Hacker News Reader

> 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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

"The author is basically directly attacking some poor bastard who works at Naughty Dog."

No. Decisions about IP are never "just one person". They involve layers of approvals and sign-offs, some creative, some financial, some legal. That's not to say that mistakes don't happen. Of course they happen. But you're not dealing with one person here, you're dealing with a system. And clearly, it's a system that could stand to be tighter than it is.

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...)

That would only apply if people used the map within the game. Specifically, if when they wanted to find how to get somewhere by subway they actually turned on the game, navigated the character to where the map was in-game, and then studied it to find the best route.

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.

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.