Slashdot Mirror
NYC & SF iPod Subway Map Controversy
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."
Man redistributes copyright material without permission.
That's not actually a controversy.
This whole IP/Copyright thing is getting worse n worse!
Once upon a time US was a FREE country
Technically the subway co. of NY city are right. It *is* copyright infringement and the map *was* distributed without their permission.
That said, in practice the NYC subway co. already made the map available to the general public, so it's not like there are any losses or damages as a result of this. In fact making the map available on IPod might actually increase the number of subway users. This rises the question, "what's the problem?" Conclusion: NYC subway co., get a life.
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
ok... some guy provides copyrighted material so it can be used with iPods... in what way is this an apple story? Should a story be posted everytime someone releases an mp3 of a copyrighted song because it can be used on an iPod?
Funnily enough, the people who own the rights to the London Underground map, which is arguably one of the world's best recognised maps, also protect it fiercely, so I'd be surprised if another cease and desist letter wasn't in the post as we speak...
I guess the city makes an ass load of money off those maps? :)
The map has a perfectly clear copyright claim in the bottom left hand corner - what was Mr Bright thinking? Their notice is even clearer then his "iPodSubwayMaps.com is ©2005 Little Bill Productions"
Their map - their choice how it gets distributed...?
I'm not quite sure that owning a map of a subway system really takes away from people actually riding it, which I would hope would be the goal of subway operators. Kind of like because I own a Rand McNally atlas of the United States I never have to leave home. I can just go on fantastic voyages via my collection of pretty maps. You'd think the subway system management would realize that people having easy to access maps of their subway would actually help their passengers and probably increase their number of riders. Oh well, sue away!
Subway maps were very difficult to get. Technically they were free and available, but you had to be damned lucky to find a token booth clerk who actually had any in the booth.
A downloadable map makes a world of sense, and frankly I cannot understand just WHAT about a subway system map needs copyright protection? Is there some subway map counterfeiting operation out there? Does the system stand to lose ridership and money as a consequence of people being able to find their way around?
In summary, I consider this lawsuit to be insane and unnecessary. Noone but the lawyers will benefi.. Oh, yes, that's right.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
I love the fact that Chicago chose not to sue, even though I think they were on this site as well. Woot for Chicago.
Bright also used a map that became outdated when the BART system extended one of its lines and shortened another, said Jim Allison, a spokesman for BART. "We don't have a problem with people disseminating information about BART," Allison said. "We do have a problem with people pirating information that is incorrect," he said. The spokesman added that BART is preparing to unveil its own free, downloadable iPod map on its website. So they don't want wrong info, and they will provide their own info for FREE soon. They need to protect their trademark for it to be valid. Why is this a problem? It does not "search for a station". It is a resized JPG. NeXT thing you know Apple will go after him for a "Ipod map"
"They will have little recourse when someone else decides to start selling exact replicas of their maps"
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.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
If you want to find your way in the NYC Subway, you can download a legal subway guide for your mobile phone or BlackBerry from my website. It does not use the official subway map.
Regards
Nobox: Only simple products.
... does not seem to be that friendly.
Windows is like decaf - it tastes like the real thing, but it won't get you through the day.
Reading the www.ipodsubwaymaps.com it seems that New York MTA are offering a 1 year licence for $500, which seems fairly reasonable to me. I mean it still seems a bit silly, especially as a) MTA are offering the map to download anyway and b) no other metro service is complaining, but it's not like they're demanding some ridiculous per download licence or the like.
I would argue if complete systemwide paper maps were available for free on every train, then there would be no need for people to download them for use on their iPod. Or, better yet, if the NY Transit Authority made the maps available for download then it wouldn't be a problem either. In SF there is a fully downloadable hi-res pdf of the entire MUNI map so how can they argue what platform you are using it on?
As far as the London Journey Planner (as it is called there), I could understand their defense because they have spent million of dollars and countless person-hours developing that map, the typeface, the signs that go in the trains, etc. Certain elements were invented by that very London Underground map and while they may seem obvious to us now, before that, most transport systems did not have an adequate graphical language for representing their systems until the London Journey Planner came to be. With that in mind, the London Transit Authority could sue every major city in the world for copyright infringement so I think this really has no merit.
If something is working for the greater good and works, it becomes very hard to stake a claim for it and win. We shall see.
I live in NYC and do not like MTA at all. However I have to agree with MTA here.
...
(hint* pay extra attention to the last part.)
from http://www.mta.info/sitehtml/mtacopy.htm
No part of this program, product, software, or item, including the look or feel of the program, product, software, or item may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including the use of information storage and retrieval systems, without the express written permission of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (or other appropriate corporate entity). This prohibition against unlawful or unauthorized reproduction is intended to include all U.S. domestic use as well as protections afforded under any international forum or law, including, but not limited to G.A.T.T.
Each individual document published by MTA on the World Wide Web may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that individual document.
Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel or otherwise any license or right under any patent or trademark of MTA or any third party. Except as expressly provided above nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any MTA copyright.
Note that any product, process, or technology in this document may be the subject of other intellectual property rights reserved by MTA, and may not be licensed hereunder.
This publication is provided "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT.
Some jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion of implied warranties, so the above exclusion may not apply to you.
Any MTA publication may include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes may be periodically made to these publications; these changes will be incorporated in new editions of these publications. The MTA may make improvements and/or changes in the products and/or the programs described in these publications at any time without notice.
