It seems absurd to me that buildings and things you can photograph in public are copyrightable/trademarkable.
You can't remove a building from your daily experience. Buildings have permanence. They seem cultural at a more fundamental level than movies or music.
How is this going to work with all the photogrammetry developments for games? I guess we're forbidden from the wholesale reuse of anything in public eye?
Has this been tested in court?
At some point the tech will mature to a point where it's more work to remove things than to scan them and leave then as is. Can we argue that these laws are an unjust burden?
Unfortunately that is the case. There are certain buildings in the US, or the Eifel Tower in Paris at night, you are not allowed to reproduce without obtaining a license from the according copyright/trademark holder.
My first reaction when people want to take their ball and go home OR charge unreasonable prices for the 'honor' of playing with their ball is to thank them for their time and then let them go / decline to pay or play with their ball.
So there's Paris Syndrome. Which is a massive sense of dissapointment when going on vacation to Paris. Mostly experienced by Japanese people because their culture really hypes up the Paris experience (or so I hear).
I cant help but think that it's worth it for some hobbyists to create a bunch of free 3d models of famous buildings that are copyrighted. Obviously not exactly the same (you need to avoid a copyright claim), however the difference should be an attempt to make the building feel grander and better.
Eiffel tower at night (mentioned in other places in this thread) is apparently also copyrighted. So the goal there would be to create an Eiffel tower at night that blows the experience of the real Eiffel tower out of the water.
The ultimate goal is to enhance Paris Syndrome as much as possible. When people get to the copyrighted place in real life, we want them to feel like it was overly hyped up and definitely not worth the trip. "Hey Tim how was your trip?" "You know, I just feel it was more impressive in the video game."
If people want to restrict their whatever from public consumption, then I'm more than happy to find a way to direct the public to something more worth their time.
It seems like anything other than building a duplicate of the building would qualify as a transformative work (I mean… a video game with a building is just objectively not a real building)
Hmm, that logic would seem to suggest all you’d have to do to use someone’s likeness would be to photograph them walking to the grocery store.
It’s long been held that automakers could prevent their automobiles from being used without the makers consent. So games like Burnout have to crash cars that look similar to Ferraris and Lamborghinis.
On a related note, it is illegal to take a picture of the Eiffel Tower at night but NOT during the day[0].
It's the lighting system and its 'likeness' that cannot be reproduced. A brief search and I don't think anyone has been prosecuted[1]. There are plenty of pictures everywhere that probably don't have proper licensing. Perhaps those who want to use it commercially can get permission relatively easily?
You are of course allowed to take a picture of the Eiffel tower at any time, but publishing a picture of the lighting at night is limited by the copyright on the light installation.
Interestingly this is not the first time that the World trade centre was missing/removed from a Spiderman related media. The early rendition of Spiderman at the start of the century had the twin towers in and prior to release 9/11 happened, so a whole scene was removed. Which as you can see for yourself https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ozz8uxW733Q was no small budget scene either.
On a side note - is it Spiderman or Spider-man? I grew up with the believe that it was the former.
Feels like the scene doesn't quite work in the finished movie anyway, but yeah it 100% needed to go.
Sam Raimi is a very accomplished director so you don't notice this unless you look, but the CGI buildings in the movie are actually _much worse_ than the ones in the recent PS4 game. It highlights the adage that there's no such thing as bad CGI, just bad filmmaking.
(On the other hand, my daughter pointed out to me that whenever anything exciting happens, every woman screams and no men do and it is impossible to unsee once you notice it.)
The concept of intellectual property is a blight on our society.
Did you know that Apple can notify you that they have revoked your iOS license at any time, without cause, and, under a strict interpretation of copyright law, make it illegal for you to then use or power on the phone that you own?
It’s really crazy how the copyright cartel has consolidated the power over the software and songs and stories and art that belong to every member of our culture.
> make it illegal for you to then use or power on the phone that you own
It that actually true? There is this thing called "exhaustion of intellectual property rights" that limits the rights you can enforce after you have sold something. This is also the basis for the First-sale doctrine in the US.
> Did you know that Apple can notify you that they have revoked your iOS license at any time, without cause, and, under a strict interpretation of copyright law, make it illegal for you to then use or power on the phone that you own?
