Slashdot Mirror
Register, Others Call Plagiarism in "Limbo of the Lost" Game
Fallen Andy writes "'The Register' has an article describing 'Limbo of the Lost' (developed by Majestic and sold in the U.S by Tri Synergy) which seems to have 'borrowed' copiously graphics assets from other games. Over at the GamesRadar forum there is a thread with some screenshots. Finally, this game has its own Wikipedia entry. Warning to all — move the soft drink away from the keyboard and monitor before you look at
those screenshots. Blatant this is, very blatant indeed."
The problem with your analogy is that they are making a profit on it (well, they won't now). The people who use the argument you are talking about for copying music/games/etc don't turn around and make mixed CDs, package them, and sell them as their own work (except puff daddy).
Bah, there's no way the devs didn't know this was going on... they had to test their own stuff some time, so unless the assets got changed right at ship time, I suspect they were fully aware.
Heh, that's some of the hardest work I've seen gone into plagiarism. That is, outside of academia and Hollywood and politicians where everyone pretty much copies everyone else...
The main point is that they used the material and lied, saying they'd created it themselves, that's a whole different issue from fair use.
It may be illegal anyway, since they used the images to make a product for resale without permission. If you plan to use an image from a game for commercial product you must, at the very least, cite your sources.
I have a number of game development books that rely heavily in in game shots from many current titles, and they are *all* cited correctly.
Even when you aren't selling the end product it's impolite not to do so.
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
I dont believe that is a sample. Samples are when you take the actual audio of one song and take a bit of it and use it in your song. In the case of Ice, Ice Baby the riff was ripped off and re recorded.
This is important because the labels own the recordings of the songs but the artists own the songs themselves. You have to pay the artist if you re-record their song, you don't have to pay the artist if you sample a recording.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Shakespeare did not invent the plots of his plays. Sometimes he used old stories (Hamlet, Pericles).
So, in which older tellings of something like Hamlet can you point to prose such as Shakespeare's "To be, or not to be..." passage? It's one thing to write a game with a magic ring quest plot, and it's quite another to say you're doing something original, and it's just a coincidence that you have characters named Frodo and Gandalf.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Not that I approve. Some people can write code, design game concepts etc but be incapable of drawing pictures. When I look at the photo of the 3 main developers I don't see a picture that looks like three guys that would play typical cutting edge games. They come up with game logic that kinda works but is butt ugly. They hire someone who claims they are a shit hot CG artist, complete with examples of "their" work. This person then proceeds to rip other peoples' work.
The developers are of course stoked by the amazing art "developed" for their game, and give lots of bonuses. Then they discover that they've been sounded robbed, as their game (and their reputations) are soundly denounced.
I'm not saying this has happened in this case, but I've seen scenarios like this before (when I did work in the games industry).
I'm also not saying that this justifies it. If anything it reveals "technology blindness" where the developers are so in love with their own product that they don't bother looking at what else is on the market.
so all corporations are teh evil incarnate eh?
Am I an evil corporate scumbag because I own a limited liability company? Am I magically less evil if I make the same games as a sole proprietor? Or is all commerce evil and only working for free in a hippy commune an acceptable way to live?
These guys were scum who took other peoples hard work and tried to profit from it. They should be sued to death. If you tolerate this, then that means you would prefer all modern games to just be re-mixes of the 8 bit textures from games of twenty years ago. After all, why the hell put any effort into creating original stuff when you can just rip off people who can do better work than you.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
Most important they don't try to make any money off of it.
The grass is always greener on the other side of the light cone.
Shakespeare merely looked at history (which, arguably, has some of the best stories) and at other popular works and mimicked those works and plots.
Plagiarism, on the other hand, in my opinion, is an exact replica of someone's work without giving that person or people any credit for that work. So, just to illustrate my point...
Me writing a novel about a guy who has special, and even superhuman abilities, and who uses those abilities to take down an evil regime after being trained by his master is not necessarily plagiarism. That's just a simple "good vs. evil"-type story.
Me writing,
"Do, or do not, there is no try."
or
"Luke raced through the trench towards the exhaust pipe with Vadar close on his tail."
Ideas and stories are not copyrightable. It's the execution of the ideas and stories that are protected.
