The intriguing legal ramifications of Pokémon Go
brettterpstra.com
The intriguing legal ramifications of Pokémon Go
1–10 of 40 posts
Re: The intriguing legal ramifications of Pokémon Go
#2> 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?
Re: The intriguing legal ramifications of Pokémon Go
#3This 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.
Re: The intriguing legal ramifications of Pokémon Go
#4>it can be irritating to suddenly have 50 people show up at a national landmark because it has now become part of a video game
Do you know really need to know why someone is in a public space so we can cast aspersions?
Re: The intriguing legal ramifications of Pokémon Go
#5The 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].
[0] https://support.pokemongo.nianticlabs.com/hc/en-us/articles/...
Re: The intriguing legal ramifications of Pokémon Go
#6I 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.
Re: The intriguing legal ramifications of Pokémon Go
#7> 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…
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?
Re: The intriguing legal ramifications of Pokémon Go
#8> 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…
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 co…
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."
Re: The intriguing legal ramifications of Pokémon Go
#9> 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…
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.
Re: The intriguing legal ramifications of Pokémon Go
#10> 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…
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