Civ V stock image Scavenger hunt

[OrsonM]

I was just suggesting that Fireaxis used the modified photo.

Probably, the colors are more accurate on the one you've found, but I'm more interested on who owns the rights for the pictures. Speaking of which, the folded paper image aparently had the source of it's owner right on the picture description (guess I'll start checking that first from now on).

 

[Furiey]

I am fascinated to follow this thread. Both on the use of the images in the Civ 5 artwork and the copyright issues surrounding it. This thread would make a useful resource for any teachers out there teaching graphic design both to show what can be done and generate discussion on the issues around it.

 

[Ossicko]

This thread is actually quite unbelievable and fascinating.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

...but I'm more interested on who owns the rights for the pictures.

F_I_R_A_X_I_S, along side 2K.

All of it, even if detected as being non-original or extensively edited as to be perceived as such.
It's the Law.

 

[Psyringe]

F_I_R_A_X_I_S, along side 2K.
All of it, even if detected as being non-original or extensively edited as to be perceived as such.
It's the Law.

I don't understand why this misinformation keeps being spread. Could you quote the specific law you're referring to? I have researched copyright laws on several occasions, and never heard of one that would agree with you.

You can use this page for quoting. It's the _actual_ law.

If Firaxis used copyrighted material to create a piece of graphics, then they produced a derivative work, in which case the original copyright owner retains the copyright to the parts of his/her work in the end product. Firaxis can then claim copyright on their own contributions to the end product, but only on those. This would create a shared copyright on the modified picture, as per § 103 b. Note that Firaxis' part of the copyright could be declared void following § 103 a (because by not seeking permission, Firaxis violated the original author's exclusive right to prepare derivative works, as given in § 106 (2) ), but voiding Firaxis' contribution would be unlikely in this case, and not sought by any theoretical claimants anyway.

Shared copyright has some interesting ramifications, one of them being that the permission of _all_ copyright holders must be obtained to authorize a copy of that work. This means every time Firaxis/2K authorize a copy of their product (e.g. when someone buys Civ5), they do infringe on the copyright of the creators of the original works.

You're free to disagree, of course, but in that case I'd really be interested in the actual piece of legislation you're basing your claims on, because frankly I don't see any law that even remotely resembles them.

 

[OrsonM]

I recieved an answer this afternoon from one of the stockphoto houses, to paraphrase (because I am apparently not allowed to copy paste their answer): one of their representatives wrote to me that on the particular image used, that usage was not allowed since Civilization is not free of charge, and that even so, that permision should had been requested. Again, this is paraphrasing since I cannot repost the entire email here. The Stockphoto house in question shall also remain anonymous (at least untill permision to respost their email is granted).

That makes 3 images that do have an owner but that permision was aparently not sought after (at least from the answers I've recieved). I am trying to thread carefully here as well, since I have still not recieved an answer from Firaxis yet.

And I am in awe of Psyringe for clearing the legal matter talk in just one concise post, it's the second time he does it (under the spoiler thingie):

Spoiler :

Finally, to the people who think that this matter shouldn't be discussed: Imagine someone takes all the strategy guides and "game stories" from Civfanatics, without even asking, adds them to a collection of other stuff, and then publishes all of it as a book, for a good price. He also edits the texts, thereby creating a derivative work. Then, someone notices what has happened and starts a thread on CFC about it. Would you _still_ think that the matter shouldn't be discussed or "just stirs up trouble"? Or do you think that the book author should have at least asked, and perhaps given out a couple of complimentary copies - or even some small monetary compensation for the work that others did and that he simply took and used? What I'm trying to say is: Please think about both sides of the issue, and don't let your sympathies persuade you to shoot messengers, or hide inconvenient facts.

Oh, and finnally, regarding the first copyright owner that I contacted, which was the Ben Franklin Tercentenary, user Morthis had some remarks about it that I would like to address:

What I actually find most amusing is that you posted the e-mail here. I have a sneaking suspicion you didn't ask if it was alright to post the private e-mail on a public forum.

I did request permision from Dr. Remer. She works for the Franklin Tercentenary, she was kind enough to reply my email and to grant me permision to repost the email in the forums as well. I have worked quite a bit on this: finding images, sources, posting and contacting people, and through it all I've tried to remain polite and ethical about it.

 

[Louis XXIV]

So why are you spending your time doing this exactly?