Should any viewer of an MTA published document respond with information including feedback data, such as questions, comments, suggestions, or the like regarding the content of any such MTA document, such information shall be deemed to be non-confidential and MTA shall have no obligation of any kind with respect to such information and shall be free to reproduce, use, disclose and distribute the information to others without limitation. Further, The MTA shall free to use any ideas, concepts, know-how or techniques contained in such information for any purpose whatsoever including but not limited to developing, manufacturing and marketing products incorporating such information.
--------
In short, I think, all he had to do was just post his subway map as his suggestion and it could have easily bypassed this whole mess.
Since he seems to placed himself as sole publisher of this "unique" map as in claiming the map as "his own", he just opened himself with can of worm. Follow this;
from http://www.ipodsubwaymaps.com/about.php
So what's this all about?
Simply put, I decided that it'd be pretty cool to build this website so you can put subway maps onto your iPod Photo. As I write this, I've only got one city up so far -- well, almost. I skipped Staten Island. Do people actually ride that subway?
Eventually I'd like to open the site up to allow other visitors to submit their own maps. One step at a time, though.
Is this all just some blatant self-promotion?
Is all of it? Of course not. Is some of it? Sure! I really thought the idea of putting my subway map onto my iPod was cool. Why should I keep it all to myself? If it's helpful to me, then why not to the rest of you?
------
All he had to do
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
Can somebody give me some insight into why people feel the need to immediately scream copyright violation and put and end to a cool thing like this? What possible reason or scenario could the subway be harmed in this situation? It just baffles my mind that someboy is getting paid to spend time to fight a fight that is so absolutely unneccesary.
This brings to mind a similar situation where the current owner of the old GI JOE cartoon series placed a cease and desist on an incredibly creative guy who redubbed / reedited some GI JOE PSAs and posted them on the Internet. I mean how in the world can this be destructive? Granted it is their right, but why is it a problem. Why spend the time and money protecting yourself (as that is what the law is for) from something that is completely docile and is of no worry?
I'm a minister!
New York MTA - Cease and Desist
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
Windows is like decaf - it tastes like the real thing, but it won't get you through the day.
Problem I guess there is that subway co. should protect this info that way that they allow to distribute it - BUT it comes exactly from them, so there is correct information all over the place. Sometimes copyright protection is used for such simply reasons - not for money.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
funny thing is that "Freundlich" in German means something along the way of "friendly","cordial","pleasant" :-)
Public information should not be made public... unless you pay a license fee.
This is crazy, so it's a license for their own design,, not others... But how are other's suppossed to make subway maps unless using official information that should be made public anyway?
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?
This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
Last time I checked, works created by a United States government agency are public domain at the moment of creation. Does this not count for city/county/state governments? I'm a Federal contractor and all of the work that I do belongs to the Federal Government. Is there something I'm missing?
I mean where does it end? (Really!)
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
The NYC Subs would benefit from this even if they didnt actually permit the maps distribution. Shorsighted-ness is the problem here, why not let other poeple utilize thier free anway map to effectivly utilize the subway???
Blog from where blogging counts
any of the more than 9,000 people who downloaded the NYC and SFC maps care to share?
thor
Dear capitalist shills now is the time to drone about the dangerous socialism. The subway system of most cities is still not a bastion of true capitalism!They are either wholly or in part government owned or financed in some way by tax money. Clearly the concept of public utilites is outmoded and against capitalism. The notion of governments trying to provide services like transportation needs to be abolished and capitalism to take over this function to provide more profits for transportation companies instead of governments running buses and trains at or near loss to provide services for its citiziens.
Just think of what would have befallen the United States if we had huge outmoded national government owned bus services or train services with a national train network that rivalled nations like Germany or Japan. The federal and state governments could have sent their huge public fleets of buses to rescue the negroes of New Orleans! What a shame that would have been. Those negroes were best served underwater. The private sector could better have handled this emergency! Puff Daddy if he were to tell the negroes to evacuate instead of a mere government inferior like a mayor or governor; would certainly be listened to. Word is born, in dis hizzy, fo shizzle.
It is good to see the partially privately owned NYC subway system is laying the iron fist on the droogie who violated the copyright of their map. We can look forward to even more progress like this if the NYC subway is wholly entered into the capitalist fold and the NYC government lays its yellow hands off. Capitalism above all else, the free markets settle everything, let the bodies bend not the cold steel of capitalism!
I don't know if you meant paper maps, but here is a New York subway map, from the MTA, free of charge. You can even download it as a PDF.
"Yields falsehood when preceded by its own quotation" yields falsehood when preceded by its own quotation.
I don't know anything about financing public transport companies in States, but here in Europe (Czech Republic) are usually financed by both city and state. In Prague, for instance, this "public" part makes about 75% of the whole costs. I've already paid for the maps (at least for them!) by paying my taxes.
The original map is based on a publicly funded engineering drawing. The only thing they could possibly copyright would be any additions of pretty colors or whatnot. But are they paying the city for the use of the original engineering data? They are selling public information, and making a profit, right? Isn't that like using the streets for making a profit but not paying for their use like truckers have to pay?
So go find the original map and copy that.
If they keep up with the lawsuit crap, ask them why the engineers can keep updating their map without a license. Then ask them why they aren't paying the city for the original map. That should shut them up.
