So PoE Zombies are Feral Ghouls?

I thought I had long-winded responses.

For those not seeing the relevance, therein lies the problem - an unwillingness or inability to critically analyze data beyond the surface.

The bee example is just an example of how it's not a clear cut case based on the evidence alone. It's not like a professor calling out a student for plagiarism over a paper he had read before. Yes similar artwork has appeared elsewhere, but not one person with a condemning response went as far as actually checking if there was any misconduct.

There's just this on-going assumption for many that its stolen - as if people are completely oblivious to licensing or public domain and other legal avenues that would allow the artwork to appear free and clear.

I personally don't care about whether or not PoE Zombies are ferals - I care that it's gotten frighteningly easy to sell a narrative to a public with limited if any proof.

dude. they're not working off the same concept. It's a copy paste of the original work.

The subject matter of the art is ENTIRELY irrelevant.

Your also changing your position now from "its art based on the same concept so its ok" to a new one "its a copy paste of the original art but it's licensed so thats ok".

After your first premise was utterly destroyed.

Licensing as mentioned earlier in the thread (and you've changed your tone to) is relevant, and most likely.

I didn't change my tune at all, merely elaborating on thought process it's become more common place for people to simply react, not even take a moment to think and forming opinions and claiming them as fact when the basis of that opinion may have been misinterpreted or misrepresented in the first place.

It's not all that different from things like the pizzagate conspiracy. A false narrative was presented but because the audience was already inclined to believe negatively about the people in question it didn't matter whether or not it was true or even how far-fetched it seemed.

Now mind you, this issue of whether or not artwork was used without permission isn't nearly that extreme. But ten years ago I would never thought someone would enter a restaurant and shoot someone over something they read over the internet either.

As I stated before, personally I doubt they would make such a mistake because it would cost more in the long run. But as I also mentioned, it's entirely possible that someone cut corners. I don't know, and just like everyone here, the time and effort to verify something so menial (to us) is better spent elsewhere.

It's not like we as individuals aren't entitled to form our own opinions and educated guesses - but we should also be able to differentiate between those opinions and actual facts.

And lastly, its not a definite copy paste, as there are subtle differences, so it could be plausible that someone even traced or copied and modified or even drew it again with subtle differences - or maybe they were lost to the reduced resolution.

Could an artist have taken those images and shrunk them down and all the other editing to account for the differences, of course. Even the older versions of Photoshop I had access to in high school could do that.

The better question to be asking is who would be looking so closely at such a tiny image that virtually all other players hardly notice? Maybe someone in the art department was told to do something they shouldn't have. Maybe the one (if more than one) artist had their work featured without their permission and are looking for royalties or something...

No one really cares about that though - it's easier to skim the surface and pass judegement and argue over the internet about things of little consequence.

"

SeCKSEgai wrote:

I didn't change my tune at all, ...

But it seems like GGG changed the graphics.

"

Mikrotherion wrote:

"

SeCKSEgai wrote:

I didn't change my tune at all, ...

But it seems like GGG changed the graphics.

I finally took a look at the original reddit thread. I generally avoid reddit given its penchant for exaggeration. Ironically enough, it was far more reasonable than the forum, albeit I can't be sure who posted in both.

I'm really still curious that someone actually looked closely enough at the tiny icon to make a fuss to begin with.

"

SeCKSEgai wrote:

I didn't change my tune at all, merely elaborating on thought process it's become more common place for people to simply react, not even take a moment to think and forming opinions and claiming them as fact when the basis of that opinion may have been misinterpreted or misrepresented in the first place.

There is no question that it's the same artwork copied, pasted, and tinted, arranged with other non-original (apparently) artwork. Zero. There is no need to debate that or think on that further.

"

It's not all that different from things like the pizzagate conspiracy....

What in the drinking-too-much-cough-syrup are you talking about? Zero correlation with out of control, or directed, internet memes.

"

Now mind you, this issue of whether or not artwork was used without permission isn't nearly that extreme.

When presented with a subject for discusssion, do you often construct entirely different arguments and then argue them?

"

As I stated before, personally I doubt they would make such a mistake because it would cost more in the long run.

There's pictures of it... It's there for all to see. Was it a "mistake?" We don't know that. All that is in evidence is that they used the same images for a commercial product and there is no evidence that they either acquired the license to do so, got permission, or even attempted to credit the original creator in any way.

Go get a copy of a popular magazine, photo-copy it on green paper, paste over your own name and then go sell it and you'll be doing the same thing.

"

But as I also mentioned, it's entirely possible that someone cut corners. I don't know, and just like everyone here, the time and effort to verify something so menial (to us) is better spent elsewhere.

"But, officer, it's just a little bit of weed."

What matters is that if they did what it appears was done, a simple copy/paste job with some retinting, then it's wrong. It's simply an unethical thing to do. And, if the case were more agregrrious and if a more direct relationship between that image and their 90 million New Zealand monies earnings for their last fiscal year could be made, Bethesda would send a legion of lawyers to sue GGG into Oblivion.

But, aside from any legal shennanigans, the point is that it's simply a wrong thing to do. It's wrong to do that kind of thing. It's stealing someone else's work and then taking credit for it.

