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.
The French and wider EU rules around this (often referred to as "freedom of panorama", discussed here [1]) are actually quite complex. From my time contributing to Wikipedia, I've seen a number of cases of photos on articles being removed due to it.
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?
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.
That's quite insightful in understanding how the concept of intellectual property works in practice. I see, it's about making a claim to convince the other party of its legal ownership.
Whether the actual legality of the claim is proven in court or not, it may not matter if the claim is convincing enough, or too costly to contest.
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.
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.
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.
Exactly. The government should forcibly open source software projects and set up a fund to honour their creators if it decides those projects are a public good.
Why absurd? they are performance that just happen to be occurring frequently. If a Broadway musical is played every night, does it stop being a musical?
There is some French law on works of art and photos of them being prohibited. I once posted a picture of a World War I memorial at Verdun to wikipedia and it was removed for violating said French law.
I mean, I can see a case for copyrighting such a setup as an art-piece. Although it's still silly if used for anything other than discouraging others from making money off it (e.g. selling photos).
> I mean, I can see a case for copyrighting such a setup as an art-piece.
I must admit I don't. I cannot bring myself to see the Eiffel tower being copyrighted at night as anything but absurd, even for selling photos.
Not everything needs to be profitable or have a price tag. I think we should agree upfront as a society that you shouldn't expect to make money from photos of the exterior of your public building.
I just don't understand how you can restrict photography of something that's in the public view. I'd expect that while most public sculptures etc are copyrighted, this restricts reproductions of the sculptures themselves, not images of them. The creative work here is the lighting system, and I don't feel an image of that actually copies that.
If someone monkeyed with the lighting fixtures, they would be creating a derivative work of the fixtures and if they do it without a license from the copyright holder, they would be violating the copyright.
if it's really an issue of copyright (I don't know this myself but just going with the theory) then it would probably depend on how closely your digital alterations match the actual lighting. If you did it to match/copy the copyrighted lighting, by looking at the actual lighting (in person with your laptop, from a picture, from memory), it would violate copyright just as much. If I re-type the words of a copyrighted text, it doesn't mean I haven't violated copyright.
> If I re-type the words of a copyrighted text, it doesn't mean I haven't violated copyright.
Copyrights are hard. Even if you look at public domain works like Sherlock Holmes, whose original stories are in the public domain, you can run into issues by giving him personality traits that are associated with derivative works that are still under copyright.
It was actually used for advertising a long time ago. Big old "CITROËN" on it. Really gaudy, but a trademark nonetheless, so it does put us into some sort of IP territory.
I might understand the point if what you were trying to sell was a picture of the tower- that is, if the image of tower itself were the reason people are paying for something.
If it's just part of a crowded the background, though, as in this case, it doesn't make sense. You can't put in the sky an object visible from everywhere and then ask people to pay (or even just ask permission) to use pictures that include it.
It becomes more complex if you are an Instagram influencer and share yourself with Eiffel tower on the background - do you need to share loyalties and how much of it?
I wonder- if I need to pay royalties to share a picture including a building, can I sue the owners of the building for popping up in my pictures? If I am an instagram influencer, can I ask owners of buildings to pay me for the space they occupy in my pictures?
The thing is, yes you can try to ask the owners. But what do you do, when they refuse? Because it is not in the owners interest, it is in yours interest.
The thing with the influencer is, that s/he does that for commercial purposes. The list published by Adobe give you a hint what is allowed and what not. I don't know if the list is a complete list and I didn't verified the details. But it gives you something.
> yes you can try to ask the owners. But what do you do, when they refuse?
The same thing they would do if you didn't want to pay them: you sue them. For abusive occupation of your pictures.
I am being paradoxical, but the point I want to make is that if you want to make profits or claim any rights on the image you project in a public space (admitted that it should even be allowed, since you didn't pay for said space) then you must also accept the liabilities deriving by the same. You should not be allowed to claim the rights and disown the liabilities.
The comment you are replying to contains a link to a list which shows the different categories of restriction, including your example: Cityscape vs Exterior.
That's just a list of what Adobe restricts, not what is generally restricted. Each jurisdiction is different, but Adobe tries to appease all of them which unfortunately defaults to being restrictive.
If you take a picture of enough of the text, you've actually reproduced the work under copyright.
No amount of pictures of a building will reproduce it.
Also, if they want to claim ownership of the recording of something clearly visible in public, they should take responsibility and make payment for everyone that views it against their will. Yea, that latter half of that sounds ridiculous. The first half should as well.
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.
> 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.
The Mona Lisa is available all over the internet, yet people still flock to see it in person practically every day. Even a perfect replica of it isn’t worth the millions the authentic is worth. I don’t know the name of it, but people tend to prefer the “real thing” even if they can “experience” it elsewhere.