Greed sucks.
If only they could do like Washington DC did, and make
a "live map" that shows the positions of all the trains
superimposed over the subway map. You can see this
application in any station manager's kiosk in a browser or on
Metro employee PDA's.
Hopefully, NYC is simply doing what it needs to do to protect its legal rights over the map. These cease-and-desist letters and fees are not always about screwing the little guy - sometimes they are about making sure you don't lose your own rights in the eyes of the law.
The real but relatively inconsequential fee of $500 might offer NYC some protection.
And therefore, hopefully the $500 will be reimbursed by Bloomburg or some high level MTA official - as a private citizen who knows that this is a neat, innovative idea.
Go into a paint program and make another map. Make it better than the MTAs and give it away. There are not copyright issues there.
What exactly are they claiming copyright on?
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.
Here's where I wish I had mod points... always seem to have them when I can't find anything to mod, never when I want to. You're probably closer to the truth than you know on this. It would seem that the cities in question would applaud something like this: someone else helping them to distribute a map that normally costs them money to distibute themselves. Hoever, if you "follow the money" it's probably the printer/publisher of the subway maps that is behind the complaint. Those people aren't in the least bit interested in providing a service to the people who use the subway, they just wnt to charge the city as much money as they can. A few phone calls to the right people and next thing you know we have another stupid copyright infringement issue. This isn't so much an issue with copyright law as it is an issue to take up with the city council: they need to be pressured to make this into a freely distributable service since the taxpayers ultimately pay for it anyways.
+2 Insightful? Only on Slashdot...Guy duplicates copyrighted material and is asked to either request permission or stop distributing it; I'm sorry, I don't see where the guy's rights are being infringed here? Maybe I missed it. Or maybe you're just yet another clueless, retarded, tinfoil-hat wearing Slashbot who things that, whenever Teh Coporations are involved, the individual is suddenly above the law?
permisson and so on is technically right. but he didn't sell it to people on the subway and prevent others form getting the fre version surely?
i think he should counter sue and at least get nyc transit to pay the bandwidth costs for all those downloads
he gave them a service as an alternate distribution channel! ie more people have the map whilst the nyc transit peeps have not had to pay for all teh extra bandwidth
Somebody / thing paid lots of money to research and develop the tube map. Its clearly something that people find so useful that its priceless (like water not diamonds). They need compensation for their works, but how much?
Is there a copyright equivalent to compulsery purchase orders? In the UK, if something big is happening, and your house is in the middle of where they want to put it, you can be issued with a compulsery purchase order. An independant commision examines the value of your property and your land and offers the market value or greater. Couldn't a similar case be made for something like the tube map, and then it could be placed in the public domain.
In this case it could be that when the copyright infringement gets to courts its within the judges power to say... hey, you were in the wrong, you did violate copyright I hereby slap your wrists, however, the works you were copying has great value to the public, and it is being used as a cash cow, I declare this works and any derivatives there of public domain. The defendant walks away with sore wrists and a smile, the prosecution walk away with a cheque.
Maybe this would discourage big corporations from taking such cases to court, in fear that their works could be stripped from them. It probably wouldn't effect music and video as they could never be concidered essential to the public good, but Microsoft would have a tought time demonstrating that with 95% of the market, and therefor the economy, their works shouldn't be in the public domain.
In the old days public domain meant that anyone could make money off a works - and that must have been a kicker for content creators. Now public domain means that no one can make any money out of it, as people are free to download and copy for free (who would pay for a free service?). I thinks thats an easier pill to swallow, but then my income doesn't depend on royalites from my lifes work.
Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
And that's why he wasn't sent a cease and desist when he made his own map using the facts. From the article:
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).
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
Bruce Perens.
So this guy creates a web site, and puts copyrighted images on it. For good measure he then plasters the site with Google ads to make money off it. (Or maybe that was his intention from the get-go?) Then he complains when the copyright holder wants him to remove the copyrighted images for which he has no license from his ad-driven web site? Right...
Regardless of who wins this little spat, one person will always come out ahead of where they were. The damned LAWYERS. Win or lose, they get their paycheck. Now, is it really prudent spending taxpayer subsidy dollars to pay lawyers to protect info that they are giving away anyway? Lesseee....take my money, print maps, give me maps, take my money, pay lawyer to say I can't share maps.
I wish I would have gone to law school.
It's true. Only white males were allowed to be free. Women were not given equal rights, and blacks, well, there had to be a whole war just to free those. And even then they weren't given equal rights until the 20th century. Modding people who state this Flamebait will not change the past, it will only encourage ignorance so our forefather's mistakes can be repeated by our descendants.
The monetary losses that the NYC subway system may face are substatial: 1. Make the subway system confusing 2. Do not provide maps 3. Prevent anyone else from publishing maps 4. Riders get lost, have to take extra subway trips 5. Profit!
Why not release a program that downloads the map(s) (in various formats) and converts it iPod/Nano/etc?
That way it is the user exercising their "fair use" - no different than if they put a physical map in a copier to zoom it down.
But really, NYC/SF/etc should just avoid the hooplah and take an hour and post them themselves and let people get them directly from the source. It's the right thing to do and they would look better and more responsive for it. (?: how do they look now?)
