Your questions are too vague. As said before by others, each situation is distinct and your questions don’t provide enough details for a specific circumstance.
2 Likes
A prohibition of photography does not stop you safely accessing a current wayspot……
We are talking about a current wayspot that you are considering requesting for removal ? As opposed to a new one.
If some people can access it safely, abiding by the laws as @NianticAaron has said, and stand next to it then that is fine.
There is no need for any photography during ordinary game play, so if photography is forbidden there is no issue. You can play whilst abiding by local laws and property rulings.
So It would not be a reason for a fellow wayfinder to report it.
However if the owner was concerned maybe not just about photography but the use of the games and perhaps phones they can write specifically as property owners to request removal.
Have you visited the location? Are there any problems with safety?
1 Like
It’s hard to tell if they are thinking of requesting removal of a current Wayspot, or wanting to know if a POI where the property owner has asked that photos not be taken is eligible to be a Wayspot.
@aaronvianno Now, if this is an existing Wayspot that doesn’t have a photo, it could be an import, and Niantic doesn’t know that the property owner has requested no photos be taken. Niantic uses 3rd party sources from time to time to bring Wayspots into games where there are few game play locations, and the info imported is from the 3rd party source. It also could be that it may have had a photo in the past, but it didn’t meet photo guidelines, so it was removed. Just a couple of situations where this would happen.
Yes, Wayspots don’t need photos to be on Lightship and for players to interact with. Yes, the photos add an element of interaction, but you can still interact with the Wayspot in the games.
Again, we can’t say what is best in this situation if we’re just given general questions, and not specifics. Besides, some places that aren’t heavy on security may ask that no photos be taken, say a museum or art gallery, but it’s usually not a law, and people may still be able to take some photos, especially with flash off.
Photography within all military units is prohibited in Korea.
However, I have often seen Wayspot created in the unit, even though filming is prohibited inside the dispatched U.S. military unit.
Of course, if ordinary civilians can’t access it and they can’t film it…
Wayspot shouldn’t be approved either…
The conclusion is that it was approved by user review.
Wayspot has a common standard of recognition and rejection.
I personally think that there is a need for flexibility to a certain extent, as each country has slightly different characteristics…
However, you can think of it as an opinion that the Ambassador and Niantic teams must follow the guidelines.
This is my personal opinion.
We don’t know if the OP is referring to a military base, nor do we know where what they are speaking about is located. And yes, local laws vary for military bases, and we are required to follow local law while playing and using Niantic’s products, per the player guidelines and terms of service.
1 Like
This is not correct
There is no requirement for everyone to be able to access a valid wayspot.
If for example the people entitled to be on the base can access it, even if it’s just a few people then that is fine.
I think there have been lots of good points made about general principles.
@aaronvianno if you want to supply an example that you have in mind then we can usefully give specific advice.
1 Like
It’s a rather simple situation.
There is a local temple that allows visitors. No restrictions on that. It has a large premises. However they explicitly do not allow photography inside.
Sounds like a great place for a waypoint! I would take a good picture of the outside, abiding by their rules for no photography inside.
4 Likes
Thanks.
My view.
As above no problem with a photo of the outside.
It would be respectful to abide to their request not to take photos of any specific objects inside the premises in order to create a new wayspot.
If there are already wayspots inside and there is no request for general use of a phone then normal game play is not breaking any request. So not a reason for removal. If people are not creating a nuisance and being respectful of the place they are in, it is unlikely to be a problem.
If the people in charge of the temple do not wish to have any wayspots present or used in any game, for whatever reason ( they just need to say they don’t want this on their premises) then they simply complete the form and they will be removed from all games.
3 Likes
Can PokemonGo still report Wayspots by choosing reason that it’s not scannable? If so - would that remove the wayspot? Or just set an internal switch telling the games not to encourage gamers to scan it (IE don’t mark it as volatile in Ingress)?
A very large indoor farmers market in Metro Atlanta has “No photography” signs. However, sometimes a newspaper article covers them, showing pictures inside. So I assume they give permission sometimes. I don’t know if its existing Wayspots were sanctioned or not, and don’t care to ask management, so I’m keeping out of it. But if people start scanning them, the business would probably stop them (and might get the wayspots removed).
Just speculating.
The outside of the building can still be scanned, and that’s what the Wayspot would be for, the entire building. As long as there isn’t any Wayspots inside the temple, you can still scan the outside facade of the building.
