It's not similar, it is the same.

Find me the exact same cloud formations, down to the inch, in the same city on two different days. I'm sorry folks, the reason there's "similarities" is because they are the same.

I think that there might have been some missundersanding here and maybe that i have written my prevoius posts poorly, i am sorry about that, so i want to clearify a bit what i said.

When i said the same picture, i ment the inFamous artwork, not the skyline picture. I ment to say that i dont see why you need to take a picture with the exact same clound formations, light sources and be at the exact same spot to make so to say the same inFamous artwork. The most important thing is probably the angle though, but i dont know how hard it is to get the same angle so to say.

As Narag said earlier, it would probably be hard to do this without the use of the skyline picture, but is it impossible? I dont know, since i am no artist myself, but i know that there are many really good artists out there, so i would guess that someone could make so to say the same inFamous artwork without the use of this exact skyline picture.


And just to underline, when i said similar picture, i was refering to and comparing the inFamous artwork picture and the skyline picture. I never ment to say that Sucker Punch used a similar skyline picture. I know for sure that Sucker Punch's inFamous artwork is based on the same skyline picture that Paulo Barcellos took, i dont doubt that for one second.

And to clearify some more, just because i say that it could be possible to take a similar skyline picture and make so to say the same inFamous artwork by using another skyline picture instead, i never ment to say that it was ok to use this particular skyline picture that is copyrighted just because it might be easy to take a similar picture. If a picture is copyrighted, then it is copyrighted, no matter how easy it should be to replicate the same picture.

I am sorry if what i wrote earlier was missunderstood or poorly written by me, but i hope that what i ment is a bit clearer now

EDIT: I added some text. I am sorry for the long posts here as well :\

 

[Raist]

So Microsoft could modify it and use it for some anti-InFamous campaign of theirs?

Are you kerazy? I mean, what has been done here doesn't hurt the artist's reputation or work. His artwork wwasn't commercialized in the first place either. The only question is, does it infringe IP laws and can it be "punished". We'd need someone who knows about stuff like that.

Have the OP contacted the original artist before making this topic?

Good question. He said he put a question mark in the OP to defend himself (thus he probably didn't know beforehand), then a couple of posts later he said "oh but I asked the artist, he wasn't aware". Needs clarification.

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

But that means that Sucker Punch or Sony or whoever put their art under the CC license.

So Microsoft could modify it and use it for some anti-InFamous campaign of theirs?

The only way this isn't bad is if the photograph was in fact purchased but in a way that didn't involve the original artist directly. It's absolutely possible to release the work under more than one license, e.g. the CC and to some stock photo company, so that's possible.

LOL at this tinfoil hat bullshit

 

[lowlylowlycook]

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOUR BRAIN!?!?!?!

For instance MS could take that picture with the InFamous art added, add text like "Infamous is a decent game, and that's the whole of it -- Penny Arcade" then pop that into ads all over the internet.

 

[neojubei]

Are you kerazy? I mean, what has been done here doesn't hurt the artist's reputation or work. His artwork wwasn't commercialized in the first place either. The only question is, does it infringe IP laws and can it be "punished". We'd need someone who knows about stuff like that.

Punished? Such as? Sony should just credit the guy and give him a generous payment

Oh and lowlylowlycook, just stop, you are embarrassing yourself.

 

[Truespeed]

We're releasing all of the assets that you'll need in order to create your very own inFAMOUS fan site. When you download the zip file below, you'll get art from the game, stills from our graphic cuts scenes, concept art, movies and a host of other cool items. It's one-stop shopping for all things inFAMOUS.

To receive everything that you need to get started, simply download this file. Link

What are you waiting for?

 

[Dot50Cal]

For instance MS could take that picture with the InFamous art added, add text like "Infamous is a decent game, and that's the whole of it -- Penny Arcade" then pop that into ads all over the internet.

Because something like this has happened. I mean, why not. Why would a competitor pass up the opportunity to promote the others game! You, sir, belong in marketing.

