Artist says Capcom stole her photos for Resident Evil, Devil May Cry games in lawsuit

Capcom games like Resident Evil 4 and Devil May Cry allegedly used unlicensed copyrighted photos extensively in its games to build out environments, details, and even the Resident Evil 4 logo, according to a new lawsuit filed Friday.

The story is too old to be commented.
mkis00751d ago

Wow, pretty damning evidence.

Jin_Sakai51d ago

If they like an artist work why not just offer to hire them instead of stealing from them?

Sonic-and-Crash51d ago (Edited 51d ago )

i defend Capcom on this is their own property game ....whatever artistic vlaue have your photos are because they ve taken from the game ....she didnt create RE4 or any of its art content....

MetroidFREAK2151d ago

@Sonic-and-Crash... do you not understand anything? That's not how ANY of that works.

RexRuthless51d ago

@Sonic-and-Crash although you have a right to state your opinion, Blindly defending anything without a clear understanding of how things are supposed to work makes you look silly...your statement is one of those times...

n1kki650d ago

@Sonic-and-crash Did you even read the article? Her art had nothing to do with Resident Evil. They were textures and designs that they used within their own art.

TheRealTedCruz50d ago


I don't know what to say, man.
Not to dog pile on you, but you obviously don't get how things work.
It's very obvious that they lifted the hard work of someone else, and gave them no credit, and no money for the work, yet they used it for their own profit.
There's little difference than me walking into a museum and stealing a painting.
That's their product.
That is now a product.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 50d ago
camel_toad51d ago (Edited 51d ago )

I will never understand how an artist can be so naive to work on something high profile (such as the RE series) copy someone else's work and think it will go unnoticed.

Another example being one of the artists of RE8 who blatantly copied a creature design from that Frankenstein's Army film.

isarai50d ago

To be fair this was back when game development, especially Japanese development, was very fast and loose. And it went unnoticed for almost 15yrs. These big studios are way more cautious about where they get their assets these days. They'll just pay her and settle it out of court, easy situation for Capcom honestly.

CobraKai51d ago

They’ll pay her. Prolly cheaper than going through a whole lawsuit battle. Kinda like what happened with Naughty Dog and that song. Seriously tho, they said some other guy had his monster designs stolen too. If your gonna be working as an artist for a video game, use your own assets.

roadkillers51d ago

This is a weird one because if the leaks never would have happened, no one would'v known.. The items copyrighted are extremely tiny details too, why not just make the detail similar? Either way, Capcom should just settle out of court and put out a statement explaining how a small amount of artists copyrighted parts of their work. I can't believe the overall company new about these small instances while their company was working on dozens of games.

MocBistro51d ago

It's hard to judge, she doesn't create the pictures, she took them. If i took a picture of your house does that mean I own the picture of YOUR house?

roadkillers51d ago

It's kind of a grey area, but from my understanding all of these photos were published in a book which has copyright protection. Most of these details I wouldn't have known a difference without an article (apparently the author didn't either since this has been happening pre- REmake). The only detail I remember is RE4's cool intro where the 4 appears.

purple10151d ago (Edited 51d ago )

I agree
On her logic il take a photo of a beach .. then charge people if they decide to take a family pic!

In all seriousness there's a difference with what she's saying. Capcom are profiting .

It's like with music. I can play music from a cd at a party.
But if I start charging people £10 for entry. Id have to give a percentage to the artist .

It's a tricky one. But I'd say she doesn't really have a case here. If it was a painting. Then it's another story. But a photo ! Get out of town

roadkillers51d ago

That's confusing as well too. If someone is throwing a $10 entry fee, does someones $10 Spotify cover the costs?

purple10151d ago (Edited 51d ago )

That would only cover it for you. Not for public.

Good point though.

Anyway I read the article more and they have even used it in their logo. Which is a big no no.