Any work produced by the US Government can't be copyrighted:t ml#toc30
http://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.h
I don't know about state or local agencies like the transit authorities, but it would seem to make sense that they shouldn't be allowed to copyright their materials either. The same principle is at stake. The taxpayers pay for the creation of the work so the taxpayers should share ownership.
and then we see the real issue come out, whether you can map someone else's 'thing' and publish it. Is it just their map protected or any map of their subway.
Who would want to distribute such low quality quality maps? Those pictures lack _scale_, which would show a reference line and tell its real world length. Can't US people do anything right? Of course, the reference length should be in SI units (that is, meters). See:
http://www.mta.info/nyct/maps/submap.htm
are the only ones to gain from this. Sickens me every time I turn around, I find Mr. Common Sense is getting his ass kicked in the corner again. So, if I take a picture of the fucking PUBLIC map displayed somewhere with my camera phone, and send it to another phone, what's the difference? A website proxying the data in the middle for electronic consumption? Bullshit. It's public information. Want to fix this in our society? Give lawyers a three-count. Submit more than three dumb-ass lawsuits to fill our court system that don't pass muster with Mr. Common Sense, and you're DISBARRED for life. Period. Only problem with this solution is "dumb-ass lawsuits" is too subjective thanks to previous case-law and the other group of morons sitting BEHIND the bench accepting this dribble into a courtroom.
Ok ok, not a real dupe, but this was published on http://appdomains.slashgisrs.org/article.pl?sid=05 /09/28/1348208 last -wednesday-!
;-)
I know I'm slightly off-topic, but not that much! I'm pretty sure readers of this story will have interest in the brand-new (launched a week ago) slashsite http://slashgisrs.org/ . It a new site for GIS + RS and everything spatially related, where this very story was published in the middle of the week.
FYI, slashgisrs.org is probably the first slashcss newborn. There's also plenty of low UID available
Animoog.org
The reason that they sued was because he was making money off of these maps! He admitted in an interview that he has google adsense and that he was getting in money as a result! I don't think they would've minded as much if he was not making money off of it.
Dear diary: Today I stuffed some dolls full of dead rats I put in the blender.
Correct me if I am wrong, but those government bodies might have made or commissioned the maps, but since it was made for and/or by the government it is automatically two things, which is that it is not copyright-able and in the public domain.
Bull Pucky! IP of a map is NOT copyrightable! The case is ALEXANDRIA DRAFTING CO., v. ANDREW H. AMSTERDAM d/b/a FRANKLIN MAPS is fairly clear on this. A map is a series of facts and not copyrightable. Much like a phone book. The style, the fonts, the layout all may be subject to copyright but facts are not. This case is all bull unless we are talking about a direct copy of the MTA dataset, image or etc.
Distribute it on the darknet with MTA credit. For ease of my own downloading, please include in its name "MTA NYC Subway Map". What is someone going to do, reverse-engineer it and make a different map saying the same thing?
Tell MTA to STFU because all these maps do is encourage people to use mass transit.
No government or agency in the United States can legally have a valid copyright. They can have trademarks and the such, but even those can be copied and sold as long as you are not representing that you are an agent of that agency.
That being said, the MTA and the rest are not the government. Thy may be quasi public, but in essence they are just non profit organizations. So There is no reason why they can't have a trademark.
I'm not sure what ""chartered by the state of new york" means but it seems it is somehow a government company, which, in my opinion should not exist.f
the MTA's board of
directors includes the. Governor of New York, the Mayor of New York,and the executives of the suburban counties served by the MTA.
According to http://www.pwsacramento.com/sitf/Pdfs/TR6_Sec6.pd
Furthermore, government should not hold copyrights.
However the root post itself adds nothing new and should not be modded up.
This is the same as a company printing a book that's in the public domain, yet still retaining copyright. For THAT PARTICULAR EDITION they hold the copyright. You can create your own, but you can't copy theirs.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
"Now, for what really matters: I don't know American law (I mean, US law, since America is a continent and no country should take hold of this name), but in my country a public place is, well, public, and everyone is entitled to make photos or drawings or maps or sketches etc.
Maybe it's not a public place after all?"
American law is very similiar to International law. The US signed the Berne Convention. This situation has NOTHING to do with it being a map of a public space verses a private one. If he wants to do all the work of drawing up his own map? He can do that. HOWEVER! What he can't do is make copies of a copyrighted work without the permission of the copyright holder AND DISTRIBUTE IT! Note as well that charging for verses free makes no difference, except in the penalty phase of a court case. Copyright law's basic principles aren't that hard to understand and I don't know why you all try to make it hard to understand by muddying the issue with irrelevent details like the nature of the space.
And if there is a "source code format" (ex. database of metro stations coords, line colors/captions) that is used to generate a map such as this, you could apply the GPL saying that this database is the "preferred form for modification".
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
to see that they haven't removed the world trade center from the map yet.
"Those people aren't in the least bit interested in providing a service to the people who use the subway, they just wnt to charge the city as much money as they can. A few phone calls to the right people and next thing you know we have another stupid copyright infringement issue. This isn't so much an issue with copyright law as it is an issue to take up with the city council: they need to be pressured to make this into a freely distributable service since the taxpayers ultimately pay for it anyways."