Also, press are able to ask for permission to take photos/videos in places that prohibit any form of photography, especially here in the US. Think of it like someone that takes video at a concert and later posts it on social media, especially YouTube. The uploader can post the video, but because the music is copyrighted, they can’t make money off of the video. And depending on the artist, they may be requested to remove the video entirely (hence why I have video from seeing Paul MacCartney, but have never posted it online, especially The Beatles songs).
@aaronvianno I will say that I don’t really care for people nominating POIs inside religious buildings, as those that worship there and/or the clergy may see these Wayspots as being disrespectful to their faith if random people keep interacting with the ones inside, regardless of which game they may be playing. I stick to outside Wayspots for religious buildings, like outside statues, the entrance to other buildings that meet criteria (I got a parish center at a church approved about a year ago as many local and church events occur there, but put the pin at the entrance), playgrounds, etc. My last religious Wayspot nomination was for a playground at a church, next to their even space.
Yes, there are some religious buildings that prohibit photos, and this could be for a variety of reasons. They may prohibit photos as they may not want their worshipers to be disturbed, they may house special artifacts that they do not wish to be photographed (think similar to some museum exhibits), etc.
Now, there have been some property owners of religious buildings that have requested that Wayspots be removed. There is a large church where I live that had plenty of Wayspots outside of the building, including statues, picnic shelters, etc, but they didn’t like the random people pulling into their parking lot just to play PoGo, which is the main game in my area. All of the stops/gyms that were on their property were removed about 5 years ago, so they must have contacted Niantic to have them removed. There are now more Wayspots in this area, as it’s grown, so I don’t think most players are upset that the church asked for them to be removed.
It’s really up to us to use our best judgment as to whether or not to nominate a POI to be a Wayspot. Being this temple doesn’t allow photos inside doesn’t disqualify it from being nominated. A photo of the outside of the building may do, but it may also be worth asking the property owner if they would be ok with a Wayspot for the building in general, just to be respectful. An explanation of how Wayspots are used and how the games work may be in order, just so the property owner understands and also knows that they can request removal, too.
That’s exactly the thing. Some property owners just don’t want photos being taken inside. It’s not for us to question why they don’t want it. It’s not for us to question which situations they grant special permission to take photos either.
If one cannot add new photos or scans, is that POI still legitimate.
Clearly a property owner has in advance revoked permission to make a POI by not allowing photography on their premises. I think the same logic as trespassing need to be followed here. One doesn’t trespass and then go oops sorry.
For a photo taken from the outside, yeah the property owner can’t do much except use the removal form. But clearly for indoor POIs a no photography rule needs to be respected just as much as a no trespassing rule.
I’m very sure that non of the workarounds mentioned in some of the comments on this thread would be relevant if someone decided to take a situation like this to court.
The owner removal request is what owners who want to take action use….its free unlike lawyers.
1 Like
Laws differ around the world, but in the UK you are entitled to take a photograph of whatever you want in a public place, even pictures of private property (unless there’s a specific prohibition, e.g. military bases). As a rule, if Google itself has taken a picture of it for StreetView then it’s lawful.
Statement A does not make Statement B true. There are a lot famous works of art where photography is not allowed, yet pictures, articles etc exist of them. Your statement would mean these photos in articles arent allowed because they dont allow photography.
I stress the treatment of limited location access yet again. With the treatment of limited access being allowed, trespassing is unregulated within criteria but is frowned upon per player guidelines.
The key is if someone was granted access, these specific people can interact with a wayspot. If others were not given the same access, then their interactions with the same wayspot is limited.
We have to abide by local rules, true. That is not to say there are no exemptions to allow for all instances, for varied people with all kinds of rights & privileges. That is also not saying exemptions happen all the time.
1 Like
I’ve seen nominations from places where photography is prohibited by law before in Singapore. Around here, there are Protected Areas like customs checkpoints that prohibit unauthorised photography but have lots of members of the public passing through. There’s also the entirety of Jurong Island which is a Protected Place but is accessible to a large number of employees/contractors of companies located there, as well as visitors, delivery drivers, etc. It’s theoretically possible to get permission to take photographs in those places, but I doubt the average PoGo / Ing / MHN / PiBl player is getting proper authorisation before sneaking in a nomination.
Police information page on PA/PP: SPF | Protected Areas and Protected Places
Information on Jurong Island’s security requirements: Jurong Island - Wikipedia