 

[lowlylowlycook]

Are you kerazy? I mean, what has been done here doesn't hurt the artist's reputation or work. His artwork wwasn't commercialized in the first place either. The only question is, does it infringe IP laws and can it be "punished". We'd need someone who knows about stuff like that.

People are claiming that SP used the original photo under the CC license. I'm just pointing out the ramifications of that claim.

 

[Raist]

Punished? Such as?

From asking for royalties or whatever, or remove the stuff where this artwork has been used, etc. If it goes into tribunal in the US, they could always ask for the game to be removed from sale :lol Ok maybe not.

 

[Firestorm]

I don't get it. How the hell do people think this is "non-commercial". Do people think inFamous is by a non-profit organization? Seriously what the hell. Oh, and this is the first we're hearing of it so no the author was never attributed. Any designer worth a damn should know what this entails:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/deed.en_CA

For people who don't. It means: GIVE THE AUTHOR CREDIT, DO NOT USE IT FOR PROFIT.

"Waiver — Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder. "
And that's that. If they asked him, great, but from what we found out in this topic, they didn't. Sucker Punch's designer needs to answer for this.

 

[Raist]

People are claiming that SP used the original photo under the CC license. I'm just pointing out the ramifications of that claim.

You really think that modifying an artwork to make another one to promote your own stuff, and do the same thing to badmouth one's product, is equivalent?

 

[lowlylowlycook]

Oh and lowlylowlycook, just stop, you are embarrassing yourself.

Maybe I am. I'm not meaning to push the idea that MS would use that, it's just the first thing that popped into my head. I'm just doubting that SP would want their art out under a license where they could.

Maybe game art is often put out under a similar license. In that case, totally ignore me.

 

[Firestorm]

You really think that modifying an artwork to make another one to promote your own stuff, and do the same thing to badmouth one's product, is equivalent?

Do you really this either of these things are legal when the license says that the author must be attributed and it can't be used for profit (which is the point of a PROMOTIONAL piece for a FOR PROFIT product?

 

[Raist]

Do you really this either of these things are legal when the license says that the author must be attributed and it can't be used for profit (which is the point of a PROMOTIONAL piece for a FOR PROFIT product?

Read my previous posts if you wonder if I think it's totally fine or not.

Now these two examples would certainly not have the same weight in a tribunal.

 

[Firestorm]

Read my previous posts if you wonder if I think it's totally fine or not.

Now these two examples would certainly not have the same weight in a tribunal.

Yeah I did. You're wrong. You think it's in a fine line. That's incorrect. It was used as a promotional piece for a commercial product. It's violating the terms of the license. It's very simple and I'm not sure why people are divided aside from irrational console loyalties. The designer they hired is a hack. I see no problem with CC work being used for promotional purposes if they follow the terms of the license.

 

[Truespeed]

For commercial use, or to purchase a print version of one of my pictures, please contact me with the code (DSC_XXXX) of the picture you’d like to purchase. I’ve prints starting at US$ 199.00 for a 20”x30” print.

I think I'll contact him and ask how much the City Scape picture would cost for a commercial production - finally, some real investigative journalism.

 

[Truespeed]

Hey, it's all good. It looks like Paulo is a fan of Kratos.

 

[Truespeed]

Yeah I did. You're wrong. You think it's in a fine line. That's incorrect. It was used as a promotional piece for a commercial product. It's violating the terms of the license. It's very simple and I'm not sure why people are divided aside from irrational console loyalties. The designer they hired is a hack. I see no problem with CC work being used for promotional purposes if they follow the terms of the license.

Relax. You're wrong. The picture is available for commercial use at reasonable rates. Regardless of whatever license the picture is associated with, the author reserves all right to waive any conditions he wants.

Waiver — Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.

 

[I AM JOHN!]

So SONYs graphic designers made this? SONYs team made the game?