Gee. Now I remember why I don't like slashdot. Start out a conversation with unsupported conjecture (they want to charge too much). Round out with a baseless slam against copyright even though in the article he knew he was violating it deliberately. Then finish it up with another "they're charging too much for it", even though IN THE SUMMARY it says it's "freely distributable" already. All they said they want is a license and permission, and you all go on and make a mountain out of the whole thing.
He formatted the maps to be read on an iPod.
The maps are not formatted for any other mp3 player.
Apple makes the iPod.
Therefore, this is an Apple story.
"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine No Posessions?'" -- Elvis Costello
What alternative do you propose? Is any place truly any better? If so speak up, at least a few of us are listening.
A nice map is available at:
http://www.mta.info/nyct/maps/submap.htm
To get around this, just write a script that goes to a meta server to get the current URL, downloads the jpg, then converts it to whatever you wan on your ipod.
This is what crossover office does for downloading wordviewer plugins and MS fonts from MS for use on your linux box. They let MS do the distribution, but make installation stupid easy. All appears legal, as you have do download the content that is alread freely available for anyone to use on the internet.
This whole story is posted here for the same reason Microsoft stories are posted here. To give people a chance to vent against their favorite pet peeve. No attempt is made for accuracy in any of these posts. You have posts ranting about how it's a taxpayer funded service (gee I didn't know the NYC was charging for "freely distributable" maps). There's one ranting against corporations (pure conjecture on their part). And one against the US in general (we signed the Berne Convention). The situation is simplicity itself and slashdot messes it up. He didn't have permission. They basically said he didn't have a license either. Maybe we should all ask "well why didn't he get a license and ask permission, first"? Maybe a "It's better to ask forgiveness, than permission"
Well, if the maps are copyright material of the subway, couldn't a script be made, using imagemagick, that could "automatically" crop the image in the requires areas? Granted I never made such a script, but it could even go so far to automatically download the image from the official web site, modify it as needed, and put it into a certain directory. I don't see why this wouldn't be possible, but this sure would stop the problems with copyright stuff if this works.
The map is not the territory.
I dub thee... Sir Phobos, Knight of Mars, Beater of Ass.
This can only lead to bad things. I live in Columbus, Ohio, which has a bus system that spans almost the entire city. Columbus is a large, sprawling city, so this is no minor network we are talking about. Some time ago, when the city was growing very quickly and the bus system had added a large number of new routes, the transportation authority (COTA) hired an outside company to make a professional map of the entire bus system--again, for a city that spans 100 square miles and has 50+ bus routes, this is no trivial task.
The problem is that the company that made the map claimed copyrights on it, and won a long court battle against COTA preventing the city from posting or distributing these maps. So the only way you can get them is in paper form from the map company themselves, and they are not very happy about giving it away for free. It's nearly impossible to find a map of the entire bus system, meaning navigating using bus lines is a real bother. You have to piece together shotty, off-scale, individual route maps, and even then you have to guess which routes take you where. Check http://www.cota.com/ to see what I mean. This is one of the major complaints people have about the bus system, and probably one of the main reason more people don't use it regularly.
Don't be fools, New York. Don't make public transportation a hassle. Don't end up like Columbus. Please.
/*No comment*/ #No comment
Anyone else have a problem with this?
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.
Yes, but the MTA (much like pretty much every other transit system in the U.S.) receives money from the Federal Government, and that means that the transit system has to abide by Federal guidelines (environmental rules, overhead caps, subcontractors must be paid in 30 days, AA goals, etc).
For example, the 2nd Avenue subway and East Side Access projects are both part of the recent Federal transportation bill. I'm pretty sure that MTA also gets some funding for maintenance and R&D, but I can't find a link right now.
On this one, I fail to understand why the mods say it's troll. Slashdot is about information. I shared information that, in this case, I believe pertinent. If it's not pertinent to (which is strange since you're reading a story about those subway maps and I'm refering to a site about maps where this story is also shown), it is in no way troll!
Here, honestly, I fail to understand. Strange.
Animoog.org
Can he not just use the map in some form of parody about MTA's wastefulness and lying about finances and other well-documented issues, which would then void the copyright protection? Could be win-win for him.
This is the same as a company printing a book that's in the public domain, yet still retaining copyright. For THAT PARTICULAR EDITION they hold the copyright.
Actually all they can claim copyright on is something they have added to the public domain text. e.g. preface, footnotes, new cover art, etc. To claim copyright on the whole thing is "copyright fraud".
Which is what I said. For THAT edition they hold the copyright. That doesn't mean they hold the copyright on all of the text. It's same thing here. The MTA doesn't hold the copyright on the payout of the subway system but they DO hold they copyright on that particular visual representation of it.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
I looked at the New York subway map and got wondering, which is your favourite transport map (from any city) in terms of readability and design?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Capitalize, motherfucker.
If you want to know why so many lose money, all you have to do is follow a bus around; our local stops at every freakin' block!
But enough about that, on to what I think users should do to circumvent these terrible systems: A wiki Mass Transit site!
The benefits would be immediate: No more stupid PDF schedules that can be difficult to navigate, and real users able to comment on the transit system's efficacy.
And the sweetest benefit: a black eye for local transit 'authorities' when word gets out that their operations suck so bad riders and users have to take matters into their own hands.
Just my 2 cents :)
Sure the map is copyright but the actual data isn't. Why doesn't he just make his own? Can't take more than an hour.