My point is: even if a perfect 1:1 scale replica of the Eiffel Tower existed, people would still flock to see the “authentic” one to “appreciate” it.
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.)
> 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.
I think the better question to ask is: What CGI effects from 20 years ago can't be achieved in real time today?
Finding Nemo was almost 20 years ago and as I recall, Pixar did a lot of work to reproduce the look of marine animals that have translucent layers to their skin. Seems like a level of detail that real-time engines might not bother with.
But yeah, the Mandalorian used real-time rendering in-camera for a ton of its scenes. They fudged it a bit by using wide apertures so the backgrounds were a bit soft, but it obviously worked very well.
Human skin is translucent too. Real time Sub-surface scattering has existed for years and is now to making it into games. There's an excellent writeup here:
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.
If you do a Google image search for "old spider man comic book", you will see the hyphen on most of the covers. A few of them have "Spider" on one line followed by a new line underneath with "Man".
Correct. It’s confusing because most other man-suffixed superheroes do not have hyphens (e.g. Superman) or the hyphen was removed prior to hitting mainstream culture (e.g. Batman).
Marvel tends to use hyphens or spaces (Spider-Man, Ant-Man, Iron Man) while DC usually does compound words (Superman, Batman, Aquaman, although Wonder Woman). I could find no compound wordman superheroes in the lists of Marvel superheroes I found, but there are some -man and (space)man characters in the DC list.
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.
I would imagine that the actual tattoo itself is a work for hire, but if the tattoo artist first created the artwork and then tattooed it onto the person, and wasn't explicitly paid for the first bit, you could argue that the tattoo is a copy (made by the copyright owner) of a copyrighted work.
I can't speak to tattoos specifically, but I'm familiar with IP contracts in other creative areas, and in every one of those cases, no contract means the copyright belongs to the creator.
For the US, if the creator did the work without initial payment or the promise of payment on delivery then the copyright is theirs. If they are hired before it exists, it is work for hire.
Does anyone "hire" a tattoo artist to do their tattoos? Other than a tattoo parlor?
For this to be true, "hire" does not just mean pay someone for a service, it has to mean that that person has become an employee of your company.
For example if you "hire" (contract with) a photographer to shoot your event, the photographer retains copyright on those photos unless you negotiate work-for-hire and document it in the contract. But if you have a company with a photographer on staff, the employment contract would typically specify that the company owns the copyright to images taken in the course of work.
> 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.
Using iOS requires a license to the software. Of course, the legality of the iOS contract has never been tested, nor has Apple revoked an iOS license for a legitimate iPhone. If you were to have your license revoked, your phone would indeed be pretty much useless and Apple would have a hard time defending the fact that your phone is now a brick, so they avoid this by never exercising their right to revoke the license. The license instead performs more important tasks like reducing liability (using iOS for terrorism, for instance, isn't Apple's problem) and giving it ground to sue people like Corellium[0] who run it on non-Apple hardware.
I get why a licence is required to receive software updates as software is being distributed to you outside of the original sale of the device, and I get that Apple can sue Corellium as they are making unlicensed copies of iOS.
You have pointed out that the legality of Apples’ EULA hasn’t been tested, but I’m having a hard time of understanding how an EULA could be used to restrict how a device could be used. Does anyone know of the legal theory behind this?
Can contracts or licence agreements be used to restrict use of something even if you now own it? I’m not a lawyer, obviously, but I thought as long as you buy something up front the contract can be deemed to have been successfully performed and thus ends? I.e. there is no longer an ongoing relationship.
You are legally allowed to jailbreak your iOS device under a named exemption to the DMCA, regardless of what Apple's EULA says. I'm having a hard time thinking of how copyright gives Apple the legal power to brick my phone.
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.
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.
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.
If you have no legal right to your creative output, you have no basis for writing a contract about it. You can't write enforceable contracts about things that don't exist.
Copyright is the basis for contracts about creative works. Without copyright there is literally nothing to steal or protect.
There were very few people who made it their job. The ease and accuracy with which artistic works can be replicated and replicates in the 1600s and earlier was much, much more limited.
An actor or singer didn't need this protection in 1800 because there was no film or audio records. You had to hire them to perform. It's no coincidence that the first protected works were books, because there was the printing press.
Mass replication is older than you think. In Ancient Rome when poets recited, it was common for an amanuensis in the crowd to copy down what was being recited. Copies would then be made by a team of slaves and sold in the marketplace without any of that money going to the poet. And yet there was absolutely no moral outrage at this.
The only thing people objected to (a famous case is Martial in one of his epigrams) was someone passing off those poems as his own work. That is, there is a stronger case across space and time for disapproval of plagiarism, but the notion of copyright only arose in the West a few centuries ago, and still much of the world does not take it seriously.
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
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.
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.
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?