I want to understand what Niantic’s stand is when it comes to locations that explicitly prohibit photography. This wouldn’t be an isolated incident since many places around the world prohibit photography for various reasons.
My view is that without a photo, a POI cannot exist.
Where photography is not allowed, there is a legal restriction on any and all POIs existing.
Would appreciate if someone from the Wayfarer team could add some clarity and maybe update criteria pages if needed.
Hello,
Are you able to provide some examples of places that don’t allow photos to be taken? I think this may be something that isn’t the same around the world, as there aren’t many places in the US (that I know of) that outright prohibit photography.
It can be quite common in museums and around military installations to have bans on photography for very different reasons.
There are very different rules globally.
As a general rule I would think if you can’t take a photo then it can’t be a wayspot.
My impression is that the property owner has decided photography is not allowed. So it’s less about rules and more about consent of the property owner.
Good point. Museums and art galleries might prohibit photography inside. But a place like a military base outright prohibits it in any form.
Yes, those are the ones I know of, and I think most would agree on.
One of first to come to mind was a SCIF (sensitive compartmented information facility) where classified information can be viewed by high ranking officials in the US government, military, and/or intelligence agencies. Any type of personal recording device, be it a phone or analog film camera, is prohibited.
This seems to be a different case, as the POI may meet criteria, but the owner doesn’t allow photis to be taken.
Military bases do not outright prohibit photography in all countries; Wayspots are allowed on bases as long as the POI meets criteria and doesn’t interfere with the military operations. Many bases in the US are like small cities, having their own parks, recreation and fitness centers, libraries, movie theaters, etc. They’re all open to all at the base, including the civilian family members that live there, and don’t interfere with base operations.
It may be different in other countries how military bases are set up, with the entire base being for operations and personnel living off-site, for example. And there certainly are different laws around the world regarding any type of recording at bases, so Wayfaring should always be done lawfully based on your location.
The degree of secrecy ranges. Point still stands that the nomination process involves breaking local rules.
IMO This is similar to how trespassing is against player guidelines. Until the submitter is granted access to said site, the process can begin. One may or may not get clearance to do so, however.
IMO how this can be enforced (in the current UI) is when self-regulated (by the submitter) or reported. Highly doubt that the reviewer can note every regulation for every place which is why I’m placing this burden, again, largely on the submitter.
I don’t think we need to get into defining where might not allow photography.
The question is I understand about making a nomination.
I think the general principle is that the submission flow requires a photograph to be taken ( not 3rd party source) of the object that is being nominated.
If that is not possible then you can’t make a nomination.
If a wayspot was previously accepted with an appropriate photo, and is a valid wayspot then the fact you are not now allowed to take photos I don’t think ( but could be persuaded otherwise) does not constitute a reason to remove.
If the owner of the property wanted the wayspot removed that would be different and come under the normal removal criteria.
In some places you may be able to use a picture that represents the place, that can be taken in an area where photos are okay.
For example a sign, or the outside of a building, or in a lobby/reception area that is away from a sensitive area.
I nominated a notice/information board at a swimming pool rather than the pool itself since you weren’t allowed to take pictures inside. There were signs up saying no cameras or phones inside the pool or changing areas. The info board was at the entrance, with doors blocking any view of the pool or changing area, so this was my compromise.
In the UK, you can’t photograph certain places because of the Official Secrets Act… but then the public isn’t allowed on those places anyway. Ironically here is a photo of a sign saying that you can’t take photos…
Some wayspots do exist without photographs, although they’re really rare. I guess these are ones where the photo has been removed after submission. But having a photo is the key part of the experience of any of the Niantic games I’ve played, and if you can’t take a photo then frankly I don’t think it’s worth nominating.
I disagree with the later half of what you’re saying here. IMO, prohibiting photography means a prior revocation of consent to have any POIs on the owner’s land. Niantic’s process may include a form for removals, etc. but the fact remains that a property owner rule/public law similar to trespassing has been broken.
As @paulingzubat said, the burden of proof is unfortunately on the nominator/reporter.
This is a good scenario in question as well. Even in my country we have an Official Secrets Act that prohibits any kind of photography at certain places. I’m assuming most countries do.
In the US, there are few, if any truly public places where photography is not permitted; however, any private business can prohibit photography within their property and some do to protect privacy (employee and/or client privacy), protect business interests, etc. I do think it is an uncommon practice, but it does exist.
I’ve also mentioned that a person may or may not get access permissions, including getting permissions to photograph and post.
The burden I am talking about is for the submitter to uphold the local rule if permissions are not granted. I highlight that in review, the reviewer assumes no trespassing happened and the submitter has rights to do the nomination in good faith. There is no way to say in review that the submitter can provide proof of photo permissions with anonimity of submission (or suffer the “submitter identifiable” rejection).
Trespassing is also upheld similarly whether in Wayfarer or in gameplay. We are asked to behave appropriately. Consequences for trespassing may result to the owner having to request removal. But they still allow limited public access locations.
Hey,
Niantic does encourage all players to abide by local laws, as stated in the game’s Terms of Service and as reiterated through in-game warnings and notifications.
If you’re not certain you have the right to access a location or are not certain it is safe to access, please do not make any attempts to do so. As a player or any other member of the community, you must respect access restrictions, never trespass, or in any manner gain or attempt to gain access to any property or location where you do not have the right or permission to be. Please review and follow the Player Guidelines at all times while playing our games to ensure a safe and enjoyable experience for everyone!
As for the Wayspot submissions in review, they should be reviewed on their merit in line with the Wayspot criteria.
Thanks,
Can you prove that the owner is not the one who created that older POI or that they did not grant some exception to their photography rule in order for this to become a POI?
If the object is there and you don’t have definitive proof about the circumstances surrounding its creation, don’t get involved.
This is why I asked for more info on the POI in question. It’s hard to say what’s the best way to go about this without some additional info, more context.
We don’t need photos of the POI, since it seems photos are prohibit, but knowing more about what it is and where it’s location may be helpful.
Ultimately, like with almost all of Wayfarer, each situation is unique. People want a single set of rules, but you can’t write a single set of rules that applies broadly to all countries and all situations.
Does a prohibition of photography count as an access restriction? Does it count as a local law? Does it count as a property owner restriction?