Note that the SF (BART) map was incorrect and yet was still on the BART site.
I don't agree. This is a similar thing to the printing of "NYFD" shirts a while back. They basically want to maintain a copyright so they can make some money off it. That normally would be fine and dandy, but in these two cases, they are publicly-funded government entities, I just don't feel they should be able to enforce copyright. The purpose of copyright is to give private entities a way to generate revenue and thus encourage creative efforts. But for these public entities, they are there to serve the public and this is best done by making their creative efforts available to all for free.
Instead, it appears they are trying to make this like the attempt to enforce copyright on "The Bean" (Cloudgate) in Chicago, the Hollywood sign in L.A, the lone Cypress in Carmel. They want to at least be able to make sure no one else is making money off it and possibly, if it becomes hot, make money off it themselves.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
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.
In 2001 I took a picture in the subway and photoshopped it into a graphic I made..I then threw it up on cafe press and in 2003 I got a letter from that jackass because he said I needed a license -- I hate that guy. I would have fought it but that would require the funds, being a poor student I just had to give in.
I wonder if they have a problem with my 1997 "Let's Go USA." Information accuracy is a spurious issue, which casts doubt on their promise of their own "free" version. As others have pointed out, this is outrageous behavior for a quasi public agency.
If you outlaw the maps, only terrorists will have maps.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
- URL (of an image, presumably)
- Height of the tile
- Width of the tile
and produces a zip file (same as ipodsubwaymaps.com does) containing a set of images with dimensions HeightxWidth that tile the source image. It even has an easily-extended set of pre-defined device dimensions for iPod Photo, iPod Nano, and Palm III - 'cause that's what I haveIt's very simple - i.e. portable. The CGI is a bash script that grabs the file with wget, chops it up with ImageMagick's convert, and zips it with, uh, zip.
Now the politics. I'd like to think that such a page could be almost as easy to use as ipodsubwaymaps.com - you just have to know how to find out the url for an image you want to download and what device you have. (Ironically the NYC map is actually in two pieces - and my page doesn't yet support joining multiple images before tiling but that's easy to add.)
It doesn't get around the "redistribution" issue, but since it has "non-infringing uses," perhaps it can be defended. And since I'm willing to distribute it if someone in, say, Uzbekistan, were to host it, only Uzbeki copyright holders could do much about it.
I'm not going to post my URL since my site is on a DSL link, and even more importantly in this case, it's running on a P133 so all that converting and zipping would crush it. But I'd be happy to email a copy to anyone interested. Put slashdot in the subject line.
no text. stupid people should all die.
Especially one that works on your Ipod.
If you outlaw subway maps for ipod, only terrorists with ipods will have subway maps. No one will get anywhere and the subway will have won.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Nothing to see here. They're acting to protect their copyrighted materials, just like any competent company should do. If they don't, the copyright becomes watered down. Often this will make the company look stupid (or brutish) but the law states that they must be seen to have taken steps to maintain their right to a copyright. Yes, having the maps on an iPod is a great idea (i have an interest specifically with vector maps on handheld devices) but it wasn't them that was distributing the maps. So, they have to release the lawyers.
"Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
usually public transportation is a weird organization. they are massively funded by taxpayers, but may not totally be government owned in the traditional sense. it may be more of a (partial?) government takeover of what was once a public company that got a monopoly on the market. i don't know for sure, but what i do know........
the article i read about this last week mentioned that he, or somebody else, was basically redrawing the map to avoid the copyright issues. i do not remember if that was for NY or SanFran.. or both? it seemed like his understanding was that he could draw his own and be legally ok. the question was if he could use the same fonts, and if he had to change the colors of the lines (which may lead to confusion when crossing it with another map). i know for NYC there are plenty of lil reprints for tourists or people attending a convention. they are not reprints of the exact same map, but they do follow the color schemes.
the article also mentioned that the NY transit system is on a crackdown of copyrights because they want to stop people from cashing in on those t-shirts etc with the subway line numbers/letters/symbols on them and want a cut of that money. we all know that if you let copyrights slide on one area, the other can be harder to enforce. the fact that he is not selling the maps, and merely redistributing free ones is what makes it sketchy. maybe his addition of google ads tot he page is the line he crossed? maybe he could just link to their websites page where they would offer their own version? it is nice that his site has a bunch of cities in one spot.
2) Subway maps have always been freely available in paper form, as well as in electronic form directly off of the MTA's site Yes, and you see, in this case, the maps were not being distributed by MTA and without their permission. End of story.
"Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
People do need an incentive to make them generally, but with aerial photographs, this is getting easier and easier as time goes on. I think you have a fundemental misunderstanding of what maps are.
"Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
That's Subway®.
"Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
Also wouldn't this mean that the maps are actually the property of the tax payers and not the goverment agency? IE: They wouldn't have a transit map or system without those who paid taxes and those who ride the subway.
BTW: most us transit agencies are goverment subsidized, as the fairs do no pay for all of the costs.
I remember a few years ago someone in the bay area started distributing a map of bart with its times. BART now does this for the PDA, I guess they took it over from this guy. I'd think it would actually be in the best interest of the public and the NYTA to take this from the guy and distribute it themselves.
Obviously the NYTA is a bunch of none tech thinkers, otherwise they would have said thanks to the guy for doing them a favor.
