Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The intriguing legal ramifications of Pokémon Go

brettterpstra.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 40 posts

Re: The intriguing legal ramifications of Pokémon Go

#21

Post by 3s933x7dpsh »

yaur wrote: post #16

> 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 ca…

How do you feel about the Michelin Guide giving a restaurant a Michelin star without their notification or permission?

Re: The intriguing legal ramifications of Pokémon Go

#22

Post by eximius »

yaur wrote: post #16

> 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 ca…

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.

Re: The intriguing legal ramifications of Pokémon Go

#23

Post by mikeash »

DINKDINK wrote: post #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?

As a DC area resident, the idea of getting upset at 50 visitors to a national landmark is just adorable.

Re: The intriguing legal ramifications of Pokémon Go

#24

Post by Asooka »

hirsin wrote: post #7
cheepin wrote: post #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…

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…

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.

Re: The intriguing legal ramifications of Pokémon Go

#25

Post by hirsin »

GFK_of_xmaspast wrote: post #8
hirsin wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

I suspect that's the biggest reason - lawyers are easy to throw at problems, getting answers from them is hard, especially with settlements.

Re: The intriguing legal ramifications of Pokémon Go

#26

Post by fpgaminer »

tsunamifury wrote: post #13
jondubois wrote: post #6

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 v…

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.

Re: The intriguing legal ramifications of Pokémon Go

#27

Post by vacri »

3s933x7dpsh wrote: post #21
yaur wrote: post #16

> 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 ca…

How do you feel about the Michelin Guide giving a restaurant a Michelin star without their notification or permission?

That's only half the analogy - to make it match, you'd have to say "... and the restaurant can't advertise that fact"

Re: The intriguing legal ramifications of Pokémon Go

#28

Post by vacri »

DINKDINK wrote: post #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?

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.

Re: The intriguing legal ramifications of Pokémon Go

#29

Post by coldtea »

tsunamifury wrote: post #13
jondubois wrote: post #6

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 v…

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.

>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.

Re: The intriguing legal ramifications of Pokémon Go

#30

Post by freshyill »

yaur wrote: post #16

> 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 ca…

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.
Post reply on HN