4 ms·

Yea, I think the author could have approached this issue with a little more grace. He should have tried to contact Naughty Dog and try to work something out be

Yea, I think the author could have approached this issue with a little more grace. He should have tried to contact Naughty Dog and try to work something out before spiddling his rage into that post. Then, if Naughty Dog chooses to ignore the author's claims of copyright infringement, he could make a big stink over it. Personally, if I was the author, I'd be honored to be in a game of that magnitude at all. In other words, it should be a good selling point for the author from now on. "Oh yea, you know that best selling, perfect game, The Last of Us? Yea, they used some of my art in there... Oh yea, no big deal." Truthfully, if they had contacted the author before incorporating it into the game, and they found out it would cost money, they probably would have found another map, or make one of their own. A company that large has the man power to make a subway map. I won't argue that the author has a right to be upset, but don't just start some type of flame war against a company that people love right now.

shock-value 13y ago
> Personally, if I was the author, I'd be honored to be in a game of that magnitude at all. You'd be selling yourself short then. If you had any confidence in your work, you would not be flattered just because some project that happens to have been created by hundreds of people ripped you off.
- donutdan4114 13y ago
  In this particular case, I don't think he would be "selling himself short". We are talking about a global, best selling, extremely popular, and well-received game. If his work was used in something demeaning like "Leisure Suit Larry", than he should probably be more pissed. But, like I said, "if I was the author." I am not the author, and I am only stating my opinion on how I would feel.
  - shock-value 13y ago
    I guess I just have no idea where your viewpoint is coming from. I can almost see being flattered if someone just took, say, a painting you painted, submitted it to a prestigious painting competition under their name, and won. I'd be extremely angry and would do everything in my power to assume credit (and any potential prize), but I would perhaps feel good about my work being recognized. But the videogame is hardly being praised for the inclusion of this map alone! It's such a tiny piece of of the game; many players would probably not even notice it. This does not in any way diminish its quality -- it's just not the focus of the game experience. Basically they just ripped him off in the name of "filling in the edges" of their art design. Which is totally unacceptable, especially for a respected development studio.
    - donutdan4114 13y ago
      My viewpoint is coming from "just don't be an asshole." The author has every right to be upset, and he should seek monetary compensation for the use of his work. However, he didn't have to come out and publicly criticize Naughty Dog, especially before contacting them. Like I've said in other comments, Naughty Dog might seem like a large company, but I'm sure it was just one person who decided to use that picture, and probably didn't know the rules/laws around using that kind of imagery. In fact, it was likely an intern put to the task. So, in reality, the author is shaming some poor bastard who works at Naughty Dog and they made a mistake. My viewpoint would have been to contact them and say: "Hey guys, noticed you used one of the maps that I made. I appreciate the fact that you guys liked the design of the map enough to incorporate it in your game, however it is protected by copyright. Seeing as this is probably an honest mistake made by some new person you guys hired (obviously), I will not publicly flame you guys on my blog. I am only seeking $XXXX for the use of my work. Thank you, and have a nice day."
bigiain 13y ago
If I released a compilation of games with an unauthorised copy of a Naughty Dog title, how much "grace" do you suppose they'd extend? Do you think they'd "try to contact me and work something out"? You can't have it both ways - if copyright protects Naughty Dog and their work, how can it possibly not also protect the OP's maps?
- donutdan4114 13y ago
  Do you think Naughty Dog would contact you, and ask that you take down your work or pay damages? Or would make an angry blog post stating how furious they are and that they demand compensation, making it public for the whole world to see? I am thinking they would contact you first.
  - to3m 13y ago
    Acceptable standards of behaviour are very different for corporate entities. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels they could demand a corporate entity to behave with a certain amount of class when looking out for what its owners see as its interests. By contrast, I think it actually perfectly acceptable for an individual to call out a corporation's poor behaviour, without warning, in a public post, with profanity.
    - donutdan4114 13y ago
      They might seem like a large company, but there was probably one person, probably an intern, who had to find some textures for that part of the game. That person made a mistake. Obviously there should be checks/balances in place to make sure unauthorized imagery isn't used. But people make mistakes. The author is basically directly attacking some poor bastard who works at Naughty Dog. I am sure Naughty Dog will fix the situation, and I'm sure they could have done it without being publicly flamed.
      - to3m 13y ago
        Well, firstly Naughty Dog ARE a large company. 240 people, according to Wikipedia. OK, compared to General Electric, they might not seem like much - but 240 is plenty large by game studio standards. Regardless, my comment about corporate entities has nothing to do with size! Whether made up of 1 person or 10,000, a business can and should be held to a higher standard of behaviour than an individual. (Don't worry, businesses aren't alive, so they're unlikely to feel unfairly put upon.) Anyway: it doesn't really feel like an individual is being "attacked" here, just the company as a whole. What's unreasonable about that? It's the company's responsibility to ensure that they release a product that (amongst other things) doesn't infringe copyright. It appears that this time they have failed to do that, and they're being called out on it. The closest thing to an attack I could see was the suggestion that "they" did a google image search to find the image - which, to my eyes, quite apart from being obviously merely a supposition, hardly sounds like anybody is being singled out.
to3m 13y ago
No, no, no. Don't be ridiculous. The level of grace exhibited is, I think, quite within acceptable bounds. Naughty Dog are professionals, and I think they can be reasonably expected to pay attention to copyright, or face some flak.
- donutdan4114 13y ago
  I don't think it's ridiculous to show "a little more grace." Naughty Dog made a mistake. I'm sure they can understand that without all the anger and sounding like they purposely plotted your demise. We might think of Naughty Dog as a 200+ person company, but it was probably one person in charge of textures who found the picture and didn't realize he couldn't use it. Probably an intern, too.

