Legal issues Surrounding Augmented Reality
Is it legal for someone to place a virtual object on private property?
When speaking of technological novelties, despite all positive aspects of the given innovation, sooner or later it turns out that according to law, the novelties might be problematic. Usually, these issues are regularly fixed by new models and various updates. But when speaking of Augmented Reality, an important question rises — is it legal for someone to place a virtual object on private property? Should virtual objects comply with legal limitations similarly to real ones? Given that they can’t be seen solely with a human eye, how should that exactly be justified?
The case of MOMA: Virtual Siege
In 2018, a group of artists created an entirely new experience for New York’s Museum of Modern Art (MoMA). Jackson Pollock gallery, which is situated on the fifth floor of MoMA , has been turned into an unofficial and unauthorised Augmented Reality experience. For those who downloaded the MoMAR Gallery app, Pollock’s paintings can be seen through smartphones as a remixed version of the original or even entirely replaced by the artists’ works.49 Unauthorized augmentations in museums are not a novelty. What I mean by “unauthorized augmentation” is creating some additional experience, that is not consulted with the authorities, such as the mentioned above MoMAR Gallery app, which presented different versions of pieces of art created with Augmented Reality.
In 1991, cassettes with an alternative audio guide were distributed in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The project was called “Masterpieces Without the Director.” This guide was created by independent artists that did not consult the content of the project with museum authorities. Nowadays having such software as ARKit or ARCore, it’s fairly easy to build and distribute complex Augmented Reality applications that can be used in chosen places — parks, museums, but even someone’s private property. This possibility, of course, raises questions such as: who owns virtual space? Is it legal to place a virtual object on private property? Should the MoMA example be treated as trespassing on its virtual space? And more importantly — is this dubious character of AR an asset or flaw?
Who Owns Virtual Space?
According to Alexia Bedat, “at the moment, there is no such thing as a recognised right to control the space or virtual augmentations of your work.” However, some existing laws may apply to this kind of cases. “Virtual trespassing” is a new concept that will probably begin a discussion on the limits of augmentation. Taking pictures in museums used to be prohibited, although it is nowadays pretty common for people to take out their smartphones and take photos in front of some famous works to have a souvenir or to share it on Facebook or Instagram. Museums could ban AR apps in their rules, but this brings us back to the question: will it pay off? Especially considering the fact, that some museums already encourage smartphone usage in order to engage the visitors. Augmented Reality could be an excellent benefit for museums, for example, by attracting a broader audience and expanding their interest in art. After all, the original exhibitions are not influenced by this technology, and people can still enjoy them. And, if they wish, they could experience a virtual bonus. As long as the augmentations do not cross any boundaries (ethical, religious, sexual, etc.) they might be treated as a beta version, a remix of the original works. And even though that might raise many voices of disagreement (as a profanation to fine art), it must be accepted and more importantly — controlled. There must be specific rules and legal limits for both the artists and space owners to function in order. Loic Tallon, the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s digital chief sums up the MoMA case as follows, “From my perspective, it’s not really worth fighting against it, because gravity is not working on our favor. (…) The museum’s mission is to collect, preserve, and study works of art. If someone is making an AR experience out of the collection, I see it as pure mission fulfillment.”
Augmentations — Asset or Problem?
On 22nd of September 2018, the Intrepid Sea, Air and Space Museum opened an exhibition which introduced an original tour of the Space Shuttle Enterprise. A hologram of Mae Jemison, the first woman of color to go into space, materialised before the eyes of visitors wearing HoloLens headsets and guided them through space exploration history. Jemison became digital with the help of 106 cameras that captured her image in 3D, which was then rendered as a hologram and viewed through the HoloLens. Implementation of AR components into apps is becoming a lot cheaper and more manageable. In the case of museums, the added interaction is a great possibility for engaging visitors and encouraging them to explore far more than the eye by itself can see. Mae Jemison is a lively hologram and part of the Intrepid exhibition, which creates the opportunity to experience the presence of an important figure from space history almost like in real life, face to face. Susan Marenoff-Zausner, President of the Intrepid Sea, Air, and Space Museum says, “We want to make sure that while our artifacts create this exciting and tactile opportunity, we want to make sure we’re capturing our current generation in the language they’re speaking.”
In 2018, Microsoft created a tour for the London Natural History Museum that involved a hologram of David Attenborough who, similarly to Mae Jemison, shows the visitors around the exhibitions and shares information about the display. Microsoft also worked with the Kyoto National Museum and, with the use of HoloLens, created an exhibition where visitors could admire artifacts that are up to 400 years old. And of course, like in the previous examples, they were guided by a 3D hologram, which in this case was a Zen Buddhist monk.
Augmented Reality creates a chance to show more layers of information. For example, some museums use AR to show damaged or broken artifacts in their original shape. However, AR in museums is not only about HoloLens; for instance, the Perez Art Museum Miami created AR installations which visitors could see using their smartphones. Similarly, an exhibition in the Smithsonian American Art Museum was translated in order to be solely devoted to smartphone AR experience.
A new era of exhibitions is adding a bit of magic to the regular museum experience we are all used to. It still makes us interact with the real world, along with a virtual surprise. This creates a new level of engagement with art. Mae Jemison concludes, “If that gets one more kid curious about science and space, then it’s all worth it.” We might ask ourselves now: are new technologies like Augmented Reality an asset, or might it turn out to be a problem? The virtual siege in MoMA shows that new technologies come with new kinds of threats. It is easy to access any property using virtual components in just one app. But the real risk comes when authorities must deal with the problem — do they adapt to the changing world and allow augmentations or stick to the old rules? Given how accessible and easy it is to augment the reality in a chosen space, such projects and actions need legal control and regulations. On the other hand, if used for a useful purpose, it is a great way of developing new experiences, broadening knowledge, and helping people learn more about the surrounding world. There are many pros and cons to discuss in order to make the decision beneficiary for both sides.
This writing was taking from Paulina Kowalska’s thesis How Technology Influences the Modern World: a Short Study on Augmented Reality, published in 2019 at the Polish-Japanese Academy of Information Technology in the New Media Arts Department. The work was overseen by dr hab. Ewa Satalecka, mgr inż. Marcin Wichrowski and dr. Paulina Duda.
Sign up for our newsletter here
Thank you to the designer Emilia Miękisz for her gifs, illustrations and time.