From a purely legal standpoint, as the funder, publisher and distributor of the game and the company that owns the inFAMOUS intellectual property, it is their responsibility to vet this stuff before it gets out. Regardless of if the graphic designer behind this is a Sony employee, a Sucker Punch employee, or a private contractor working for an outside advertising agency or even a company employed by the outsourced advertising agency, it's their responsibility to make sure that this stuff isn't infringing on someone elses' property. Of course, we don't know the full details and whoever made the image very well could have gotten permission to use the base photograph (maybe the photographer works with an outside agency for use of his work, or the photo is owned by someone he worked with before becoming a freelancer), but the inFAMOUS artwork obviously uses the photo as a base and at the moment, it looks pretty bad on Sony until they issue an official comment.

Of course, gigantic corporations being incompetent and ripping off other people's art for their promotional material has nothing to do with the quality of inFAMOUS, Sucker Punch or the PlayStation 3, something that it seems some people in this thread are having trouble understanding.

 

[Raist]

Yeah I did. You're wrong. You think it's in a fine line. That's incorrect. It was used as a promotional piece for a commercial product. It's violating the terms of the license. It's very simple and I'm not sure why people are divided aside from irrational console loyalties. The designer they hired is a hack. I see no problem with CC work being used for promotional purposes if they follow the terms of the license.

It's obviously a "remake" no one can deny that. Is Sony responsible? No. Sucker Punch? Not really. More like the artist who made that inFamous artwork.

If it wasn't used to make profit, it's fair game as far as the CC goes. Now you could always argue that as long as it promotes the game, in anyway, it could be considered as an indirect way to make profit.

Maybe SP should contact him. And patch the game to put him in the credits or something

.

 

[Kobun Heat]

did anyone really know you could reserve rights on Flickr? I highly doubt this is common knowledge. So yes Sucker punch was wrong but Im PRETTY sure it was a mistake.

This is exactly backwards. The minute you create an image, you retain all of the copyrights. You can choose to waive some or all of those rights when you upload it.

 

[Firestorm]

Relax. You're wrong. The picture is available for commercial use at reasonable rates. Regardless of whatever license the picture is associated with, the author reserves all right to waive any conditions he wants.

Yeah. The author can waive the conditions. It's hard to do that unless you're contacted. You have the right to give away your PSP. Can I take your PSP and ask permission later when you find out it was me?

.

I read that. That's what I was replying when I said you were wrong. It was done purely for profitable reasons by a for-profit company their commercial work. Do you think marketing is "non-commercial"? Seriously?

 

[Raist]

I read that. That's what I was replying when I said you were wrong. It was done purely for profitable reasons by a for-profit company their commercial work. Do you think marketing is "non-commercial"? Seriously?

Of course it is. But what I replied to your original post quoting me is that it's nowhere as bad as MS taking this SP-edited artwork to badmouth the game.

On a sidenote, where was this InFamous artwork used?

 

[Firestorm]

This is exactly backwards. The minute you create an image, you retain all of the copyrights. You can choose to waive some or all of those rights when you upload it.

Not to mention I'm pretty sure a professional graphic designer knows about picture rights, copyright, and creative commons... especially on Flickr.

If a student (me) knows this, I'm going to hope someone who's been doing this for years and charges huge sums of money knows this too.

Of course it is. But what I replied to your original post quoting me is that it's nowhere as bad as MS taking this SP-edited artwork to badmouth the game.

On a sidenote, where was this InFamous artwork used?

It'd be a dick move by Microsoft, but I can't see how it's worse or better as far as the license and author is concerned.

 

[Beardz]

Hey, it's all good. It looks like Paulo is a fan of Kratos.

Maybe he works/freelance for Sony? oh shi

Spoiler

I know he doesn't...

 

[Truespeed]

Yeah. The author can waive the conditions. It's hard to do that unless you're contacted. You have the right to give away your PSP. Can I take your PSP and ask permission later when you find out it was me?

I'm not sure, was my fictitious PSP placed under the CC license?

 

[Raist]

It'd be a dick move by Microsoft, but I can't see how it's worse or better as far as the license and author is concerned.

Because it's illegal on an IP laws level, and it would be "offending". I guess.


Wait, where does that photo with Kratos come from?

