Content deleted Content added
SimLibrarian (talk | contribs) m add navbox that links here, minor style edits |
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Added date. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Superegz | Category:Game terminology | #UCB_Category 17/31 |
||
Line 13:
The nature of ___location-based gaming may mean that certain real-world locations will be visited by higher-than-normal numbers of people who are playing the game, which generally has been received favorably by nearby attractions or local businesses. However, these games may generate activity at locations that are privately-owned or have access limits, or otherwise cause undesirable congestion.
''[[Pokémon Go]]'' notably has several publicized events of players being drawn to inappropriate locations for the game, requiring the developer to manually remove these areas from the game.<ref>{{cite web |last1 = Velloso |first1 = Eduardo |last2 = Carter |first2 = Marcus |title = Some places should be off limits for games such as Pokémon GO |url = https://theconversation.com/some-places-should-be-off-limits-for-games-such-as-pokemon-go-62341 |website = The Conversation |date = July 12, 2016 |access-date = July 13, 2016 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title = Holocaust Museum, Auschwitz want Pokémon Go hunts out |url = https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/07/12/holocaust-museum-auschwitz-want-pokmon-go-hunts-stop-pokmon/86991810/ |access-date = July 13, 2016 |work = USA Today }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-07-12-holocaust-museum-pleads-stop-playing-pokemon-go-here |title = Holocaust museum pleads: stop playing Pokémon Go here |first = Tom |last = Phillips |work = [[Eurogamer]] |date = July 12, 2016 |access-date = July 13, 2016 }}</ref> In one of the first legal challenges for ___location-based gaming, a Federal District court ruled that a Wisconsin county ordinance to require game developers of such ___location-based games to get appropriate permits to allow locations in the county's public park systems was likely unconstitutional. While the county had felt there was no [[First Amendment]] rights involved due to how locations were generated in-game, the Federal judge disagreed.<ref>{{Cite web | url = https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/07/judge-blocks-law-regulating-where-augmented-reality-games-can-be-played/ | title = Augmented reality wins big in 1st Amendment legal flap | first = David | last= Kravets | date = July 20, 2017 | access-date = July 20, 2017 | work = [[Ars Technica]] }}</ref>
The interaction of ___location-bound augmented reality with [[property law]] is largely undefined.{{sfn|McClure|2017|p=364-366}}<ref>{{ cite web | url = https://slate.com/technology/2018/06/can-you-prevent-augmented-reality-ads-from-appearing-on-your-house.html | title = What Are Your Augmented Reality Property Rights? | first = Fiona J | last = McEvoy | publisher = [[Slate (magazine)|Slate]] | date = June 4, 2018 | accessdate = May 31, 2022 }}</ref> Several models have been analysed for how this interaction may be resolved in a [[common law]] context: an extension of [[real property]] rights to also cover augmentations on or near the property with a strong notion of [[trespassing]], forbidding augmentations unless allowed by the owner; an '[[open range]]' system, where augmentations are allowed unless forbidden by the owner; and a '[[freedom to roam]]' system, where real property owners have no control over non-disruptive augmentations.{{sfn|Mallick|2020|p=1068-1072}}
| |||