> But now, the XYZ Candy Company building also has become a Pokémon Gym. Players from miles around aggregate to that location because the name and logo are depicted in the app as a Pokémon Gym location. At what point does this mean the app is using the copyrighted design in violation of the copyright registration?
All the pictures used are taken from public property iirc. Wouldn't the copyright for the picture taken and the copyright of the building be two separate things, the former belonging to the taker and licensed to the company? If not, is Google Maps compelled to censor their street views of copyrighted architecture?
There must be a limit - otherwise video games like Grand Theft Auto could put photos of say, McDonalds, in their game and not break any laws. I'm not sure where I sit on whether that's right, but currently they shy away from it for a reason.
An interesting corollary may be use of products in TV - at what point does everyone using a MacBook or Windows (and then having problems with beachballs/blue screens) count as copyright infringement?
Probably, but there's a difference between plastering a trademark you don't own over your product and telling people "there is a McDonalds restaurant 500m away from you here that looks like this and if you go within ~10m of it, you can get some pokeballs". Seriously, the range from which you can interact with the bloody things is huge.
TL;DR: "In general, if property is visible and can be photographed from a public place, you don’t need a property release to use an image that depicts the property and you may use the photo in any manner. Copyright law provides an exclusion for photographing buildings located on property, but not for statues or other items that may have separate copyrights."
and
"Nevertheless, some companies have tried to prevent the use—both commercially and editorially—of photographs of their buildings or objects via trademark protection or contract law. Examples include the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, the Lone Cypress tree on the 17 Mile Drive at Pebble Beach, CA, the Golden Gate Bridge, and the “Hollywood” sign. While these attempts have been unsuccessful, it can be expensive to litigate them"
In general, I believe copyright always belongs to a photographer unless they're taking the photos in the employ of someone else, in which case the copyright belongs to their employer. However copyright, trademark and publicity rights are all very different things and it's quite possible that even if you own the copyright to a photo, you can't use it commercially (for example if you're taking a photo of someone and using their likeness to endorse something). Buildings don't seem to have issues like this though.
the bigger concern is the possibility of violating a trademark. If a McDonalds is a pokestop and the image is the golden arches logo that is a trademarked logo that you are now associating with your game. The average person can be confused and think there is some association between pokemon and mcdonalds. That mcdonalds is sponsoring pokemon in someway and hurt their brand
There is no way anyone would think that. At least for the case of ingress and pokemon go. You have literally thousands of stops and each one has a photo of the place, so users very quickly understand that the photograph is just to guide them to the place in question rather than any sort of sponsored endorsement. The idea is to photograph and guide people to interesting spots in their city they might otherwise not know about. I personally stumbled upon a plaque detailing the life of a poet who happened to live in a building I was passing. I could see the spot indicator in the app, but I couldn't see the plaque itself from the street. The photo helped me realise that the plaque is obscured from view from the sidewalk by a tree and one has to walk right up to the building to see it. I would have never seen that plaque if it wasn't for the app.
On the other hand, there is a spot right in the middle of an airport close to me. I mean right on the runway. It's been claimed and remained uncontested for a very long time and I suspect the person who claimed it works at the airport. I don't see how it shows me anything novel about the world around me, since I can't really reach it and it's a bit hard to miss an entire airport. If the airport building itself was a spot that might be ok - it is a point of interest and is reachable by public road, but it makes no sense to put the spot in the middle of the runway.
In the end, Niantic needed better moderation of player suggestions for spots. That didn't happen and now we have spots in the middle of the runway and gyms around Area 51. Hopefully they'll open up counter-suggestions for spots to be moved or deleted if they don't make sense.
i submitted pictures to ingress. i gave up my rights to them so they could be used in ingress. they took those pictures and put them in stupid pokegress. i never authorized them to do that.
This is an interesting article. I find it a bit curious though that Niantic hasn't solved these problems for itself, given that they already had Ingress before developing Pokémon Go. Of course, Ingress is miniscule in comparison; I wonder if Google's legal team even bothered to take a look.
In certain cases, where the landmark is there for peace and reflection (eg: a cemetary), having people running around giggling and laughing is counter to its purpose. Most landmarks wouldn't fall into this category, of course.
The very first point mentioned in the article is that pokemon go requests access to too much data. This was a bug that has been (or is being?) addressed by the developers [0].
I believe this is usually the occasion to cite Hanlons razor[1].
I think things will get interesting when augmented reality becomes so ingrained in our society that it becomes difficult to separate it from what is real.
As virtual entities take over the mindshare of 'real entities' in our lives, we might start integrating the virtual entities more into our thought processes and into our artworks - Which would increase the frequency of copyright infringement.
So basically, as the virtual world takes over the real world, companies who produce virtual goods will be able to take over ownership of our reality and therefore of our minds.
Combined with big data, companies will be able to monitor our usage of their intellectual property as part of our lives and charge us for it.
