Do objects in the public view need licencing? I would like to create a game that would use Google Street maps to build a map for gaming. Can pictures or video be obtained from Google maps to produce a game? Google maps already blur signs and such. Can billboards and such in the game be reproduced without acquiring permission? What permissions might I need? https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/168615/google-street-view-racing-game Google Maps Licensing
You can take pictures of public buildings and use them in your game, if you want. You cannot copy pictures (of anything) taken by someone else without the copyright owner's permission, so you need Google's permission to copy their photographs. The public building exception is specifically about architectural works and does not include e.g. murals drawn on buildings, or billboards. In such a case, you would need permission from the copyright holder (the artist, or employer). You might hope for a fair use exception (again, assuming you took the pictures yourself), which has a better chance of succeeding if this is a free game.
Yes, you may The layout of the board and its appearance are not protected by copyright, because they are not expressions or any other type of copyrightable content. Even if they were (say if some protested art was displayed on the board) you are displaying this for instructional purposes, and not harming any market for the board, so fair use is likely to apply (in the U.S.). The device could be protected by patent, but you are not copying or imitating the board, nor showing anyone how to do so, so that would not apply. You are not selling or advertising the board, nor knock-offs of it, so trademark protection would not apply, even if a protected trademark is visible on th board. Just in case, be sure to make clear that your video is not authorized or endorsed by the maker of the board.
You can take pictures of any buildings if you are in a public place, and can freely use such photographs without consent of a owner or designer of that building. [Japan Copyright Act, art. 46] BTW, external appearance of buildings in U.S. Armed Forces facilities are NOT confidential under US-Japan Security Treaty and related statutes enacted in Japan.
You are creating a derivative work. You are only allowed to do this if the library comes with a license that allows this. If you want to give your derivative work to anyone else, copying it is copyright infringement unless the license allows it. Copying the derivative work and attaching a different license is most likely to be copyright infringement. And if people receive a copy with an open source license that is not justified and rely on it, that’s creating one unholy legal mess for everyone involved and can be massively more expensive than plain copyright infringement. No license means you don’t have permission to do anything with it, not creating derivative work, not distributing it, and certainly not publish it with an open source license.
It seems clear that this is personal information under the GDPR. If you are subject to the GDPR, you need to have a "lawful basis" to store or process such information. (You are subject to the GDPR if you are locates in the EU, or if your users are. My understanding is that it is location at the time the app is accessed that matters, not a user's citizenship. I am not totally sure about that, however. Unless your app is limited to non-EU access, it it probably safest to comply with the GDPR) The degree of precision of your location data will not matter -- a specific city is quite enough to make it personal data if it can be tied to a specific person. There are various lawful bases that may be relied on for processing and storage, but explicit consent is probably the one with the widest applicability. To use consent as the lawful basis, you must present an OPT-IN decision to the user, and record the results. If the user does nothing, the result must record lack of consent. You may not use a pre-checked consent box or another mechanism that has the effect of an opt-out choice. You should be clear about what information will be stored, and how it will or might be used. You will also need to consider how your app will function for those who do not consent, and how to handle requests to withdraw consent. So if an app obtains user consent to store location data in a manner that complies with the GDPR, it may store user location data. The consent should make the possible uses of the data clear. If the data is to be shared, the consent should make the possible extent of sharing clear. Some previous questions and answers here on law.se dealing with GDPR consent that seem possibly relevant: User consent required under GDPR What provisions should I make regarding GDPR consent when users do not sign themselves up? GDPR - Withdrawn user consent Opt Out Consent under GDPR
