|
games anime | toys
|
 
|
|
 |
|||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
Papapishu's blog
follow this blog
subscribe via RSS
send message
invite to meetup+play
|
|
| get involved register or login post a blog post a forum enter a contest contribute a news tip suggest a feature be a guest editor |
support new member's guide login assistance tech support report abuse email our editors read our dev blog nuclear crisis? |
keep in touch RSS feed Myspace Flickr Game nights Meetup+play online |
seriously about Destructoid advertising terms of use privacy policy jobs at MM buy our crap |
our network Tomopop Japanator Despingation? |
||
|
||||||
 living the dream since March 16, 2006 |
||||||
I've had picture books in that style when I was a kid.
Just because it has a certain style doesn't mean its plagiarism.
It definitely borrows from shadow puppets (2D mentional puppets shown on a cloth screen with light to create shadows of the puppets), the way it animates.
And heck, if they really had any connection, you can say it was inspired by the art style.
It looks as though both are based on old Etruscan or African pottery artwork. I think it's called black-on-red or something of the type.
Part of it is that one came out a year after the other. That's part of it.
It's also not just the style: It's the style PLUS the color palate PLUS the theme.
I'm pretty darn sure it's only plagiarism if the medium is print. Copyright infringement, possibly. Plagiarism, no.
I just came to say: Great usage of Lichtenstein's "Drowning Girl". I love his stuff.
Plagiarism means taking the work of another person and calling it your own. Ripping off a theme or an animation style (even if that was the case) is not plagiarism. Consider how many times that "Romeo and Juliet" has been redone (and "Romeo and Juliet" was based on something similar as well).
Furthermore, games are part creative work and part machine. There's no such thing as ripping off a machine -- machines aren't supposed to be creative -- they are supposed to work.
Yeah, it's a pretty common art style. But I'm pretty sure this game took longer than one year to make. Pre-production to post.
Actually, plagiarism incorporates both written and creative work. At least according to both the dictionary and wikipedia. Aside from which, Pata-pata-plagurism was a way better title :)
Boatorious, Romeo and Juliet is an extremely bad example, because it exists well within the public domain. As to your second point: What the hell are you talking about? Honestly, I have no idea what that sentence even means. Code is not creative? Videogames are not intellectual property? A virtual work is not copyrightable? Because in all three cases the law is against you.
I used Lichtenstein's Drowing Girl for a point: It was a recreated swipe. Lichtenstien became famous by copying the work of a lesser known artist and calling it his own. That is, in a way, what made him a controversial figure.
And again, it's not just the art style. It's the scale and it's the theme.
You're right about the public domain thing.
However, brainderailment is right. Games take longer for a year to make, so it might even be possible that the reverse is true in this situation. Maybe the man who made the video was otherwise involved in the production of the game (not necessarily art) and decided to do his own take.