Have you got a source / defence for that?
I thought that copyright only applies to reproduction and distribution, not use, hence the term ‘copy’ ‘right’. Once you have acquired something, you are free to use it as you now own it. I would also have thought promissory estoppel would also prevent a company from unilaterally revoking your right to use their product.
I don't think the concept is wrong: incentivize the creation of creative works. Why would someone bother writing a story if any publisher can just take it and not pay the author?
Modern copyright goes far beyond this original goal, dis-incentivizes or forbids creation sometimes and it used in all kinds of manners where it is a bad fit like software and hardware.
I work at Insomniac, and can confirm that the "architectural copyright" laws are indeed a limiting factor on getting specific landmark buildings into the game.
Further, the agreements we signed to license buildings for the first game do not necessarily hold true for sequels, so getting all of the cool buildings in New York City into the game is always, always going to be a hurdle, popularity of the first game be damned.
There is another aspect as we go to more and more realistic worlds. In Google Maps I can ask to blur my house. As we go to more and more detailed worlds, can I ask Sony to blur my home too?
If the geometry is sourced from a service like google maps, it would probably be blurred. AFAIK, anything blurred in Bing maps is also blurred in Flight Simulator.
I was surprised to learn that architecture was covered by copyright. I hadn't really looked at copyright law in depth since the 80s other than some organization around trying to get IP protection for type design in the 90s which never got anywhere. I remembered reading that architectural plans were specifically excluded from copyright protection but apparently in 1990 this changed. (Note that all of this applies specifically to US copyright law.)
This may be a stretch, but could this be a clue into the upcoming movies featuring the MCU multiverse? Could the version of Spider-man in this game not be in our version of the universe?
No, Sec. 120 of the copyright law, at least in the US, says painting, photography, drawing, etc., are allowed. The general principle if 'right of panorama'--what you can see from public areas is basically part of the public area.
It's mostly procedurally generated, so they might be making the case that it's just a rough representation of the terrain and not specifically a representation of the building. I could see a judge deciding that's bullshit, but it certainly would be a slippery slope to declare it illegal to provide accurate 3d maps of a city
It seems, you didn't even read until the end of the article:
> Therefore, the most likely answer is that the distinctive shape of 1 World Trade Center is either trademarked (although I could not find it within USPTO databases) or is so recognizable that it is easily defensible via a common law trademark and the game developers were unable to secure a license to use the trademark before their deadline.
[+] [-] echelon|5 years ago|reply
You can't remove a building from your daily experience. Buildings have permanence. They seem cultural at a more fundamental level than movies or music.
How is this going to work with all the photogrammetry developments for games? I guess we're forbidden from the wholesale reuse of anything in public eye?
Has this been tested in court?
At some point the tech will mature to a point where it's more work to remove things than to scan them and leave then as is. Can we argue that these laws are an unjust burden?
[+] [-] PinguTS|5 years ago|reply
Here is a comprehensive list with their restrictions: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/known-image-r...
[+] [-] Verdex|5 years ago|reply
So there's Paris Syndrome. Which is a massive sense of dissapointment when going on vacation to Paris. Mostly experienced by Japanese people because their culture really hypes up the Paris experience (or so I hear).
I cant help but think that it's worth it for some hobbyists to create a bunch of free 3d models of famous buildings that are copyrighted. Obviously not exactly the same (you need to avoid a copyright claim), however the difference should be an attempt to make the building feel grander and better.
Eiffel tower at night (mentioned in other places in this thread) is apparently also copyrighted. So the goal there would be to create an Eiffel tower at night that blows the experience of the real Eiffel tower out of the water.
The ultimate goal is to enhance Paris Syndrome as much as possible. When people get to the copyrighted place in real life, we want them to feel like it was overly hyped up and definitely not worth the trip. "Hey Tim how was your trip?" "You know, I just feel it was more impressive in the video game."
If people want to restrict their whatever from public consumption, then I'm more than happy to find a way to direct the public to something more worth their time.
[+] [-] wwright|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] codyb|5 years ago|reply
It’s long been held that automakers could prevent their automobiles from being used without the makers consent. So games like Burnout have to crash cars that look similar to Ferraris and Lamborghinis.
This seems relatively similar I suppose?