Persoonally this is a real waste of goverment to go after this guy IMHO. If people can download the maps to their ipods, pda, phones, etc, don't they realize they may get more riders which means more money?
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
Receiving federal funding does not make the MTA a branch of the federal government. Therefore, the MTA is not restricted from filing copyrights for their publications.
"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine No Posessions?'" -- Elvis Costello
I understand corporations are idiots. And I understand that defending intelletctual property is all the rage these days. But why do they have to do things that make no sense for their business? How can the distribution of free maps cause them any trouble? Don't they normally have to print maps? Isn't this better for them? Are they really saying they don't want subway users to have easy access to how to use the subway? The map isn't a trademark, so it's not like they have to go after everyone for it. And even if it was like that, who cares? It's a friggin' free map that they post all over the place so people will use and PAY FOR their subway access.
That's the secondary effect of all this ridiculous IP chest beating these days. Now everyone thinks they should protect every idea or bit of information they have since that's what everyone else is doing. Even if it makes no sense and it actually hinders their goals, they'll protect their IP to the death.
Good luck.
The BART Widget for Dashboard went through the same problem.
The map in question is highly stylised, and not to scale. That makes it copyrightable.
I'm betting this is more a case of the MTA wanting to make sure that maps distributed are licensed from them and therefore correct. It would hurt them if the map was incorrect. For example, how old was this map, did it include the repairs finished this summer to the N and F trains for example?
"goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
I'd say this guy knew he was breaking the law
You misspelled "thought".
We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
Whattya' expect?
It's not clear to me that there is any copyright in NYC-style subway maps after Feist.
Unlike the famous London Tube map, the standard NYC subway map is overlayed directly onto a map of New York City. So, there's no originality in layout. The colors are base on the colors of the lines, so there's no originality there either.
What original thing does the NYC subway map have?
Take for instance Orange County Transit Authority here in southern California. Every byte of data that is compiled for route planning and the actual routing process is compiled by Thomas Brothers Maps - or rather, Rand McNalley, since the latter bought the former a few years ago. In this case, it is RMcN's map, strictly speaking, as licensed for use by OCTA, and if I were accordingly to adapt and integrate the PDFs they provide for PalmOS, OCTA's attorneys would be obligated to come down on me in order to protect their license with RMcN..
MTA and BART likely have similar interests.
This sig no verb.
I run my own subway tool the BARTsmart BART Widget, an AJAX-powered Mac OS X widget that displays BART schedules and news. I too was contacted by BART regarding my use of the BART logo so it wasn't a surprise that the ipod map guy was contacted too.
The upside is, the rules are pretty lax. All he needed to do was interpret the copyrighted map and create his own version. How strict that is I don't know... perhaps all you need to do is run the original map through a Photoshop/GIMP filter.
Check out BARTsmart BART Widget, the best BART schedule widget for Mac OS X.
Presumably they just need to port this. Or maybe this.
I've been using the Palm version for years.
The cake is a pie
In SF the percentage of system riders with iPods is way higher than 5-10%. As someone who rides the BART and Muni systems daily, I'd say it's closer to 30%+. We're pretty hip here ;P
If only you could read...
Quoth the Cpt.: "What would be nice, however, [...]"
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
we all know that if you let copyrights slide on one area, the other can be harder to enforce.
For the millionth time, this is only true of trademarks.
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
...as in Diabolical Metropolitan Transit ( do I have to finish this?) that will topple the mighty...
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/pdfdocs/colourmap.gif
There was a time when there was a map next to each and every door in the subway cars, and also a list of the stops that the train you were on made, above the windows.
Instead of maps, now there are ads.
So now, what should be freely distributed public knowledge, is becoming a well guarded secret.
As another poster pointed out, this does damage sales for NYC Subway Co (or whoever they are) as it prevents them from selling the maps reproduction rights to a third party who wished to exploit this arena.
But, I'd also agree that the map should be public domain if indeed it originated from the municipal government.
However, if they hired in an outside firm I think it becomes questionable as to whether they should have paid the extra to get the full rights.
Nobody is bothering to question the legality of the notice.
What we're questioning is the sanity of the person who wrote the notice.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Even if the copyright would be considered valid, there is significant precendent which would indicate that this would constitute fair use under current law.
See, I have been driving around with my eyes open. The sting operation consisted of a San Diego Transit Authority employee asked me directions to Horton Plaza from Del Mar. Unknowingly, I gave him five different ways to get downtown and to Horton Plaza, accurately too. Shortly there after, I was notified that I have violated San Diego's City Planning and Urban Development copyrights. Specifically, being able to identify exact positions of stoplights, or to draw a map with such detail. I tried to point out that other claims were public knowledge, such as all odd numbered roads heading North and South, even numbered roads head East to West. They wouldn't listen. Drawing a straight line up and down on a paper and labeling it as "5 North" is a copyright violation. As if whoever designed the "5" had the enourmous responsibility and ungodly insight to determine the road should head in some direction... but with an infinite number of "direction", which ONE is copyrightable....
Think!
Think Deeply.
Creative has gotten a patent on 'displaying maps on a mp3 player' and is now seeking legal actions against the infringer.
Fabio Aquotte
One of my son's rented games involved exploring/fighting badguys in a subway, and if the player looked closely at one of the wall posters it was a quite accurate graphical map of the Montreal subway system (without station names, but very obvious).