shock-value 13y ago

> Personally, if I was the author, I'd be honored to be in a game of that magnitude at all. You'd be selling yourself short then. If you had any confidence in your work, you would not be flattered just because some project that happens to have been created by hundreds of people ripped you off.

donutdan4114 13y ago
In this particular case, I don't think he would be "selling himself short". We are talking about a global, best selling, extremely popular, and well-received game. If his work was used in something demeaning like "Leisure Suit Larry", than he should probably be more pissed. But, like I said, "if I was the author." I am not the author, and I am only stating my opinion on how I would feel.
- shock-value 13y ago
  I guess I just have no idea where your viewpoint is coming from. I can almost see being flattered if someone just took, say, a painting you painted, submitted it to a prestigious painting competition under their name, and won. I'd be extremely angry and would do everything in my power to assume credit (and any potential prize), but I would perhaps feel good about my work being recognized. But the videogame is hardly being praised for the inclusion of this map alone! It's such a tiny piece of of the game; many players would probably not even notice it. This does not in any way diminish its quality -- it's just not the focus of the game experience. Basically they just ripped him off in the name of "filling in the edges" of their art design. Which is totally unacceptable, especially for a respected development studio.
  - donutdan4114 13y ago
    My viewpoint is coming from "just don't be an asshole." The author has every right to be upset, and he should seek monetary compensation for the use of his work. However, he didn't have to come out and publicly criticize Naughty Dog, especially before contacting them. Like I've said in other comments, Naughty Dog might seem like a large company, but I'm sure it was just one person who decided to use that picture, and probably didn't know the rules/laws around using that kind of imagery. In fact, it was likely an intern put to the task. So, in reality, the author is shaming some poor bastard who works at Naughty Dog and they made a mistake. My viewpoint would have been to contact them and say: "Hey guys, noticed you used one of the maps that I made. I appreciate the fact that you guys liked the design of the map enough to incorporate it in your game, however it is protected by copyright. Seeing as this is probably an honest mistake made by some new person you guys hired (obviously), I will not publicly flame you guys on my blog. I am only seeking $XXXX for the use of my work. Thank you, and have a nice day."

bigiain 13y ago

If I released a compilation of games with an unauthorised copy of a Naughty Dog title, how much "grace" do you suppose they'd extend? Do you think they'd "try to contact me and work something out"? You can't have it both ways - if copyright protects Naughty Dog and their work, how can it possibly not also protect the OP's maps?

donutdan4114 13y ago
Do you think Naughty Dog would contact you, and ask that you take down your work or pay damages? Or would make an angry blog post stating how furious they are and that they demand compensation, making it public for the whole world to see? I am thinking they would contact you first.
- to3m 13y ago
  Acceptable standards of behaviour are very different for corporate entities. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels they could demand a corporate entity to behave with a certain amount of class when looking out for what its owners see as its interests. By contrast, I think it actually perfectly acceptable for an individual to call out a corporation's poor behaviour, without warning, in a public post, with profanity.
  - donutdan4114 13y ago
    They might seem like a large company, but there was probably one person, probably an intern, who had to find some textures for that part of the game. That person made a mistake. Obviously there should be checks/balances in place to make sure unauthorized imagery isn't used. But people make mistakes. The author is basically directly attacking some poor bastard who works at Naughty Dog. I am sure Naughty Dog will fix the situation, and I'm sure they could have done it without being publicly flamed.
    - to3m 13y ago
      Well, firstly Naughty Dog ARE a large company. 240 people, according to Wikipedia. OK, compared to General Electric, they might not seem like much - but 240 is plenty large by game studio standards. Regardless, my comment about corporate entities has nothing to do with size! Whether made up of 1 person or 10,000, a business can and should be held to a higher standard of behaviour than an individual. (Don't worry, businesses aren't alive, so they're unlikely to feel unfairly put upon.) Anyway: it doesn't really feel like an individual is being "attacked" here, just the company as a whole. What's unreasonable about that? It's the company's responsibility to ensure that they release a product that (amongst other things) doesn't infringe copyright. It appears that this time they have failed to do that, and they're being called out on it. The closest thing to an attack I could see was the suggestion that "they" did a google image search to find the image - which, to my eyes, quite apart from being obviously merely a supposition, hardly sounds like anybody is being singled out.

to3m 13y ago

No, no, no. Don't be ridiculous. The level of grace exhibited is, I think, quite within acceptable bounds. Naughty Dog are professionals, and I think they can be reasonably expected to pay attention to copyright, or face some flak.

donutdan4114 13y ago
I don't think it's ridiculous to show "a little more grace." Naughty Dog made a mistake. I'm sure they can understand that without all the anger and sounding like they purposely plotted your demise. We might think of Naughty Dog as a 200+ person company, but it was probably one person in charge of textures who found the picture and didn't realize he couldn't use it. Probably an intern, too.