Civ V stock image Scavenger hunt

Just wanted to let everybody know that I'm having a release party for my new title :


Looks fantastic. ;)

It looks pretty similar to my Riem Dis' Cerealization 5 that I have in the works though. :eek:
 
Or have I discovered that the devs use the same process as I do?

I'm beginning a scenario about the colonization of the New World and needed some inspiration, so I did a quick search for "tenochtitlan floating gardens" in Google image search (try it yourself!), and this was the very first image it provided:


Does this seem at all similar to this image?


lol Creating art for new buildings doesn't seem so hard now! :D I can do this!
 
lol Clearly not on the forums at that time! That's an awesome thread-- thanks!

This, children, is why it's always good to do a search before you create a new thread...
 
Moderator Action: Threads merged.

O_O When you merge the threads like that, my head exploded when someone linked to the same thread...I was confused for a good minute. xD
 
I should have posted in this thread a long time ago; even though this has nothing to do with images.

The musical theme "Old Woman's Lament" (OldWoman'sLament.ogg) has an uncanny resemblance to this piece by Edward Artemyev from the 1979 movie "Stalker" by Andrei Tarkovsky:


Link to video.

In both cases it's a hauntingly beautiful piece of music, and I wonder if the Civ5 version is a replica of the 1979 version or if both are derived from some older piece of folk music.
 
This thread was one of the better reads I have had in a long time. Having done legal work in this field before, in the cases in this thread where the original image has clear copyright (some of them have pretty obvious watermarks) they would certainly have a winning legal claim. Each of these icons are considered Derivative Works under US Copyright law, and only the original copyright holder has the legal authority to prepare or authorize others to prepare a derivative work based on the original.

For those of you interested in the legal end of this discussion: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf
 
Graphics in Civ V definitely contain "substantial amount of new material", even if they copied the photos they were based on. For me, this is what makes the Civ in-game icons so great - there is a reference to the real world, making them much more plausible and natural. Although it would be polite to acutally obtain the permission from the original copyright holder.
 
Graphics in Civ V definitely contain "substantial amount of new material", even if they copied the photos they were based on. For me, this is what makes the Civ in-game icons so great - there is a reference to the real world, making them much more plausible and natural. Although it would be polite to acutally obtain the permission from the original copyright holder.

The substantial new material aspect only means that Firaxis could copyright the new icons as derivative images. It does not mean they had permission to make the changes in the first place, which would be the legal pitfall if action were to be taken against them.
 
Of course, I'm not denying the fact they should have obtained permission from the original owners. As a semi-professional CG artist myself, I'd be rather pissed if someone just took my drawing and painted over some details and claimed it's a genuine piece. But on the other hand, I understand the guy who drew the icons - he wanted something to base on, he took it, he painted over some details - and voila, the work is done. While I think it isn't bad to have a reference to base on, claiming that you didn't base on anything is one of the worst sins of the artist.

But the fact that his work is of VERY good quality and consistent style is still another topic.
 
But the fact that his work is of VERY good quality and consistent style is still another topic.

The newer icons, starting from the stone quarry building, seem to be entirely original though. The styles are significantly different from the previous ones.
 
I just found this thread and I am amazed that they actually just snatched pictures directly from Google?? Is this really true?
 
What's really stupid is that in some cases, a simple "thank you" in the credits or a small licensing fee would have solved everything for me. I don't mind if they don't have the resources to create original icons and images for everything, but really it's pretty shoddy behavior by this company I must say I lost respect.
 
mmhh...G&K release might be interesting.

Never a truer word spoken!

What's really stupid is that in some cases, a simple "thank you" in the credits or a small licensing fee would have solved everything for me. I don't mind if they don't have the resources to create original icons and images for everything, but really it's pretty shoddy behavior by this company I must say I lost respect.

I think that maybe the artist never told Fraxis what he based the images on... so they wouldn't have known. All they see is some good quality artwork, which they believe is original. Can't really blame them for that...
 
Never a truer word spoken!



I think that maybe the artist never told Fraxis what he based the images on... so they wouldn't have known. All they see is some good quality artwork, which they believe is original. Can't really blame them for that...

Sorry but no, I can very easily blame them for that as forum members were able to find it out in minutes using just their eyes and google. They have a responsibility, just as if their composer used already made songs and claimed them as his own.
 
Top Bottom