You can take the basic story of "King Lear" and create "Ran". You can take the basic story of "Seven Samurai" and create "The Magnificent Seven". Those pairs of movies share plots and stories but each executes its own vision.
In this case, the problem with the game is that they stole the execution - i.e. the art - used in other games, not the story.
"Even for Slashdot, that was a very obscure reference!" - Anonymous Coward
This should be modded "Insightful", not "Funny". Even if he did make some clever jokes, he's right. We'd all go play the game on a lark to see what we could find if it were free. The fact that the guy is charging for it when someone else did all the heavy graphic and design lifting is what's causing the furor here.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Amazing? The publishers just looked and said "Oohh, pretty!". They don't know the games. Independent developers who do it the right way have a harder time because it actually does take a lot of work and time to get good artwork in a game, even a simple 2.5D adventure software based game.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Museums and art galleries can charge you for a print because they created a new work when they photographed or scanned the original. I have several photographs of paintings taken in the Hermitage, I took the photographs, so the copyright is mine. The Hermitage don't in any sense, and never did, own the copyright on my photos. I didn't need their permission to take photographs of the works (I may need their permission ot have a camera with me in the museum if I don't want to be thrown out when they see me holding one). But once the works enter the public domain, you can't legally stop people making copies (you can use other legal means to attempt to prevent them from making copies, but they wouldn't be infringing any right of yours if they somehow made the copies anyway).
(ok, I'm surmising about the state of copyight law in the Russian Federation, but if the Hermitage were in the UK, that would be the situation)
Just to recap.
(assume that the painting is old enough to be in the public domain)
A photograph or scan of it would constitute a new work with it's own copyright term, assigned to whoever made the photograph or scan.
I hold the copyright if I take a photograph
The gallery would have no specific right to stop me photographing the painting (that is, they could ban cameras, and require me to leave if they saw me with one, but would have no recourse to have me destroy an image that I did make) nor would such an image be infringing their copyright (because their copyright is on the prints that they sell, not the original).
Or, at least, that's what i understood the situation to be when I read about it several years ago.
FGD 135
Remember, anything which makes the news is by definition an exceptional event. Things like Enron, skipping required safety inspections, false audits, etc. are the exception, not the rule.
Most corporations I interact with on a regular basis seem to be fine upstanding citizens. The grocery stores I visit do a good job at a fair price. My car is well made and, as far as I am aware, the workers well compensated. My electricity is reliably delivered at a low price in compliance with environmental regulations. My cable company is crashingly incompetent but not, from what I can see, evil.
There are definitely some bad apples, but there are millions of corporations in the US alone and most of them appear to me to be doing a fine job.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
Probably because I'm not of African or Jamaican descent, I can't relate to the content because it's folk music.
Being of Ukrainian descent, I can relate to Ukrainian folk music played on accordians and mandolins. I doubt many people of African or Jamaican descent would get that either. So does that make them racist?
I do get Jimi Hendrix, Albert King, BB King, Robert Johnson, Elmore James, Otis Redding, Aretha Franklin and quite a few other black artists who get my utmost admiration for being the root influence of British rock music from the likes of the Beatles and Led Zeppelin.
Plus it wasn't me that used the "N" word while cowering behind an AC posting.
Other than that, I have no need to justify anything else to you - so kindly bugger off.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Limitation of liability is evil. If I invest in the mob, and they kill someone, I may be charged with a crime. If I invest in a corporation and they poison 10,000 people, or blow them up due to faulty gas tanks or whatever, I will never be held liable, though it is in part my money that allowed the corporation to kill.
Why is it my fault if I invest in organized crime, but not in a corporation that commits crimes?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Am I an evil corporate scumbag because I own a limited liability company? Am I magically less evil if I make the same games as a sole proprietor? Or is all commerce evil and only working for free in a hippy commune an acceptable way to live?
I don't actually agree with the OP, but he's not advocating communism. He's railing against corporations, because they absolve people of all personal responsibility and liability. So, yes, he probably thinks you're a scumbag of sorts because you own a LLC. If you truly believe that you're not doing anything wrong, then you should have a sole proprietorship, and accept all the liability that goes along with that. If you're not doing anything wrong, why aren't you willing to risk your own personal fortune and home?