Obviously you copyright a logo and you can't copyright something that's already copyrighted by somebody else that would be the whole point of copyright! Haha

curtain_swoosh50d ago

ah music is really complicated. in theory you are absolutely right, but charging people to have entry to a party with music does not mean you have to give the artists a cut. because you charge for entry, not for music, that would be illegal to resell said music.

clubs dont pay percentages to artists if they play music. theyd go bankrupt if they had to pay every artist lol. music copyright and royalties are very complicated.

glennhkboy50d ago

Actually, I think you need to pay for the licence of any music you played openly, like a party.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 50d ago
BrainSyphoned51d ago (Edited 51d ago )

Since 1990 if the house is in a viewable to public location you would indeed own the photo of the house. Now if you take a photo of a mural without showing the whole house things change. But for a blanket statement on your basic house on the street, yes you would own the picture of someone else's house. But that is just one page of google's understanding of copywrites.

porkChop51d ago

If I allowed you into my home, yes you would own the picture of my house. In journalism school they taught us about (Canadian) copyright laws. If you take a photo that photo is yours. If you're on private property and have permission to be there, any photos you take are your copyright. If you're trespassing that isn't necessarily true. She's a professional photographer though, she had permission to be there.

Sitdown50d ago

She did create the picture, part of taking a picture is the composition, and we don't know how much editing was done in creating the final project. If you took the picture of their home, you would own the picture..the grey area is around privacy laws and what requires permission.

Bobertt50d ago

If you take a picture or video you own it. Why do you think paparazzi exist they go around taking pictures and sell them to the news.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 50d ago
BrainSyphoned51d ago

Would have laughed my ass off if Rathalos was ripped off from her as well.

OhReginald50d ago

Rathalos is just a wyvern bro

BigMalk51d ago

Can't really claim from photos that it's your work. That's like me trying to sue someone for recreating my tourist snaps of London in a game to be honest.

Imagine if someone tried to claim against a movie set in a city, because they had released a book of said city's architecture, as if the buildings and scenery belong to them. You might have copyright to your photos being reused, but not the contents in them.

Axecution50d ago

You clearly didn't read the article

RosweeSon50d ago

Or understand how the world works 🤦🏻‍♂️😑 🤣🤣

BigMalk50d ago

Its Polygon. Of course I didn't.

BigMalk50d ago


No, but I know how it should work. Art is created, not captured. Photography can be art, but really, you never composed the canvas, you just snapped the shot.

Eidolon50d ago (Edited 50d ago )

Ok, try snapping those exact shots, at least 80+ of them. And it's pretty damning evidence that they used her photographs, which she had stated she wanted to be contacted for a license for use in commercial products. Are you kidding, me? So photographs can't be copyrighted, dance moves can't be copyrighted, let's get to literary works already.. Can't copyright specific strings of words because you can't own the language, right?

BigMalk49d ago


Not exactly. I don't believe in stupid stuff, like Paris Hilton trying to own "That's hot", or company names trying to put a TM on a commonly used word so no one else is allowed to use anything remotely similar. Plagiarism is a different story, that would be stealing an entire work.

I don't believe recreating photographs of existing structures (pre-photograph) , should be any different to a them actually going to a location and taking pics themselves.

All this is typical behaviour for the current world and suing culture. Did the artist pay to take photographs of someone else's creation... Probably not.

LoveSpuds50d ago

Honestly, I don't understand how people are finding this confusing.

This is a book contains photographs of textures specifically shot for the purposes of reference material for graphic design/art. If that reference material is used for commercial purposes then she is entitled to renumeration for her work.

Not that its relevant here, but to clarify a point, any photos taken in a public place, even if the subject matter is private property, is the property of the photographer. I can stand in a public place and photograph private property, let's say a famous tourist attraction, and that is my photograph which I am entitled to exploit as my own work. Who owns the subject matter of the photo is irrelevant.

BigMalk49d ago

So does that make the photographer irrelevant too then, because the person that is using it is doing exactly the same thing that they did... Claiming something that was already there before.

Show all comments (53)
The story is too old to be commented.