NYC & SF iPod Subway Map Controversy 361
scruffy323 writes "NYC and San Francisco are claiming copyright violations for freely distributed subway maps." From the Wired piece: "More than 9,000 people downloaded the map, which was viewable on either an iPod or an iPod nano, before Bright received a Sept. 14 letter from Lester Freundlich, a senior associate counsel at New York's Metropolitan Transit Authority, saying that Bright had infringed the MTA's copyright and that he needed a license to post the map and to authorize others to download it."
Sue away! (Score:2, Informative)
Someone, someday will RTFA (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Duh. (Score:3, Informative)
Good.
People need access to subway maps, and getting them from the MTA is like pulling teeth. This despite the fact that when you can find a token booth with a clerk who actually HAS such maps, you can get one for free.
That's right, NYC doesn't sell these maps, it gives them away.
So perhaps they don't NEED to have any recourse against those who would sell such copies?
I don't think that an image such as a municipal subway map should even BE copyrightable. By rights it should be public-domain information.
Article (Score:2, Informative)
January 01, 2005 -- 03:25 PM
To: iPod Subway Maps Submissions
Subject: ipodsubwaymaps fedback: your unauthorized use and coying [SIC] of NYC subway map
Date: 9/14/05: 12:52 PM
We have no record of you having a license to include MTA's copyrighted New York City subway map on your website, or for you to authorize others to download a copy of the subway map.
You must cease and desist immediately. Take the NYC subway map off your webiste and confirm to me by email that you will not do this again. If you disagree with any of the above or otherwise wish to discuss this further, call or email me. Thank you
Senior Associate counsel
Metropolitan Transportation Authority
347 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Re:I love the fact.... (Score:3, Informative)
mandatory enforcement (Score:3, Informative)
Nope. That's trademark. Copyright does not require enforcement.
Relatedly, I would expect that distribution of their maps would only help them, so why shut this guy down?
Re:It is kind of a grey area... (Score:2, Informative)
The map is available, linked in the text of the summary above. Maybe RTFA is too much to ask, but how about reading the summary?
Re:I grew up in NYC (Score:3, Informative)
There was no law-suit. A cease and desist was issued to Bright, he complied. He then went and made his own map that he uploaded under the CC license, he hasn't been sent a new cease and desist for that map. MTA is broke, it's recently begun trademarking its symbols and issuing licenses to use them. They couldn't allow Bright to continue and still have their trademark be valid.
Re:Technically, they're wrong (Score:2, Informative)
You can not copyright factual information. See eg Feist v Rural Telephone where the US Supreme Court ruled that lists of numbers in a phone book was not copyrightable.
The names of the subway stations, their geographic locations, and the fact that rail lines connect them, are all facts which are not copyrightable. So I'm wondering just what in this image is subject to copyright.
If you make a map and add something to it, you can claim copyright. Like say you made a map which highlighted certain tourist attractions, you can copyright that. But the locations of the streets are just facts which you can't claim copyright to.
Re:I grew up in NYC (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Technically, they're wrong (Score:3, Informative)
I'm very aware that they are copyright violations, but I'm not trying to make money or do anything malicious. I'm not in this to piss people off.
I'd say this guy knew he was breaking the law, which is why he didn't kick up a stink. Everyone is actually acting fairly amicably in this situation (based on my impression from the article anyway).
Might not be copyrightable information (Score:4, Informative)
While the rendering of the map might be copyrightable, the information about the routes is not. He should have someone else render a map.
Bruce
Re:Technically, they're right (Score:4, Informative)
Trademark Violation = using _symbolism_ or _words_ too similar to a protected logo or symbol
There's no trademark violation here. Its a copyright violation.
Re:Technically, they're right (Score:2, Informative)
Nonsense. So if you decided to tear down some of the ads in the subway, sticking up your own in their place, is that just a public use of public property? Of course it isn't.
While it is publicly funded, it isn't free reign to do what you want. For instance in this case it's pretty clear that the subway company licenses the map to users who add a value ad (e.g. tourism guides, etc), and in return those republishers return some of their take to the subway. The net result is the offsetting of some of the costs of us (the taxpayers - which is a group interest, not millions of individual interests. You can't take the seats home for your living room because that conflicts with the interest of the group), reducing the subsidization. If Joe User wants to republish the map in PDA form - make a business model, charge a token charge, and offset those taxes.
Re:Technically, they're right (Score:3, Informative)
Government agencies copyrighting public documents? (Score:3, Informative)
Im surprised the first amendment hasnt been invoked
on this. The first amendment clearly supersedes copyright
in the case of publications of a government owned entity.
Allowing the government to copyright government documents
would make the public records laws meaningless because you
couldnt disseminate them yourself.
Now the government could say "You are not allowed to sell government
publications for profit, but you may freely distribute them and recoup
the cost of publication." under the commerce clause.
We are not talking about a patent or an individuals copyright we are talking
about a government publication made freely available to anyone who asks
simply being redistributed in a more convenient form by a private citizen.
Re:Government Copyright and Public Domain (Score:3, Informative)
Confusing? Yes, it it. The Post Office in this case is not claiming copyright on it, but they are not going out of their way to let you copy the stamps either.
Stamps that are of "classical" images, such as the bust of George Washington or federal monuments would be (or may be...you still have to be careful here) free to copy, but stamps are also "legal tender" in the USA as well. Litterally, they are money and can be exchanged just like dollar bills. Rarely are they used for that purpose, but they can be and are backed by the U.S. Congress and federal government just like a dollar bill. I wouldn't want to be an ass and try to buy a car with a box of stamps, however, even if the law says you can.
Re:Government agencies copyrighting public documen (Score:3, Informative)
YHGMTPOT 1st ammendment.
There is indeed tension between copyright and freedom of speech. But since both are present in the constitution, it is up to the courts to achieve a balance. Which, for the most part, they have. Your free-speech rights simply do not include publication of works whose copyright belong to someone else.
You are actually confusing two principles: The copyright / free speech dichotomy and the copyrightability of government-produced works. On the latter, works produced by a federal government employee in the ordinary course of his duties are not copyrightable. That does not, however, extend to state, regional or local government-produced works.
Re:Technically, they're wrong (Score:4, Informative)
The map in question is highly stylised, and not to scale. That makes it copyrightable.
Re:Farewell, free country! (Score:1, Informative)
And this, mind you, all came about in the 1980's. Back when Reagan was "getting the government off the backs of the people". Long before the DMCA, broadcast flags or any of the stuff that people whine about today.
Re:i think he is rendering his own? i read AN arti (Score:4, Informative)
For the millionth time, this is only true of trademarks.
Re:Feh (Score:4, Informative)
What they should do is dump the ill-advised redesign of a few years ago (the one that introduced the pointless yellow background, the clutter of useless bus stop connection lists, and Staten Island.)