41–50 of 58 posts
Just curious. Did the author get the proper permissions to use the MBTA logo in his map? It would be ironic if the map itself violated MBTA IP.
Just curious. Did the author get the proper permissions to use the MBTA logo in his map? It would be ironic if the map itself violated MBTA IP.
I highly doubt he got MBTA approval for the use of their trademark. That said, it's not like he's selling posters of it, in which case his product could conceivably be mistaken for licensed MBTA merchandise.
What likely happened: Developer needs an official MBTA map. They do an image search. That map is one of the first five results. They take it from there and use it. Seems like getting " fucking furious " is a bit overkill.
Yeah and that's completely negligent if you are an artist working on the game. This is like intellectual property 101, and people in the game design field, especially at that level, should know better. Absolutely inexcusable and obviously illegal as well.
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 sh…
Protip: When you're in this situation DO NOT blame an intern. Interns - by definition - are unskilled, unpaid, and uninvested. If your insurance company finds out that interns are the only thing standing between them and damages for an IP lawsuit, they'll strongly consider yanking your insurance altogether, at which point you've got a snowball's chance in hell of finding a distributer.
That's because copyright law allows rights-holders to sue not just the author of the illegally derivative work, but the author's distributors. Since the distributors have no way to be absolutely certain that the authors they buy from have actually cleared every single underlying right, they insist that the authors carry insurance that will cover any losses suffered by the distributer in cases just like this. In any human enterprise, a certain number of errors will happen. That's normal. But if a production company develops a history of recklessness, it may find itself uninsurable, and that's the end of commercial viability.
Handling Rights & Clearances is work that is both skilled and tedious, meaning it should pay well. Employers that "inadvertently" screw artists by cutting this particular corner deserved to get hit as hard as the law allows.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I highly doubt he got MBTA approval for the use of their trademark. That said, it's not like he's selling posters of it, in which case his product could conceivably be mistaken for licensed MBTA merchandise.
Yeah he's selling copies of it; http://www.cambooth.net/for-sale#bostonrail
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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."
What likely happened: Developer needs an official MBTA map. They do an image search. That map is one of the first five results. They take it from there and use it. Seems like getting " fucking furious " is a bit overkill.
Yeah and that's completely negligent if you are an artist working on the game. This is like intellectual property 101, and people in the game design field, especially at that level, should know better. Absolutely inexcusable and obviously illegal as well.
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…
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?
What this is more akin to is someone posting a youtube movie including in-game footage of Last of Us. And Naughty Dog extends a ton of grace when it comes to this. Even allowing videos of the whole game being played through.
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.
As someone who occasionally posts a Show HN from my own blog, and whose current career was heavily influenced by one such post making the front page a couple of years ago, I hope you'll reconsider your opposition. :-)