Personally, I disagree with this view partly. He makes a good point, in that people involved in corporations are too shielded from liability, so that, for instance, people like Ken Lay get to walk free after doing criminal things and just letting their corporation take the fall by collapsing, leaving all the actual people in charge without any consequences, but with plenty of money. However, if I were to start a business of my own, I would certainly form an LLC as well, because while big corporations like Enron and their executives certainly get off too easy, in today's overly-litigious society, it is simply too risky to allow your personal assets be tied up with your business, because one lawsuit gone bad (because of some stupid jury) means your home and other assets can be seized. While I personally don't believe myself to be doing any wrong, I simply don't trust the court system to render correct verdicts, and worse, it's simply too easy to be driven out of business by excessive litigation even if you're completely innocent due to our lack of "loser pays" laws, so it makes perfect sense to protect your assets by shielding yourself behind an LLC.
Have a look at the Pirate Bay's site. Lots of ads there... almost as if the traffic were bring used to sell advertising space.
If you "invest" in organized crime (I'm not even sure invest is the right word), you're doing so with full knowledge that their enterprises are illegal. Same as if you invested in the sale and distribution of drugs, arms trading, or whatever other crime you can think of. Knowingly aiding the activities of criminals makes you liable.
When you invest in a corporation, there is an assumption that the corporation will act ethically and with your best interests in mind. When a corporation does illegal things, it is often without the knowledge of investors and is often contrary to their interests.
These are two very different situations. Are you sure you're of the opinion that those individuals who worked for Enron and lost their retirement savings when Enron went bankrupt should also be held legally responsible for the actions of the guys at the top? If so, you're one cold dude.
I have no idea what 'zeitgeist' or 'petard' mean, but I'm gonna attempt to address your post anyway.
I don't know if the intention of his post was really to call "those people" hypocrites. If I had to define his point, I'd say that he is simply trying to show "those people" that the arguments they often use are, at best, questionable justifications that, in another context, seem rather ridiculous.
For example, you seem to be saying (and forgive me if I misinterpret) that in one context, we have a company making money off of another companies work, and that's wrong. But it's not so wrong for an individual to use or acquire a companies copyrighted assets without compensation because that individual won't profit from it. Never mind that said company could be losing profits because of it. Never mind that it doesn't belong to that individual, regardless of how insignificant they feel their actions are. I mean, where's the line, and what gives this individual the right to draw it? But there's no use in arguing, as the OP pointed out, there are a dozen or so ways for the individual to justify it to himself, and in the process trick himself into thinking he's some kind of freedom crusader, saving the world from the evil corporations that *gasp* want to charge us for things, even when most of us secretly know he/she just wants free stuff.
In the end, as an observer, I guess I've always just found the pirate's reasoning to be a little self-serving. It's always been so easy to call corporations evil, controlling bastards intent on ripping the public off. It's a lot more difficult to ask yourself what your personal responsibility is, what your true motivations are, and what your self-serving justifications say about you. Maybe there is something hypocritical about a thief that steals from thieves.
But I can't think about that now, I have definitions to look up.
That almost nothing can amount to something:
Results of a 2007 survey indicate that the average salary for a game artist is USD $66,594 annually. The least experienced artists (with less than 3 years experience) generally earn about $43,657, while artists with over six years experience on average earn $74,335. Art directors with over six years experience earn an average of $102,806 annually. Game Artist
Also, if the guy at 'Limbo of the Lost' bought the game it is his to do with what he wishes because he didn't agree to any stupid 'don't lift graphics' clause and shrinkwrap licenses have never been proven in court anyway
The graphics are copyrighted. The EULA argument is bogus.
"Information wants to be free."
Information doesn't want to free any more than coal wants to be mined.
You want coal, you must dig for coal or pay someone else to do the dirty and dangerous work for you.
Information always comes a price.
The movie or video game can be years in production and employ hundreds of exceptionally talented artists and craftsman. GTA 4 had a budget of $100 million dollars.
Was I just imagining those advertisements on Pirate Bay?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Slashdot has some weird thoughts on what moneymaking is.
Host pirated material and charge for ads: OK.
Burn pirated material on CD-Rs and charge: OK.
Burn pirated material on CD-Rs and put it in a shrinkwrapped box: WTF NOT OK THAT IS THEFT!!!
It makes me think that Microsoft et al need to invest more in PBRM: Pretty Box Rights Management. More of you guys would probably actually give a care then.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.