Sounds like both Moss and Gearbox were both just being civil, and good natured about the whole thing. Props to both for not making a huge scandal out of it.
I was expecting Gearbox to sue him and call him a homophobic woman hater. Then I remember that's something only Bioware would do.
Glad they could solve the problem.
It's nice to see how Gearbox handled it, they could have just ignored him but they didn't... and for the love of F$@#$! stop going to the next video while I try to type a comment lol
I'm sorry but if this is plagiarism then we as a society are doomed to be suing each other back to the stone age...yes they have the same overall design but just look at most of pop music, It all sounds virtually the same and the biggest difference is either the poorly written lyrics or the sex of the "artist" (If you can call them that) but It is nice to see both sides resolve it without suing and getting all pissy
You do all realize that this shit happens every day right? It's not like gearbox was the first or something... In fact what they did by addressing the issue actually speaks highly of the quality of their character. life goes on, this guy will be paid for his unexpected contributions and with a shred of class this stupid headline will find a place in the trash can. no matter who you are and how great you think you are, we are all influenced by what we see and hear etc. and for the people complaining that the art was stolen actually it wasn't... it was re-created differently and only shares few key similar aspects... its the same concept but not a direct copy get over it.
I'm a composer and I know that there's often a fine line between feeling flattered because you inspired another artist or feeling like you've been stolen from. Sometimes you feel both at the same time. In this situation, this artist was ripped off. That said, I give Randy the benefit of the doubt. Just by the way he handled it, I can't see that he knew about it. Some Gearbox artist used the art as the basis for his work, turned it in, and didn't give the original artist credit. I believe that's the extent of it and I doubt anybody else at Gearbox picked up on it. Either way, Randy fixed it. Problem solved. Good on them.
I'm an illustrator myself, and I'd bet you anything that the plagiarism was done by some lowly production artist who never imagined it would be spotted. There's no way the image would've been featured so prominently if management knew it was plagiarized.
Good Guy Gearbox knows when it's been a Scumbag Steve! Good for them. I think it's pretty clear the inspiration was lifted pretty hard from this guy, it's always hard and subjective when it comes to artistic plagiarism but I think if the GB team is choosing not to say that the argument is contrived then it's great that they're taking the high road. This guy isn't even suing so it really is them taking the initiative.
It's called apropriation, where you take one form of something such as art and make it distinctively yours. The Romans did the sane thime with the Ancient Greek's style of art and religion and made it distinctively their's. there's a reason why the Romans became so successful. Their sword the gladius is from spain, shield is from gaulic france, etc.
Yea they copied the style of his art work, but to me that looks more than 50% altered from the original piece which should be enough to be "their" art. Or have I been under a rock too long? Kudos to them for acknowledging him though!
if the game has made money, he deserves to get acknowledged as the inspiration.
Its no real different to what Zynga is doing with EA games or what EA's Medal Of Honor is doing with Killstreaks from the inspiration from Call Of Duty Modern Warfare.
The is the age where every company is ripping off everybody. The Chaos is starting to happen, we need The Reapers to arrive early this cycle. 50'000 years before the next harvest is to long, i reckon every 4000 years would be a much better timeframe to re-start the cycle of organics.
I think it's just an inspiration taken and not the actual picture. A soon to be released game "Furious Four" is from Gearbox with INSPIRATION from Inglorious Basterds so I'm not too surprised that they honour other peoples work by showing similarities.
So I suppose anyone who paints a portrait of someone is plagiarizing the works of the first person who to paint a portrait.
Anyone who creates a dance track at 80 bpm should be sued by the first person to have created a dance track at bpm? pfft!
The original artist should be proud of himself to have created a design which decades later is being used in pop culture. He sounds like he should be working for Apple, not Gearbox.
Yea those images are not similar enough to be considered plagiarism imo. It could have certainly been influenced by the first image but even that couldn't be said for sure as the specific throughout the images are so different.
I can't believe this happened and that A. the artist isn't suing. and B. the corporation is trying to make it right anyway. The saddest part about it all is that these kinds of actions surprise me.
What no lawsuits, counter suits, boiler suits, birthday suits??? All this dealt with amicably and gentlemanly?? What is the world coming to? I'm going to sue the pair of them for being nice. That'll learn em.
