490°

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.

mkis0071047d ago

Wow, pretty damning evidence.

Jin_Sakai1047d ago

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

Sonic-and-Crash1047d ago (Edited 1047d ago )

i defend Capcom on this ...it 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....

MetroidFREAK211047d ago

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

1047d ago
n1kki61047d 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.

MadLad1046d ago

@sonic

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 1046d ago
camel_toad1047d ago (Edited 1047d 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.

isarai1047d 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.

CobraKai1047d 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.

roadkillers1047d 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.

MocBistro1047d 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?

roadkillers1047d 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.

purple1011047d ago (Edited 1047d 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

roadkillers1047d ago

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

purple1011047d ago (Edited 1047d 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

gold_drake1047d 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.

glennhkboy1046d 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 1046d ago
BrainSyphoned1047d ago (Edited 1047d 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.

porkChop1047d 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.

Sitdown1047d 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.

Bobertt1047d 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 1046d ago
BrainSyphoned1047d ago

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

OhReginald1047d ago

Rathalos is just a wyvern bro

BigMalk1047d 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.

Amplitude1047d ago

You clearly didn't read the article

RosweeSon1046d ago

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

BigMalk1046d ago

Its Polygon. Of course I didn't.

BigMalk1046d ago

@Roswee

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.

Eidolon1046d ago (Edited 1046d 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?

BigMalk1046d ago

@Eidolon

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.

LoveSpuds1046d 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.

BigMalk1046d 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)
120°

Pocketpair Studio Boss Calls Out Tencent For Developing A Palworld Clone

The game in question appears to be dubbed Auroria on Steam, which shares a plethora of similarities with Palworld.

Inverno6h ago

No offense but Palworld isn't that original either, with that said… ew Tencent no thank you. I love the survival genre but all these half baked early access games have ruined the genre for me.

140°

With Larian Out Of The Picture, Will The Baldur's Gate IP Be In Safe Hands?

Huzaifah from eXputer: "With Larian Studios washing their hands of the IP, what is the ultimate fate of the legendary Baldur's Gate series?"

RaidenBlack8h ago

If anybody's gonna mention BioWare, then look at Archetype Entertainment, they're the new BioWare
or else
Obsidian is still a good choice but not independent anymore.

anast8h ago(Edited 8h ago)

No, WoTC is pivoting to mobile. They can use Larian's work to justify DnD Go and everyone will accept it.

RiseNShine8h ago

Short answer, nope. Long answer, f*ck nope.

Christopher8h ago

Honestly, we're talking completely new engine and none of Larian's built-in stuff with regard to environments and the like that they had from their past divinity game. No one is going to have that just ready to go. So, they need to shop for a dev studio that has a past game that shows what they want.

Obsidian doesn't have that, maybe the closest being Dungeon Siege 3 or Pillars of Eternity, but those are very basic, not as open, very little environment related and altering capabilities. So, we're talking a step way back on what Larian delivered. Zero scene experience to line up with what was done in BG3. Okay conversation tree designs, but still needs more complexity.

inXile has Wasteland 3 as a base model engine, and I think that's better than Pillars of Eternity from Obsidian. But, still needs to be more open world, more environmental effects, and a much heavier rules set adaptation. But, not a bad overall engine as a base, but still a ton of work. Zero scene experience to line up with what was done in BG3. Needs a ton of work on that entirely.

Tactical Adventure did the Solasta game. Really good and more accurate as far as 5e rules than BG3. But, again, if the expectation is similar to what made BG3 a big hit, engine isn't designed for moving the camera, is a bit outdated in graphics, doesn't have in-game scene elements, and needs much better writers/voice actors.

Owlcat of pathfinder games is another choice, even though they've recently moved on to WH40k licensed games. Again, though, the engine is the biggest issue here to match up, but it's a much better option overall than Tactical Adventure. Another question is writers/story telling, as much of their overall story telling bits are very limited with a lot of random worldbuilding elements that are just +\- of some attributes.

TBH, no matter who takes over, it's just not going to be like BG3 much like how BG3 isn't at all like BG1/2. And BG3 was so successful because of how much Larian was able to put in with their engine and how focused they were on players having ridiculous control over the story being told. I just don't see the next BG being the same and depending on what it is, it might be good but I'm not as big of a reach as BG3. It's way more likely players are going to go into BG4 (or its spiritual successor if it moves away from Baldur's Gate and into Neverwinter or something like Plansescape) expecting much of what is in BG3 with more options, new and older characters, and the same level of control over what they're doing. If it doesn't have that, regardless of who makes it, it won't be as successful, IMHO.

CrimsonWing697h ago

Probably not, but maybe… just maybe…

Show all comments (6)
30°

Human Fall Flat 2 Delayed, Devolver Details Major 2023 Sales Decline

As part of its latest financial report, Devolver Digital has announced that upcoming physics platformer Human Fall Flat 2 has been delayed beyond 2025.

Read Full Story >>
techraptor.net