 

[The_J]

Because it's right.
If there's copytheft here, then it should be proven.
It's also the proof that there was definitely something wrong with the developement.
That's my guess.


But back to images please .

 

[BenAxiom]

Observatory

Apparently, this telescope shoots lasers.

 

[Pouakai]

They typically do that to point out stars or other features to people. But you're missing the star trails:

 

[BenAxiom]

I guess so. For anyone else interested, this is from the site:

Spoiler :

Explanation: What do you get when you combine one of the world's most powerful telescopes with a powerful laser? An artificial star. Monitoring fluctuations in brightness of a genuine bright star can indicate how the Earth's atmosphere is changing, but many times no bright star exists in the direction where atmospheric information is needed. Therefore, astronomers have developed the ability to create an artificial star where they need it -- with a laser. Subsequent observations of the artificial laser guide star can reveal information so detailed about the blurring effects of the Earth's atmosphere that much of this blurring can be removed by rapidly flexing the mirror. Such adaptive optic techniques allow high-resolution ground-based observations of real stars, planets, nebulae, and the early universe. Above, a laser beam shoots out of the Keck II 10-meter telescope on Mauna Kea in Hawaii in 2002, creating an artificial star.

Oh, and I didn't include the stars since I am not confident that a match can be found.

 

[Save_Ferris]

An artificial star? Why do I have a vague feeling Darth Vader's behind this...

 

[DaveMcW]

Mint

[img=top]http://civilopedia5.com/images/icons/buildingatlas_34.png[/img]

 

[TPQ]

I don't understand why this misinformation keeps being spread. Could you quote the specific law you're referring to? I have researched copyright laws on several occasions, and never heard of one that would agree with you.

You can use this page for quoting. It's the _actual_ law.

If Firaxis used copyrighted material to create a piece of graphics, then they produced a derivative work, in which case the original copyright owner retains the copyright to the parts of his/her work in the end product. Firaxis can then claim copyright on their own contributions to the end product, but only on those. This would create a shared copyright on the modified picture, as per § 103 b. Note that Firaxis' part of the copyright could be declared void following § 103 a (because by not seeking permission, Firaxis violated the original author's exclusive right to prepare derivative works, as given in § 106 (2) ), but voiding Firaxis' contribution would be unlikely in this case, and not sought by any theoretical claimants anyway.

Shared copyright has some interesting ramifications, one of them being that the permission of _all_ copyright holders must be obtained to authorize a copy of that work. This means every time Firaxis/2K authorize a copy of their product (e.g. when someone buys Civ5), they do infringe on the copyright of the creators of the original works.

You're free to disagree, of course, but in that case I'd really be interested in the actual piece of legislation you're basing your claims on, because frankly I don't see any law that even remotely resembles them.

Nice post .

 

[BenAxiom]

Acoustics

 

[DaveMcW]

I really want to know what the building in the Medical Lab icon is. I hope someone with stronger Google Fu can find out. I have a hunch it's an NIH building.

Medical Lab / NIH Clinical Center

The circular wing is used for animal experiments, and I think they try to keep all pics of it off the internet to discourage eco-terrorists.

 

[Helmling]

Medical Lab / NIH Clinical Center

The circular wing is used for animal experiments, and I think they try to keep all pics of it off the internet to discourage eco-terrorists.

That would seem to run counter of the thrust of this thread. The whole premise is that Firaxis used readily available stock images as the inspiration for the art in CiV. If there's hardly any pictures of that building online then it probably wasn't the model for the Research Lab in the game.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Medical Lab / NIH Clinical Center

The circular wing is used for animal experiments, and I think they try to keep all pics of it off the internet to discourage eco-terrorists.

Much appreciated. I'm thinking they just sent someone to photograph a visually interesting point for the icon.

 

[DaveMcW]

If there's hardly any pictures of that building online then it probably wasn't the model for the Research Lab in the game.

Au contraire, since it is the only picture online, it MUST be the model.

I don't really care about legal stuff, I just enjoy the scavenger hunt.

 

[Buccaneer]

But the real issue is how much change is permissable? In no cases in this thread have I seen Firaxis/2K used the exact image. They all have been manipulated and stylized in some way, particularly to create a consistent theme. There are too many example in advertising where stock photography have been used as is (including some still with the stock company's name. lol.). I don't see any such use here.