
Why Is 1 World Trade Center Missing from Spider-Man? - tosh
https://www.stevenbuccini.com/why-1wtc-isnt-in-spiderman
======
echelon
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?

~~~
PinguTS
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.

Here is a comprehensive list with their restrictions:
[https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/known-
image-r...](https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/known-image-
restrictions.html)

~~~
tephra
If I recall correctly the issue with the Eiffel Tower at night is that they
claim (and I assume courts have agreed unfortunately) that the lighting
fixtures are copyrightable?

~~~
conjectures
IP is one of those areas where programmers like to imagine the law is a
function definition which provides clear answers. And aside from obvious stuff
like selling bootleg copies of a movie - it doesn't.

Whether the pattern of light hitting a building is copyrightable is likely to
be an under-explored area of case law. E.g. in the UK it would probably have
to be a work of 'artistic craftsmanship' which is not defined in the statute.
But the Eiffel tower is in France. So now you have two slightly differing sets
of copyright law.

In the end many IP cases come down to bluffing because the actual class of
question has never been settled by a judge.

On the other hand you have other cases like Banksy today loosing a case on
trademarking one of his paintings. Which was dumb because he'd have got
further with copyright infringement.

~~~
mywittyname
I do feel like there are situations where you're creating artwork as a public
good, and the artist should lose copyrights in exchange for the
notoriety/impact/visibility associated with the project. Things like massive
buildings, lighting the Eiffle tower, or creating Happy Birthday should fall
under that.

It might sound unfair, but as an artist, creating a iconic piece of art that
will be around for generations should really be worth more than money. Perhaps
governments around the world could set up a fund to compensate/honor artists
who achieve this.

~~~
kjakm
This sounds like you’re saying if you’re an artist, and you do a really good
job, you shouldn’t get paid and should lose the rights to your work. That’s
quite a strange concept.

~~~
mywittyname
A) I literally mentioned compensation in my post.

B) Lots of people find the current rules to be unfair. An enterprising fellow
could build a massive structure in NYC and claim royalty rights over any
photograph which may contain it.

You might be a-okay with that, but I take it to the extreme and think about
what would happen if every building owner in NYC asserted copyrights over
images of their building. Then every photo taken in the city would be subject
to royalty/licensing requirements. YouTube's content scanners would
automatically flag any video with shots of the city, etc.

------
irjustin
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?

[0]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M16CGK1T9MM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M16CGK1T9MM)
[1] [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/photographs-of-eiffel-
towe...](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/photographs-of-eiffel-tower-at-
night/)

~~~
_ph_
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.

~~~
rudedogg
I wonder if replacing a bulb grants a new copyright?

~~~
_ph_
You mean like:

How many lightbulbs does it take to change the copyright?

~~~
GurnBlandston
It's the lighting system of Theseus.

------
Zenst
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](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.

~~~
vanderZwan
> _On a side note - is it Spiderman or Spider-man? I grew up with the believe
> that it was the former._

Well, there's a Spider-man related subreddit called "respect the hyphen" so...

~~~
Zenst
Interesting, does seem it's always kinda been hyphenated, yet the aspect that
there is a discussion group over it does somewhat show my confusion is not
alone, mad but will admit - it is hyphenated as the other comment says - check
the comics - it's hyphenated, though a few with it upon two lines and maybe
the source of confusion.

------
sneak
See also: tattoo artists wanted a cut of the video games that depicted NBA
players with “their” art.

They lost.

[https://www.si.com/nba/2020/04/06/nba-2k-ruling-tattoo-
artis...](https://www.si.com/nba/2020/04/06/nba-2k-ruling-tattoo-artists)

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.

~~~
dtech
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.

~~~
fnord123
The _goal_ of incentivising work is nice. But the concept of copyright is
busted even from the concept. The idea that you have a story that you wrote on
your own dime and you're shopping around to publishers puts the authors in a
tournament theory situation which is totally abusive.

The other issue of bringing a document to an independent publisher (akin to
having a Chinese factory build your devices) who could steal the IP is a
contractual and security matter.

~~~
dtech
It is independent of publishers. An author could have handwritten the books
himself with no intermediaries before sale. Without copyright anyone who
brought the book could replicate and sell it without restriction and sell it
for cheaper, while the author doesn't get anything.

------
Kapura
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.

------
warpech
To anyone as confused as I was reading this article:

Freedom Tower == One World Trade Center[1]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_World_Trade_Center](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_World_Trade_Center)

------
_trampeltier
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?

~~~
kevingadd
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.

~~~
kangnkodos
Did Google Earth get permission for all those buildings?

------
dhosek
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.)

------
dandare
In some EU countries it is illegal to use photos of the European Parliament
building.

[https://euobserver.com/justice/126375](https://euobserver.com/justice/126375)

------
hateful
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?

------
bencollier49
Presumably this means that it's illegal to paint these recent buildings as
well. There's clearly something broken here.

~~~
Finnucane
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.

------
tanseydavid
"Slung" is the past-tense form of the "to sling". The "-ed" suffix is not
needed.

------
tgb
What does Microsoft Flight Simulator do?

~~~
kevingadd
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

~~~
moomin
I think for things like GCHQ, which the UK government is very touchy about
having accurate records for, the right thing to do would be to replace it with
a much cooler set of buildings.

------
fisherjeff
So can I just trademark my house if I don’t want to be on Google Street View?

------
edu
TL;DR: ~copyright law~

Fixed as per PinguTS: trademark law. D'oh.

~~~
Udik
So much for "Freedom" tower.

~~~
rbanffy
So much for "free" country...

