Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NYC & SF iPod Subway Map Controversy

Posted by Zonk on from the free-as-in-beer dept.

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."

3 of 361 comments (clear)

  1. It is kind of a grey area... by joshiz · · Score: 5, Interesting
    While there is a separate private company formed for the NY subway, it still is a quasi-public agency, subsidised (at least in part) by taxpayers through various taxes on fuel, sales, property, etc. Simply by letting anyone into the Metro system (whether they pay a fare and use a train or not), they are agreeing it is a publicly available sysetem. With that in mind, the maps are subject to being copied under "fair use" criteria. If someone was using them to profit, to attack the subway system, or any other use that would be harmful -- then I could understand an argument against such a use, but in this case, they are being used for the same reason as their original intent -- so people can find and plan where they are going.

    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.

  2. Re:Farewell, free country! by aussie_a · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Can anybody explain what is the public benefit in suing people like this?!!

    1) They're not suing, they sent a cease and desist, he complied.

    2) He had the incorrect information on his website, so 9,000 people used an outdated map.

    3) They're broke, and they're issuing licenses to desperately seek money. The public benefit (and this is arguable, as they may be a really shitty company and the public benefit might be them to become bankrupt) is that by not breaking the law and abusing their copyright, they will be able to reap money from their labour and continue to provide the service to the citizens of their city.

  3. Feh: Irrelevent details. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "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.