As a designer I find it a hard one to judge (so I'll go with no plagiarism). Good on them for sorting it out though and hopefully they can all benefit from it!
It didn't strike me as completely plagiarized, but having admitted that it was "lifted" shows some form of guilt. I think they should just pay him whatever they pay the person/s at Gearbox to design cover/box art (for the time allotted for the project) and be done with it. That seems like the right thing to do.
@mariomaster16 I partially agree, but I see mainly some (!) will to keep the scandal as low as possible as the main reason for which Pitchford has invited the artist to work with Gearbox!
@ztg360 yea that's because pop artists are all owned by big record labels that co-en-side with each other quite allot. Among other reasons I may or may not know.
@CatAtomic999 - Totally agree.
@Heshertonfist I understand what you mean and it was sad to see that Gearbox has done such a thing. As the artist said, he would have loved to help out. Randy Pitchford did make amends to the artist afterwards so isn't that enough to forgive?
@TheSkyrimStatue one of his pieces was a fake movie poster for star wars. That's not plaigarism or copyright infringment, simply fan art. However someone at gearbox ripped that image and essentially took that work of art and then just made it all Borderlandsy. THAT is plaigarism and copyright infringement. Especially when the original artist wasn't even contacted.
@nyran125 Are you mentally challenged? Don't answer that, it's a rhetorical question. You clearly are mentally challenged if you consider that a fan poster could possibly be the inspiration to a game. Borderland was the inspiration to Borderland 2. Idiot. This is concerning a picture in the book art for Borderland 2 which was based upon the said fan poster.
@kukumav that's his schtick. he wouldn't have his job without it.
@BludshedX he isnt suing and gearbox is trying to make it right. However im sure youll like it when something you work on is used without your permission.
@jean_borrero And what is that called .... ?
By the way, I just wanted to say that Bonerfarts is about the funniest thing I have ever heard. I cannot kill a Bullymong without thinking about that word.
@CatAtomic999 - Say, as an illustrator you can probably confirm this. I imagine this kind of thing happens a lot in your field?
@N4o7A @Heshertonfist Until proven otherwise I won't blame gearbox as a company, just the artist who was in charge of the cover art. I never heard of this artist before nor seen his work, and its just as possible that Randy and the others had no idea that this picture was copied either. Also after looking at Mr Moss's site I see he rips off alot of other people as well so all I can say is Karma is a b&*ch.
@rem234 I'm aware of that.
Nothing there was copied other than a few design principles. And even then, copy is not the right word. Just because he put a dark silhouette of a landscape into another silhouette of a contrasting hue does not make him owner of that art principle.
It's like the first person who ended his letter with the words:
Imagine all of a sudden one day he came out and said "Hey! You did not have my permission to end your letter with my gracious choice of words. Set things right and give me a job!"
There's only so much you can do in art before you are 'copying' someone else. Paint a portrait.. crap.. it's been done.. paint a landscape.. too late.. how about something abstract? Forget about it if you want to do it 'right.'
@shantd I've seen it a couple of times, yeah. People get fired for it. One time it might've been something the guy was mimicking without even realizing it-- you know, like he'd seen it and it was floating around in his head when he started "creating", lol. The other time was a straight-up copy, like this thing.
@rem234 @Volgin "...In what way is making art something [that is] supposed to take inspiration but to create something unique similar to signing a name that may or may not be the same as someone elses or the use of specific words."
That right there is the definition of art.. at least one angle of it.
My views have sort of changed the closer I examine both works. It's clearly imitating the same art style with intention of creating a similar 'effect' [in the viewer]. Though I wonder if the original artist would have said anything if a similar image was made to promote a parody.. or just laughed it off.
Blud your use of a false analogy is confusing, In what way is making art something supposed to take inspiration but to create something unique similar to signing a name that may or may not be the same as someone elses or the use of specific words.
Your second comparison is an oversimplification, there are thousands of different methods for portraits and landscapes and abstract, some similar in style but rarely of subject or composition. Just because a genre is done by many does not mean that someone should copy a specific piece of work by someone else without acknowledging the work used.