A) we already do, its called a "concept" -- its pretty much the fundamentals of how we see and understand the world around us. Concepts don't need a physical manifestation to have real effects. (e.g. wave patterns)
B) This isn't much different than headphones, just for your eyes. Temper your fears with what being able to take music everywhere did to make a dystopia.
> B) This isn't much different than headphones, just for your eyes. Temper your fears with what being able to take music everywhere did to make a dystopia.
Being able to take music everywhere ushered in the aggressive copyright regime we now live in; DMCA et al.
>Temper your fears with what being able to take music everywhere did to make a dystopia.
Well, it cheapened music listening a lot. People that have not been around for the vinyl era don't have any idea how much more important and communal music listening and pop music was back then.
>Temper your fears with what being able to take music everywhere did to make a dystopia.
A culture of self-isolation in public spaces where 50% of inhabitants are stuck in semireality instead of a functional member of the environment? It's a bit dystopic, just socially acceptable.
I'm curious why so many of these issues seem to differ so greatly from any other reason people may be doing something in public.
Does it really matter if they are using an app on their phone instead of reading Yelp or listening to a podcast while they crash into someone, act like an idiot, etc? If I put out a podcast that is meant to be listened to as a walking tour of somewhere do I have these same liability concerns since I'm suggesting locations to the user?
How random would an app maker have to make their AR game to make it clear they just want to make a game that people can play by moving around, without being liable for everything stupid people do in public while they happen to be running the app?
A sufficient difference in quantity becomes a difference in quality. Some of these concerns are merely amusing now, but could conceivably become real problems at scale.
I'm hedging, because I think this is likely to be a fluke event and be a non-issue for a long time. Even if AR games become big, this is probably the first and last time we're all playing the exact same one. Plus over time this sort of thin connectivity to the real world may be seen as a fluke; AR may require much stronger computer vision and real-world understanding to take off in a non-fluke way.
Pokemon Go reminds me a lot of the GPS unit my father had 20 years ago, where all it knew about was cities. I'm not even sure why he bought it, the most interesting thing you could do is zoom out in the Chicago area and roughly see Lake Michigan. Prior to GPS units being hooked up to road databases and able to give directions, they were not that useful. Similarly, for all the flash and pizzaz Pokemon Go may superficially seem to have, all it really has is your coordinates.
This doesn't make it "bad" but it's not clear to me this is going to be a new genre. It may just be one cool fad game, with the "real" stuff still to come in what could even be another 10 years.
I used a GPS that barely had a map. It was still useful. It was nice for day hiking in unfamiliar areas, just record a track and it's easy (within reason) to get back to where you started. I also used it as a "compass", where I set it to point at the destination and then chose a route that tended to head in that direction (say I didn't feel like driving on the busy freeway).
From what I've seen, many of these locations can be accessed without ever actually entering the property. The name, description, and photos are user-generated, and no more illegal than what Google Maps provides. Some locations are unique (airports come to mind), but most of the IP risk seems completely frivolous to me.
> Let’s take the example of a restaurant that advertises itself as a “Poké Stop” and utilizes a game image in connection with the stylized “Poké Stop” mark in its store window. That is arguably an instance of both copyright and trademark infringement.
It seems crazy to me that a developer can put a pokestop(or w/e) inside of a store with no notification or permission from the property owner, but the property owner can't put up a sign indicating that a pokestop has been created inside of their store without getting a license. If that's really how the law works we've already reached the dystopian future.
Using the stylized mark could be trademark infringement. Putting up a sign saying "Poké Stop" or similar, as long as you don't use the trademarked font/color/style choices, can't be; it is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use .
Consumer Reports does this. They can review or write about your product, but they steadfastly refuse to let any company use their name or marks in their advertising, and will sue to prevent it.
But the developer didn't place anything inside the store. They merely advertised that their app will function in a specific way at certain locations. The terminology confuses us with its use of 'a pokestop in a store'.
It's still a perverse situation where you can incentivise such behaviour, but its no different from somebody posting a challenge online stating they would send money to the first 10 people at a location.
Are there any Pokéstops (and gyms) in stores? Almost all of them that I've seen are public art, plaques, signs along nature trails, etc. Some of these are on private property, but I haven't seen any that you'd need to actually enter the property to use. One near me is literally a mailbox. The closest I can think of as a business is a church. All of these things are accessible from sidewalks. They're not really "putting" anything any properties; they're just marking things on a map.
Yes. I know of a local empanada/pizzeria place, a burger place, a furniture store, and a taco place that have stops inside of them (that is, marked on the map as being inside of the building). Also, hotels and office buildings with indoor fountains marked as stops.
The radius of the stop is usually large enough that you don't actually need to go inside.
more and more lawyers talking about giving google full access to your account, completely ignoring that GOOGLE MAKES THE GAME. niantic is a spin off of google... the same way google is a spin off of "alphabet"... it's all a structured tax dodge, but it's all the same people in charge. google has access to your data regardless, and can share it with "niantic" or whatever you want to call the new google maps team.