The GPL that covers the OpenJDK certainly allows you to write and distribute your own Java implementation. On that point, your reading is absolutely correct. However, if that implementation is a derivative work of the OpenJDK, then the GPL requires you to make your derivative implementation available under the GPL as well, per the GPL's copyleft rules. If you follow the rules of the GPL, you can do exactly what you propose. Note that the Supreme Court ruling in Oracle v. Google found that using only API structure and names, without copying any underlying implementation, constitutes fair use, and therefore doesn't require copyright permission. If you hold your implementation to that standard and use/look at only interfaces while authoring your new implementation, then your new work is broadly allowed under copyright law, so you do not need to rely on the GPL's permissions (and therefore neither do you need to follow its requirements). Google didn't want to have to abide by the terms of the GPL, probably because due to concerns that the any GPL terms that applied to their Java implementation might also apply to other components of their system, which they wished to keep closed-source. In other words, if Google had claimed their acquired their right to use the APIs under the GPL, then they would have been required to put potentially the entire operating system under the GPL, which they had not done nor wished to do. For this case, the GPL has been largely ignored because Google has not followed the requirements of GPL in licensing their Java implementation (and operating system that uses it), so there's no point in Google trying to claim that their right to use the API came from the GPL. Furthermore, Google claimed that they didn't use any of Oracle's copyrighted material, so it's not possible for them to say their use of Oracle's material was licensed under the GPL, as they claim there was no use whatsoever, licensed or otherwise. This is explained at length on fosspatents.com's article &quot;Q&amp;A on the Dec. 4 Oracle v. Google Android-Java copyright hearing before the Federal Circuit&quot;: 2. Q: Does this litigation involve Google's rights to use certain Java code under an open source license? A: No. Google could have incorporated Java into Android on open source terms, but chose to eschew the GNU General Public License (GPL) because of its &quot;copyleft&quot; feature. [...] If Google had ever claimed in this litigation that Android's incorporation of Java was authorized under the GPL, this would have been inconsistent with its claim that it didn't use any copyrightable material (you can only license something, on whatever terms, if it's protected) and, far more importantly, a blatant violation of Rule 11 (truthful pleading standard) resulting in sanctions for Google and its counsel. The GPL affords you four freedoms: it allows you to use software without paying for it (freedom 0), to modify its source code as you please (freedom 1), to redistribute copies (freedom 2), and to distribute your modified versions to others (freedom 3). But once you exercise freedom 3, you're subjected to the copyleft rule: you must make your modified version available under the GPL. As a result, Google would have had to publish Android under the GPL. But it did not. [...] [...]Google seeks to exercise as much control over Android as possible. If Android had to be released under the GPL (and only under the GPL, or at least a compatible copyleft license), Google would have a hard time keeping a growing number of core Android components like its Mail and Map clients or even the new on-screen keyboard (again, more about that in the next section) closed -- and Google's hardware partners would have to release their proprietary enhancements such as Samsung's Touchwiz and HTC Sense under the GPL, which would run counter to their objective of differentiation because their competitors could then use the same code.
No. The images are copyrighted, and you are using them in a way that would leave you with virtually no argument for fair use. The factors for fair use are set out in 17 USC 107, and they indicate that the courts would reject your use: The purpose and character of the use, including whether it is of a commercial nature or for nonprofit educational purposes: There's no indication that your use would be for nonprofit or educational purposes. The nature of the copyrighted work: Works of fiction and art are highly creative works at the heart of the policy for copyright protection. The amount of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: You are apparently copying entire images, though I suppose you could argue that each image is just one small portion of a larger book or website. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: You are trying to create a board game, putting yourselves basically in direct competition with the makers of D&amp;D. I generally prefer a pretty liberal interpretation of what constitutes fair use, but this just has virtually nothing that would make me comfortable arguing in your favor.
Copyright infringement requires copying. The inventor could very reasonably invent a device without any reference or even knowledge of the artistic depiction in the Portal games. If the inventor hasn't copied anything, they aren't infringing copyright. Also, with respect to 2d depictions of 3d objects, only architectural drawings are protected in that way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_in_architecture_in_the_United_States With respect to your patent question, Valve hasn't publicly disclosed how to make a Portal gun, so an inventor of a Portal gun would not be blocked from patenting it. You can't get a patent without describing how to actually make the invention.