Pokémon Go has seen thousands of people
getting off the couch into
parks,
historical
sites, and even
railway
tracks in search of Pokémon. For those unfamiliar with this addictive new
hobby, it is a game app for smart phones that allow players to catch Pokémon; animated
creatures that were popularised in the 1990s by a card game, television
series, and video games. In
Niantic’s
latest revival of this craze, Pokémon Go, virtual
Pokémon appear in public places,
and can be photographed through the app, which raises the question of
copyright infringement in countries which do not have Freedom of Panorama.
How
does the game work?
Pokémon Go requires players to search for
Pokémon in the real world, a revolutionary move in the gaming industry. Pokémon
are randomly generated by the game software, using GPS tracking technology.
When a player is near to a Pokémon, it will appear on her phone screen in
camera mode and allow her to ‘throw’ a Pokéball at it to ‘catch’ it. The screen
shows the Pokémon in the surrounding environment, making it a life-like
experience. While photographs of the capture are not saved to the game, players
have the option of saving the photos to their phone, thereby reproducing any surrounding
works of architecture or sculptures.
What
is Freedom of Panorama?
“Member States may provide for exceptions or
limitations to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 in the following
cases… (h) use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be
located permanently in public places”
It is an exception which has been
championed by MEP Julia Reda in her draft report
(section 16) on the EU copyright framework. The European Commission had a consultation on
Freedom of Panorama from 23 March 2016 to 15 June 2016. Currently, member states have varying approaches
to the this exception, with some allowing it fully, others limiting it to
non-commercial use (which France recently did although
in limited circumstances), and a handful have no exception whatsoever.
Even in member states where the exception is
allowed for non-commercial purposes, people who share such pictures could be
committing copyright infringement. This is despite the picture not being used
commercially, as the terms and conditions of social media sites, such as Facebook,
allow the site to use your photograph for commercial purposes, and requires
that you have cleared any rights to your photography, as explained by Julia Reda.
Such requirements blur the line between
commercial and non-commercial.
(Previous IPKat posts of freedom of
Panorama here
and here)
How
does the absence of Freedom of Panorama affect Pokémon players?
Players who catch Pokémon in front of
copyright protected sculptures and buildings in countries which do not have
Freedom of Panorama, and take a photograph of their capture, are infringing
copyright. For example, taking a
photograph of the Pikachu you caught in front of Mimmo Paladino’s ‘Untitled’
horse sculpture in Naples, Italy, would be copyright infringement since Italy
has no Freedom of Panorama exception. Since player are unlikely to keep these
photos to themselves, there is further potential for infringement due to
the terms and conditions of social media sites, in countries which only have a
limited Freedom of Panorama.
|
Maybe Paladino's sculpture is a deconstructed Rapidash |
Furthermore, photographs are not currently
saved to the game, but rather to the phone. If this changes and photographs are
saved to the game, professional players (yes, this is now a career
choice) who sell their accounts will be making a commercial gain from the
photos, and will be committing copyright infringement even in countries with
the non-commercial exception.
It is true that Freedom of Panorama is not
a highly litigious area, so individual players can continue showing off their
Pokémon on their social media accounts. This Kat doubts that this innocuous
threat would deter players from sharing their rare captures such as Mewtwo, but it
does raise concerns of the clarity of this area of law, especially concerning
the line between commercial and non-commercial uses of reproductions of
copyright works. Just like the Pokémon
Go servers, Freedom of Panorama needs to be fixed so that the law does not
hinder public enjoyment.
For the purposes of copyright infringement, wouldn't one have to make a sculpture to copy it, or can copying be in any medium (ie - taking a photo, as is the case here) ?
ReplyDeleteCould a Pokémon climbing atop a nightly Eiffel tower be considered a derivative work?
ReplyDeleteThis blog post is an excellent illustration of the absurdities of copyright law. I have plenty of presumably illegal nighttime images of the Eiffel Tower on my 100% non-commercial web sites, and I will continue to take whichever photographs I want to take regardless of stupid rules like this. Having such laws on the books only serves to undermine respect for the law in general and for IP law in particular, thus paving the way (in the average person's mind) to real IPR infringement.
ReplyDeletehttps://juliareda.eu/2015/07/eu-parliament-defends-freedom-of-panorama-calls-for-copyright-reform/
ReplyDeleteThe investment angle is not as exciting as the copyright infringement one, but IP is a many-dimensional field.
ReplyDeleteIP Finance has this post from your own colleague Neil Wilkof on monetization http://www.ip.finance/2016/08/will-pokemon-go-unlock-ip-value-for.html and there's a patents analytics review on the Aistemos blog at http://blog.aistemos.com/2016/08/patents-surrounding-pokemon-go-has.html
Hello, I'm doing a master's degree in pokemon go and the IP issues surrounding it, so thanks very much for this pertinent article and relevant links in the comments
ReplyDeleteSo Betza, how do you see the use of a privately commissioned, privately owned artwork, which is in public situ for only 6 months of the year, being used as a pokestop without the permission, knowledge, or acknowledgement to the artist?
DeleteIf paladino didn't want people taking photos of his mis-shapen horse, he should have kept it locked away in his mis-shapen stables.
ReplyDelete