[cheepin]

> 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 and the copyright of the building be two separate things, the former belonging to the taker and licensed to the company? If not, is Google Maps compelled to censor their street views of copyrighted architecture?

[Veratyr]

http://blog.kenkaminesky.com/photography-copyright-and-the-l... in the "Do I need a model or property release to own the copyright in my photograph" section goes into this a bit.

TL;DR: "In general, if property is visible and can be photographed from a public place, you don’t need a property release to use an image that depicts the property and you may use the photo in any manner. Copyright law provides an exclusion for photographing buildings located on property, but not for statues or other items that may have separate copyrights."

and

"Nevertheless, some companies have tried to prevent the use—both commercially and editorially—of photographs of their buildings or objects via trademark protection or contract law. Examples include the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, the Lone Cypress tree on the 17 Mile Drive at Pebble Beach, CA, the Golden Gate Bridge, and the “Hollywood” sign. While these attempts have been unsuccessful, it can be expensive to litigate them"

In general, I believe copyright always belongs to a photographer unless they're taking the photos in the employ of someone else, in which case the copyright belongs to their employer. However copyright, trademark and publicity rights are all very different things and it's quite possible that even if you own the copyright to a photo, you can't use it commercially (for example if you're taking a photo of someone and using their likeness to endorse something). Buildings don't seem to have issues like this though.

[hirsin]

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 copyright infringement?

[GFK_of_xmaspast]

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."

[hirsin]

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

[marme]

the bigger concern is the possibility of violating a trademark. If a McDonalds is a pokestop and the image is the golden arches logo that is a trademarked logo that you are now associating with your game. The average person can be confused and think there is some association between pokemon and mcdonalds. That mcdonalds is sponsoring pokemon in someway and hurt their brand