4 ms·

> 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 depi

by cheepin 10y ago

> 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?

hirsin 10y ago
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?
- GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
  There's a gap between "we can legally do this" and "we can legally do this but we don't want to spend more money on lawyers."
  - hirsin 10y ago
    I suspect that's the biggest reason - lawyers are easy to throw at problems, getting answers from them is hard, especially with settlements.
- Asooka 10y ago
  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.
Veratyr 10y ago
http://blog.kenkaminesky.com/photography-copyright-and-the-law/ http://blog.kenkaminesky.com/photography-copyright-and-the-l... in the "Do I need a model or property release to own the copyright in my photograph" section goes into this a bit. 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.
marme 10y ago
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
- Asooka 10y ago
  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.
pg_is_a_butt 10y ago
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.

by cheepin 10y ago

hirsin 10y ago

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?

GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
There's a gap between "we can legally do this" and "we can legally do this but we don't want to spend more money on lawyers."
- hirsin 10y ago
  I suspect that's the biggest reason - lawyers are easy to throw at problems, getting answers from them is hard, especially with settlements.
Asooka 10y ago
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.

Veratyr 10y ago

http://blog.kenkaminesky.com/photography-copyright-and-the-law/ http://blog.kenkaminesky.com/photography-copyright-and-the-l... in the "Do I need a model or property release to own the copyright in my photograph" section goes into this a bit. 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.

marme 10y ago

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

Asooka 10y ago
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.

pg_is_a_butt 10y ago

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.