[+] [-] whiddershins|5 years ago|reply
So, it’s baffling there would be exceptions, for the reasons you listed and probably more.
[+] [-] irjustin|5 years ago|reply
It's the lighting system and its 'likeness' that cannot be reproduced. A brief search and I don't think anyone has been prosecuted[1]. There are plenty of pictures everywhere that probably don't have proper licensing. Perhaps those who want to use it commercially can get permission relatively easily?
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M16CGK1T9MM [1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/photographs-of-eiffel-towe...
[+] [-] _ph_|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] petepete|5 years ago|reply
Microsoft should have just used an enlarged Blackpool Tower instead.
[+] [-] berniepebbles|5 years ago|reply
People should steer away from fact checkers. It's a lazy way to confirm your own opinion.
[+] [-] Zenst|5 years ago|reply
On a side note - is it Spiderman or Spider-man? I grew up with the believe that it was the former.
[+] [-] moomin|5 years ago|reply
Sam Raimi is a very accomplished director so you don't notice this unless you look, but the CGI buildings in the movie are actually _much worse_ than the ones in the recent PS4 game. It highlights the adage that there's no such thing as bad CGI, just bad filmmaking.
(On the other hand, my daughter pointed out to me that whenever anything exciting happens, every woman screams and no men do and it is impossible to unsee once you notice it.)
[+] [-] vanderZwan|5 years ago|reply
Well, there's a Spider-man related subreddit called "respect the hyphen" so...
[+] [-] Igelau|5 years ago|reply
J.T. Spiderman & Sons, Accounting
Susie Spiderman, Age 5
Arnold Spiderman III, MD
[+] [-] 2muchcoffeeman|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] phkahler|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sneak|5 years ago|reply
They lost.
https://www.si.com/nba/2020/04/06/nba-2k-ruling-tattoo-artis...
The concept of intellectual property is a blight on our society.
Did you know that Apple can notify you that they have revoked your iOS license at any time, without cause, and, under a strict interpretation of copyright law, make it illegal for you to then use or power on the phone that you own?
It’s really crazy how the copyright cartel has consolidated the power over the software and songs and stories and art that belong to every member of our culture.
[+] [-] taneq|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fnord123|5 years ago|reply
That's wild. Imagine a world where sending photos of yourself would require permission from tattoo artists.
[+] [-] poizan42|5 years ago|reply
It that actually true? There is this thing called "exhaustion of intellectual property rights" that limits the rights you can enforce after you have sold something. This is also the basis for the First-sale doctrine in the US.
[+] [-] aronpye|5 years ago|reply
Have you got a source / defence for that?
I thought that copyright only applies to reproduction and distribution, not use, hence the term ‘copy’ ‘right’. Once you have acquired something, you are free to use it as you now own it. I would also have thought promissory estoppel would also prevent a company from unilaterally revoking your right to use their product.
[+] [-] dtech|5 years ago|reply
Modern copyright goes far beyond this original goal, dis-incentivizes or forbids creation sometimes and it used in all kinds of manners where it is a bad fit like software and hardware.
[+] [-] Kapura|5 years ago|reply
Further, the agreements we signed to license buildings for the first game do not necessarily hold true for sequels, so getting all of the cool buildings in New York City into the game is always, always going to be a hurdle, popularity of the first game be damned.
[+] [-] warpech|5 years ago|reply
Freedom Tower == One World Trade Center[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_World_Trade_Center
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] _trampeltier|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kevingadd|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dhosek|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dandare|5 years ago|reply
https://euobserver.com/justice/126375
[+] [-] hateful|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bencollier49|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Finnucane|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tanseydavid|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tgb|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kevingadd|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] haunter|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xeromal|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fisherjeff|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] edu|5 years ago|reply
Fixed as per PinguTS: trademark law. D'oh.
[+] [-] PinguTS|5 years ago|reply
It seems, you didn't even read until the end of the article:
> Therefore, the most likely answer is that the distinctive shape of 1 World Trade Center is either trademarked (although I could not find it within USPTO databases) or is so recognizable that it is easily defensible via a common law trademark and the game developers were unable to secure a license to use the trademark before their deadline.
[+] [-] seedie|5 years ago|reply
In the end Steven guesses its a trademark issue
[+] [-] Udik|5 years ago|reply