It isn't that NYC Metropolitan Transit Authority minds people getting these maps for free, it's that they don't want to lose control of them. If the MTA lets anyone copy and use the maps without permission then they could be used for any purpose and the city would have no say in the matter. Once the city knows about an unauthorized use and and does nothing about it they establish a precedent under which anyone could use the maps for any purpose. The maps could be used for some new weird map porn for example, and the city couldn't do anything about it. I know that's not likely, but the point is that they could be used for any unknown purpose and the MTA wants to make sure their use can be controlled. For example vendors could sell copies of the free maps to unsuspecting tourists and the city could do nothing about it if they had given up their copyright. The MTA isn't holding the rights to the map for thenmselves, it is preserving the rights for the citizens of NY.
The use in question may be harmless, but who knows what could happen in the future? I thnk the person distributing the maps as a file should just ask the MTA's permission - the MTA would probably give it to him.
...to sue someone for the dissemination of information you provide for free on your own website, where any ding dong can find it in about 5 seconds. What's the difference between a bunch of people printing the picture you offer, and a bunch of people saving an iPod compatible picture on their 'pod? The guy didn't charge anyone anything for the maps. He's not disrupting the subway's business by distributing it. In fact, if anything, he's actually supporting MTA by providing people with a map they can check at any time, whether they're on a train, or not even around the station. The lawsuit doesn't make sense, and if they were to "be refunded the money equal to the retail cost of each download" (paraphrase), they wouldn't make a dime. The case isn't even the same as someone distributing free music online. With music, the file is the end product, a song that someone is listening to without paying for. But the subway maps (which cost nothing to purchase normally) have no purpose unless they're used in conjunction with the transit system, which you still have to purchase tickets for. Whatever.
This is absurd; it's absurd that these things are copyrighted in a way that makes them want to enforce it to cause problems for a person who is innovating and basically doing a public service for free.
I remember a couple of years ago we used to have an MTA subway map shower curtain - It was pretty cool. Obviously my gf paid for that and I guess under our copyright system (which is incredibly flawed in my opinion)I am sure that the copyright holder (probably MTA in that instance) got money. Had this guy been printing shirts or using the map for monetary gain, their sort of heavy handed response might make more sense.... The more I think about it, they're probably pissed that they didn't think of it first and offer to sell it - my guess is that is what they will do now.
However - as it is it just seems like another expression of an idea I have seen expressed a lot lately by big business (including the US govt) - that citizens or companies doing anything helpful to the general public for free must not be tolerated - (because don't you know - it's a form of communism or socialism)- like free wifi that Philly tried to implement before the politicorpwhores stepped in an rejiggered it and made it much less cool.
One thing that he or anyone could do is get some people together who kind of want to turn the tables and make a better, even more useful and more aesthetically pleasing version. He could offer it for free - possibly copyright it himself if nesscessary using creative commmons or some other new saner form of copyright that protects him when he offers it for free.
Copyright gives the owner the right to control distribution of the works, not just the right to benefit financially from it. There are a number of legitimate reasons that they might want to insist that someone get permission to distribute subway maps, even if they're not making any money on them anyway. For example, if they change the schedule or the routes, they'd want to know who distributes the maps, so that they can make sure old versions aren't being distributed. Of course, it leads to better PR if they actually give their reasons in the C&D letter, but legal departments tend not to be sufficiently savvy to bother.
I could not find an emailaddress, but here is a nice commentform: http://mta-nyc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/mta_nyc.cfg/ph p/enduser/ask.php
Why do not we all give to them some feedback?
Impeach Bush
There are files for the NYC Subay Map here:
http://www.thenycsubwaymap.com/NYCSubwayMap.zip
Grab them ASAP and share them with others (host them, file share, bit torrent, etc).
Good luck.
Can't the governments just get along? For heaven sakes they can both use the subway maps on iPods... they were able to get along with the Mexican vs Puerto Rican thing. I mean, seriously, are NY and SF trying to be "gay?" I know one already is, and the other's not too far "behind." ^_^
What a name for a lawyer... it means friendly in German =)
Do not be alarmed. This is only a test.
Some background (and disclosure I s'pose): My father worked his entire career with an aerial survey and mapping company. That company essentially doesn't exist now, though I believe its name is still out there. It was trying to use aerial photography taken from specially modified Lear jets, and that was too expensive and not competitive next to the satellite photos we see in places like Google.
You use the words "easier and easier" and "even more trivial," and I can't agree. Maps are "just" a graphical representation of physical reality in the same sense that good instructional diagrams for building a complex piece of machinery are "just" CAD drawings with labels.
In particular, a subway map has to convey a lot of information to the user without becoming a jumble of information. Lines, side lines, junctions, the exit points on the street for different stops... There's significant work behind that. And the source isn't an aerial photo. Ahem, it's a subway. The relationship between the lines and the surface world can't be seen in the easy way you describe.
I work in a big IS&T organization with a network that connects sites across the continental US. Doing something like a map of where all the printers are in all our offices, with network names for them all, would be a big task. Spending some time to make such a map intelligible and easy to use would be worth it. Not "trivial" at all.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
I'd say this guy knew he was breaking the law
You misspelled "thought".
breaking the thought?
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
"thought he was breaking the law" - Which, while it may make a difference morally, probably has no legal basis unless it turns out he was actually breaking the law.
We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.