 

[Milabrega]

I think this post : http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=16199679&postcount=18

and the .gifs showing the lights and clouds being exactly the fucking same...

and this:

From a purely legal standpoint, as the funder, publisher and distributor of the game and the company that owns the inFAMOUS intellectual property, it is their responsibility to vet this stuff before it gets out. Regardless of if the graphic designer behind this is a Sony employee, a Sucker Punch employee, or a private contractor working for an outside advertising agency or even a company employed by the outsourced advertising agency, it's their responsibility to make sure that this stuff isn't infringing on someone elses' property. Of course, we don't know the full details and whoever made the image very well could have gotten permission to use the base photograph (maybe the photographer works with an outside agency for use of his work, or the photo is owned by someone he worked with before becoming a freelancer), but the inFAMOUS artwork obviously uses the photo as a base and at the moment, it looks pretty bad on Sony until they issue an official comment.

Of course, gigantic corporations being incompetent and ripping off other people's art for their promotional material has nothing to do with the quality of inFAMOUS, Sucker Punch or the PlayStation 3, something that it seems some people in this thread are having trouble understanding.

Should all be added to the OP. To reduce, what I hope is only confusion going on here.

 

[Firestorm]

Because it's illegal on an IP laws level, and it would be "offending". I guess.


Wait, where does that photo with Kratos come from?

Which law? And I don't see the "offending" part unless you're Sony who doesn't own the image in the first place. I don't think this author champions Sony or Microsoft.

 

[.GqueB.]

This is exactly backwards. The minute you create an image, you retain all of the copyrights. You can choose to waive some or all of those rights when you upload it.

Yea... I know that. Im just saying that Flickr comes off as a bit of a public site where you can use these pics whenever you see fit. Theres a good chance that someone young did this poster that didnt really know about these things.

Everyone is jumping to conclusions a bit here is all Im saying. And all the conclusions just so happen to be extremely negative.

 

[kitchenmotors]

Yea... I know that. Im just saying that Flickr comes off as a bit of a public site where you can use these pics whenever you see fit. Theres a good chance that someone young did this poster that didnt really know about these things.

Everyone is jumping to conclusions a bit here is all Im saying. And all the conclusions just so happen to be extremely negative.

I'm sorry, but you're being very naive. If you're in the graphic design industry, regardless of age, you should know something about copyright laws and common sense things like, Flickr isn't a free-for-all where you can just take, edit and modify, without contacting the original artist.

 

[Firestorm]

Yea... I know that. Im just saying that Flickr comes off as a bit of a public site where you can use these pics whenever you see fit. Theres a good chance that someone young did this poster that didnt really know about these things.

Everyone is jumping to conclusions a bit here is all Im saying. And all the conclusions just so happen to be extremely negative.

All I'm saying is I think any designer past their first year of study should know how to use Flickr and how not to use Flickr.

I learned that anything published online is copyrighted as your own work when I was 13 or so. I learned about creative commons when I hit my first year of university (never needed to know before that).

Thinking a designer who was either contracted by or works for Sony does not know the basics of copyright when it comes to images is incredibly naive. Especially when it involves the most popular image sharing site in the world.

 

[.GqueB.]

I'm sorry, but you're being very naive. If you're in the graphic design industry, regardless of age, you should know something about copyright laws and common sense things like, Flickr isn't a free-for-all where you can just take, edit and modify, without contacting the original artist.

I AM NOT SAYING that the guy didnt know. I AM NOT SAYING that this was all an accident. I AM SAYING that theres a rather good chance that this is just a mistake on the part of the designer. Everyone in here is crying "steal" and "sue". Its a bit ridiculous.

As Ive already said:

The artist probably never "heard of infamous" because it isnt exactly common to come out and tell the artist exactly what the art is being used for. Its rarely even necessary.

 

[Firestorm]

We're not talking about the artist. We're talking about the graphic designer. If you're not in design, media, or anything related maybe it's new to you. If you are making a living on design, this is common knowledge. There's a close to zero chance that the designer didn't know what he or she was doing. There's a good chance he didn't know he would get caught.