"

It's not like we as individuals aren't entitled to form our own opinions and educated guesses - but we should also be able to differentiate between those opinions and actual facts.

You should also be able to accept the fact that, at the very least, the original image was copied, pasted into a paint program, tinted, added to a new image that also contains similar hamfisted obfuscations and then posted to the official Wiki as an "original artwork." That is not an "opinion" - It's a fact.

"

And lastly, its not a definite copy paste, as there are subtle differences, so it could be plausible that someone even traced or copied and modified or even drew it again with subtle differences - or maybe they were lost to the reduced resolution.

You're arguing that because something "could" happen, that's what happened... That's not how any of this works. What's "plausible" only stretches so far when confronted by "evidence."

Can you agree, at least, that the Official wiki "art" is simply a recolored collage of third-party artwork?

"

...No one really cares about that though - it's easier to skim the surface and pass judegement and argue over the internet about things of little consequence.

It's a relatively small offense in terms of civil litigation possibilities. A phone call should fix the "Wiki" transgression. The icon "could" constitute a large enough alteration of the original artwork to enable it to be defined as "original," but not as an inclusion in a commercially sold product. PoE is an application used to access and encourage purchases in an online marketplace. It grossed 90 million N.Z. Monies last cycle and cleared, in profit, half of that. (Which is big money.) There's no question it's part of a commercial enterprise.

But, what's more worrying is that you don't see this as "wrong." Because it's "small," so your argument goes, and nobody should be bothering themselves with such a tiny infraction, if true, so your argument goes, then it's not worth calling it out as "wrong," if I am interpreting your point correctly.

Wrong is wrong.

Bad is bad.

This is an example of something that someone did that is a bad thing for someone to do. You act as if right and wrong is judged based upon how great or small an action is. That's not the way that works.

A company that makes as much money as GGG makes also runs the risk of losing all that money if they condone such practices and do not act to prevent them from becoming commonplace in their business practices. For instance, what if someone, somewhere at GGG, just ripped the models out of another game and shoved them into PoE? And, if that came to light? Overnight, a steamship full of very hungry attorneys eager to get a slice of 90 million monies would show up in New Zealand and the country would soon be low on copy paper. (But, restaurants would experience a booming business - Lawyers love the heck out of lunch.

Such a verbose response arguing morality and still missing the point - once it was brought up that a potential copyright infringement had occurred, if one had taken place I figured the company would resolve it after being made aware given the legal ramifications -- The problem I had was with the reactionary response and lack of critical thinking and analysis.

The artwork has been changed, so it's clear that there was truth to the controversy.

This perception that GGG/Tencent is a massive corp and did it intentionally is still silly. A much more believable explanation was offered on the reddit with the artist setting up a template and forgetting to draw up new artwork later - or someone may have even using the wrong file name.

Clearly wrong was done, but very unlikely to not be in the evil corp maliciously stealing work of others yada yada.

And to be more specific, the line about no one caring still stands - no one held any stock in the actual result, people were either ambivalent or used it as a platform to emphasize their disgust for ggg/tencent.

Being disgusted/fed up with a company is nothing new - it's just ironic when those people continue to use the product and its forums when they harbor such negative feelings. Other people say their spiel and leave.

EDIT - speaking of having any stock in the result, why is an account that has never actually played the game even caring in the first place? A streamer needing anonymity? A Charan alt to outlet further frustrations? Maybe a staffer playing whistleblower perhaps?

EDIT 2 - Despite the misgivings, at least you're putting in effort to think about what I've written. If no wrong had been done, the proof would have simply been the artwork not changing.

It's still unsettling to see how quickly people form their opinions based on their bias without even giving consideration to other possibilities or opposing views.

"

SeCKSEgai wrote:

Such a verbose response arguing morality and still missing the point - once it was brought up that a potential copyright infringement had occurred, if one had taken place I figured the company would resolve it after being made aware given the legal ramifications -- The problem I had was with the reactionary response and lack of critical thinking and analysis.

The artwork has been changed, so it's clear that there was truth to the controversy.

This perception that GGG/Tencent is a massive corp and did it intentionally is still silly. A much more believable explanation was offered on the reddit with the artist setting up a template and forgetting to draw up new artwork later - or someone may have even using the wrong file name.

Clearly wrong was done, but very unlikely to not be in the evil corp maliciously stealing work of others yada yada.

And to be more specific, the line about no one caring still stands - no one held any stock in the actual result, people were either ambivalent or used it as a platform to emphasize their disgust for ggg/tencent.

Being disgusted/fed up with a company is nothing new - it's just ironic when those people continue to use the product and its forums when they harbor such negative feelings. Other people say their spiel and leave.

EDIT - speaking of having any stock in the result, why is an account that has never actually played the game even caring in the first place? A streamer needing anonymity? A Charan alt to outlet further frustrations? Maybe a staffer playing whistleblower perhaps?

He's got 604 forum posts. How many hours of playtime?

"

Avio Cast wrote:

He's got 604 forum posts. How many hours of playtime?

Likely none on that account, not even a single achievement and no characters.

"

SeCKSEgai wrote:

"

Avio Cast wrote:

He's got 604 forum posts. How many hours of playtime?

Likely none on that account, not even a single achievement and no characters.

That'd be straight comedy if it was MarkGGG.