Niantic faces a class action lawsuit for encouraging trespassing on private property:
When Niantic released Pokemon Go, it randomly placed Pokémon, Pokéstops and Pokémon Gyms all over the world. Players of the game wander the real world and use smartphones to capture Pokemon, buy items and fight Pokemon Gym leaders.
"To create that immersive world, Niantic made unauthorized use of Plaintiff's and other Class members' property by placing Pokéstops and Pokémon gyms thereupon or nearby," said Jennifer Pafiti in the lawsuit. "In so doing, Niantic has encouraged Pokémon Go's millions of players to make unwanted incursions onto the properties of plaintiff, and other members of the class, a clear and ongoing invasion of their use and enjoyment of their land from which defendants have profited and continue to profit."
Due to the randomized placement of the Pokémon, Pokéstops and Pokémon Gyms, they have turned up in some unwanted locations such as in houses, cemeteries and museums. According to Jeffrey Marder, a man living in New Jersey, he received at least five unwelcome visitors that wanted access to his backyard to catch Pokémon within the first week of the game's launch.
"Plaintiff and other Class members have all suffered and will continue to suffer harm and damages as a result of Defendants' unlawful and wrongful conduct. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy," said Pafiti.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday August 03 2016, @08:51PM
I believe crowdsourcing does give them a defense in the "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA... They also did quite a bit of due diligence to ensure all locations were publicly accessible, and they have been removing a lot of locations when they get complaints. They also now have a big banner that appears whenever you go into the game that says "Do not trespass while playing."
I really don't think Niantic is going to be held liable. The class would need to prove some sort of intent or negligence, and I just don't see that.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday August 04 2016, @01:16AM
I'm not sure how the DMCA applies here, the safe harbor provision applies to copyright material being traded over somebody elses service. Place locations aren't subject to copyright law as of yet, so the idea of being exempted from copyright claims because of crowd-sourcing is nonsensical.
I'm sure they'll try to weasel out of it, but since the property owners in most cases won't have signed up for the game, there's no basis for Niantic claiming to be free and clear for mistaken listings. They've opted to not verify the locations and as such, I'd be surprised if they weren't held liable for that. At some point there has to be a limit to what putting your fingers in your ears and ignoring likely problems can get you out of.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Thursday August 04 2016, @01:31AM
They've opted to not verify the locations and as such, I'd be surprised if they weren't held liable for that.
This is incorrect, as has been pointed out multiple times. The Niantic staff personally vetted every location, to ensure that it met all of their TOS, which includes that the location is publicly accessible.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday August 04 2016, @01:48AM
I hadn't seen that. That's even worse, if they've vetted the locations and the locations themselves turn out to be private property, then what's the point of vetting them at all?
I'd assumed that they hadn't been vetted as it seems absurd for some of those pokemon to be showing up where they are. For example the gas one showing up near and around the Holocaust museum and the ones showing up near cliffs.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Thursday August 04 2016, @02:29AM
I don't know about the cliff incident. It seems odd, there must be something else to the story. What I found was "... in Encinitas, California. Two men hunting for Pokemon were so engrossed in the Go app that they walked past a No Trespassing sign and then a Do Not Cross sign near a cliff edge." That seems pretty stupid. I really doubt there was anything there that Niantic put in the location. More likely they were just stupid, and didn't know how to use the game. There are roads and public walking paths clearly MARKED on the game map. Obviously those guys were not using them. There is NOTHING in the game far from those paths, even in parks.
As far as the holocaust museum, it's a public place, accessible to the public. Of COURSE it was a location in the game - many tourist attractions are used. I'm sure there were Ingress players using the portals there, but there just weren't as many so it wasn't an issue. But those locations have already been removed [latimes.com].
I am a crackpot
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday August 04 2016, @03:47AM
They did remove the pokemon from the Holocaust museum after the complaint, but if they're verifying locations it seems incredibly insensitive to put any pokemon there, especially that one.
I think the deal with the cliff was that the algorithm they're using doesn't do a good job of dealing with the relative inaccuracy of the devices. So, if they put something next to the road, it can appear in the road or over the fence on the other side of the sidewalk.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Thursday August 04 2016, @04:20AM
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by cykros on Friday August 05 2016, @02:46AM
While they're verifying locations for pokestops and gyms, they're not verifying locations for where pokemon spawn, which appears mostly based on cell phone usage density (much the same as where XM spawns in Ingress). Though it wouldn't surprise me if the stops and gyms were at the holocaust memorials as well, because they're literally exactly the same locations as the portals are in. Incidentally, Ingress players making use of these locations has never been disruptive (we tend to travel solo or in particularly small groups), while it doesn't surprise me to hear that the pokemon crowds were less than welcome. Between the average sense of common courtesy being lower as well as the way gameplay actually works, it's a fairly big difference, but otoh it's not surprising to hear that Niantic didn't think about that considering the millions of portals they already had around the world that they were converting to use in a completely different game. That they're quickly responding to complaints in a reasonable manner seems adequate to me.