Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

My Boston T map used in “The Last of Us” PS3 game

transitmaps.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 58 posts

Re: My Boston T map used in “The Last of Us” PS3 game

#31

Post by donutdan4114 »

to3m wrote: post #23
donutdan4114 wrote: post #6

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 w…

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.

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.

Re: My Boston T map used in “The Last of Us” PS3 game

#32

Post by connortomas »

Ellipsis753 wrote: post #7

I wish he'd just handled this in private. If they refuse to settle then sure, complain online. But this could have very well been on honest mistake that could have been quietly settled out of the public eye. Now this is going to end up being far more of a big thing that it really had to be. Also the use of the screenshot without permission may also be copyright infringement.

I'm not sure "honest mistake" is really acceptable. This is a multi-million-dollar Triple A game. I think it's reasonable to expect their legal team should have double- and triple-check the rights to all arts assets. Ye, there are a lot of assets used in a game of TLoU's magnitude, but the subway map is so prominent I can't understand how it would have been skipped over. If they had time to include the asset, they should have had time to secure rights.

The screencap used to demonstrate the theft constitutes fair use, by the way. Cameron's using it to make a point to support his argument, which is totally legal.

Re: My Boston T map used in “The Last of Us” PS3 game

#33

Post by donutdan4114 »

to3m wrote: post #29
donutdan4114 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: My Boston T map used in “The Last of Us” PS3 game

#34

Post by jforman »

[deleted] wrote: post #27
jforman wrote: post #3

Furious? He just got a pay day — I'm sure he can find a lawyer to take the case on contingency. Should be a pretty quick settlement.

[deleted]

That's not correct — he can't claim statutory damages (those prescribed by written law) but copyright infringement is a tort that will bring damages through civil action even without registration.

Re: My Boston T map used in “The Last of Us” PS3 game

#36

Post by ChuckMcM »

martingordon wrote: post #25

Mods: I submitted this post with a different title since I am not the author of the post. Please change the title to reflect this; I don't want to mislead anyone.

Side note. It is actually kind of lame when people post their own blog posts to HN, so I never assume the person posting the link is the person who wrote the article. In that regard the personal pronoun is not ambiguous.

That said, I totally understand the desire by people writing blog posts wanting to get HN's take on it. But that is a different problem.

Re: My Boston T map used in “The Last of Us” PS3 game

#37

Post by shock-value »

donutdan4114 wrote: post #15
shock-value wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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.

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.

Re: My Boston T map used in “The Last of Us” PS3 game

#38

Post by hdra »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #36
martingordon wrote: post #25

Mods: I submitted this post with a different title since I am not the author of the post. Please change the title to reflect this; I don't want to mislead anyone.

Side note. It is actually kind of lame when people post their own blog posts to HN, so I never assume the person posting the link is the person who wrote the article. In that regard the personal pronoun is not ambiguous. That said, I totally understand the desire by people writing blog posts wanting to get HN's take on it. But that is a different problem.

Why is that? I never posted my own writing to HN, but I actually thought a lot of people share their work on HN, and I don't think that is a bad thing.

Re: My Boston T map used in “The Last of Us” PS3 game

#39

Post by bigiain »

donutdan4114 wrote: post #21
bigiain wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.

If, by the time they found out, I was already getting media attention and positive reviews for "my compilation", I'm 100% sure they'd "contact me first" not "asking me to take down or else …", but with a _demand_ to desist immediately and notice of impending lawsuit with stonkingly huge punitive damages claimed.

They would most certainly _not_ contact me first, their first contact would be with their lawyer.

For individuals without a copyright-specialist lawyer on retainer/speed-dial - a ranting blog post is a poor but possibly only substitute. (And who knows, perhaps the OP _has_ lawyered up, and the ranting blog post is an intentional tactic to publicise this so they can demonstrate widespread knowledge of the OPs work in court to increase the plausible damage claim...)

Re: My Boston T map used in “The Last of Us” PS3 game

#40

Post by to3m »

donutdan4114 wrote: post #33
to3m wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 t…

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.

Post reply on HN