38 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 107 ms ] threadAll the pictures used are taken from public property iirc. Wouldn't the copyright for the picture taken and the copyright of the building be two separate things, the former belonging to the taker and licensed to the company? If not, is Google Maps compelled to censor their street views of copyrighted architecture?
An interesting corollary may be use of products in TV - at what point does everyone using a MacBook or Windows (and then having problems with beachballs/blue screens) count as copyright infringement?
TL;DR: "In general, if property is visible and can be photographed from a public place, you don’t need a property release to use an image that depicts the property and you may use the photo in any manner. Copyright law provides an exclusion for photographing buildings located on property, but not for statues or other items that may have separate copyrights."
and
"Nevertheless, some companies have tried to prevent the use—both commercially and editorially—of photographs of their buildings or objects via trademark protection or contract law. Examples include the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, the Lone Cypress tree on the 17 Mile Drive at Pebble Beach, CA, the Golden Gate Bridge, and the “Hollywood” sign. While these attempts have been unsuccessful, it can be expensive to litigate them"
In general, I believe copyright always belongs to a photographer unless they're taking the photos in the employ of someone else, in which case the copyright belongs to their employer. However copyright, trademark and publicity rights are all very different things and it's quite possible that even if you own the copyright to a photo, you can't use it commercially (for example if you're taking a photo of someone and using their likeness to endorse something). Buildings don't seem to have issues like this though.
On the other hand, there is a spot right in the middle of an airport close to me. I mean right on the runway. It's been claimed and remained uncontested for a very long time and I suspect the person who claimed it works at the airport. I don't see how it shows me anything novel about the world around me, since I can't really reach it and it's a bit hard to miss an entire airport. If the airport building itself was a spot that might be ok - it is a point of interest and is reachable by public road, but it makes no sense to put the spot in the middle of the runway.
In the end, Niantic needed better moderation of player suggestions for spots. That didn't happen and now we have spots in the middle of the runway and gyms around Area 51. Hopefully they'll open up counter-suggestions for spots to be moved or deleted if they don't make sense.
Do you know really need to know why someone is in a public space so we can cast aspersions?
I believe this is usually the occasion to cite Hanlons razor[1].
[0] https://support.pokemongo.nianticlabs.com/hc/en-us/articles/...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
As virtual entities take over the mindshare of 'real entities' in our lives, we might start integrating the virtual entities more into our thought processes and into our artworks - Which would increase the frequency of copyright infringement.
So basically, as the virtual world takes over the real world, companies who produce virtual goods will be able to take over ownership of our reality and therefore of our minds.
Combined with big data, companies will be able to monitor our usage of their intellectual property as part of our lives and charge us for it.
B) This isn't much different than headphones, just for your eyes. Temper your fears with what being able to take music everywhere did to make a dystopia.
Being able to take music everywhere ushered in the aggressive copyright regime we now live in; DMCA et al.
Well, it cheapened music listening a lot. People that have not been around for the vinyl era don't have any idea how much more important and communal music listening and pop music was back then.
A culture of self-isolation in public spaces where 50% of inhabitants are stuck in semireality instead of a functional member of the environment? It's a bit dystopic, just socially acceptable.
Does it really matter if they are using an app on their phone instead of reading Yelp or listening to a podcast while they crash into someone, act like an idiot, etc? If I put out a podcast that is meant to be listened to as a walking tour of somewhere do I have these same liability concerns since I'm suggesting locations to the user?
How random would an app maker have to make their AR game to make it clear they just want to make a game that people can play by moving around, without being liable for everything stupid people do in public while they happen to be running the app?
I'm hedging, because I think this is likely to be a fluke event and be a non-issue for a long time. Even if AR games become big, this is probably the first and last time we're all playing the exact same one. Plus over time this sort of thin connectivity to the real world may be seen as a fluke; AR may require much stronger computer vision and real-world understanding to take off in a non-fluke way.
Pokemon Go reminds me a lot of the GPS unit my father had 20 years ago, where all it knew about was cities. I'm not even sure why he bought it, the most interesting thing you could do is zoom out in the Chicago area and roughly see Lake Michigan. Prior to GPS units being hooked up to road databases and able to give directions, they were not that useful. Similarly, for all the flash and pizzaz Pokemon Go may superficially seem to have, all it really has is your coordinates.
This doesn't make it "bad" but it's not clear to me this is going to be a new genre. It may just be one cool fad game, with the "real" stuff still to come in what could even be another 10 years.
https://www.inverse.com/article/18034-pokemon-go-in-white-ho...
It seems crazy to me that a developer can put a pokestop(or w/e) inside of a store with no notification or permission from the property owner, but the property owner can't put up a sign indicating that a pokestop has been created inside of their store without getting a license. If that's really how the law works we've already reached the dystopian future.
It's still a perverse situation where you can incentivise such behaviour, but its no different from somebody posting a challenge online stating they would send money to the first 10 people at a location.
The radius of the stop is usually large enough that you don't actually need to go inside.
you are all idiots.