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."

Comments

Feh

[Anonymous Coward]

Man redistributes copyright material without permission.
That's not actually a controversy.

Re:Feh

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he should just draw his own.

That's exactly what he should do.

Re:Feh

[jmichaelg]

The problem is that the material is copyrighted at all. The map is public information created by a public agency for public dissemination. This case is an example of public agencies wasting public resources.

The only beneficiary of copyright in this instance is some petty bureaucrat who can claim his/her job is important to the public weal. The public "servant's" next step will be to ask for an increase in funding so he can hire his/her wife/husband/son/daughter/nephew/... to reformat the maps to meet this new "public demand" for public information.

I feh on your feh and whomever ordered the cease and desist to be written in the first place.

Re:Feh

[mypalmike]

I can only assume the reason they care is that they get income from licencing fees for publication in the private sector. Like, when Frommers publishes "Ney York City on just $500 a day", it will contain licensed copies of subway maps, etc. So, when this stuff is published without license, there is a potential loss of income as demand for licensed product declines. These licensing fees actually decrease the tax burden on you.

Re:Feh

[justin12345]

It would be nice if he did draw his own. It would be even nicer if he drew one that was accurate to the actual geography of NYC. The mta maps are grossly distorted, making it difficult to use them to do things like say... choose the subway line closest to a given location.

The MTA has this little problem with confusing the concepts: ""art" and "map".

Re:Feh

[afidel]

No, they merely shift the tax burden from one place to another. Artificially locking public information up so that it can be resold by a private entity is just wrong. It's like when governments spend huge amounts of money to make GIS maps and then only provide them under expensive licenses, you've already paid to have the data collected and consolidated, why should you be double taxed if you actually want to access the information? Just because there are people with the means to buy the information under expensive licenses does not mean that the government should make it standard practice to double tax anyone who wants to actually use the output of the information retrieval and consolidation process that they have already paid for. Down that path lies much less transparant government, which is never a good thing.

Re:Feh

[poopdeville]

First, you as an accomplished artist, draw, paint or otherwise render in a physical medium an illustration of a public square. Since it is a public place, you have no rights to your work? That would disappoint quite a lot of people.

You're an illiterate. His argument is that the maps were commissioned by a public agency, using the people's funds , likely as a work-for-hire , and should therefore be released to the public domain.

Re:Feh

[LMariachi]

They're not "grossly distorted," they're distorted for clarity. If they weren't, they'd have to either be about six times bigger to cover the distant lands of Queens and Staten Island (which shouldn't be on the subway map to begin with since it has its own system, disconnected from the rest) or all the stations in midtown Manhattan would have to be smooshed together in overlapping 3-point type. The NYC subway map is famously considered to be a usable balance between legibility and actual geography, unlike for instance the London tube map, which blows off geography altogether.

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.)

Technically, they're right

[mrjb]

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.

Re:Technically, they're right

[oncehour]

Once again, it's a case of corporations trying to protect the status quo, more than it is of an actual individual problem occuring with this instance. To not kneejerk at this instance would be to have it thrown into their face if someone else stole their intellectual property. Additionally, if the maps were released to a widespread audience freely for a significant amount of time, any hope at commercial opportunities for using the map would have pretty well been destroyed. It may not be a likely scenario, but an example of the logic that could have lead to this.

Personally, I believe maps should have their own subsection within Intellectual Property laws. People do need an incentive to make them generally, but with aerial photographs, this is getting easier and easier as time goes on. Blueprinted building and track ways makes this even more trivial, and once you get down to it, a map is just a graphical representation of the factual geography of a location. I believe the subway company could do better to just pick up a few advertising contracts, brand the maps with advertising, and release under the Creative Commons.

However, based on the current corporate mindset around adapting to technology and kneejerk reactions to the words "file-sharing" this sort of idea is probably long off.

Re:Technically, they're right

[delta_avi_delta]

I think they have to be seen protecting their "Intellectual Property" in case someone else borrows the image and starts printing t-shirts, or using them for some other money-making purpose. You can buy everything from t-shirts to tea-towels with the London underground map embossed, and many tourists do, so I guess it's a bit of a cash cow.

That said it's ridiculous that tourist guides, free maps, and free-to-view billboards can carry the image, yet I can't load it onto an iPod. The first thing I do in any new city is take a photo of the metro-system with my phone, I'm not sure how they're going to police against that.

Re:Technically, they're right

[CptTripps]

That was my thought too...it's not like they are SELLING the maps. I'd venture a guess that only about 5%-10% of the people that rids that system every day have an iPod, and lets say 5% of them have the map...are they REALLY loosing anything?

To the Subway iPod thingy Programmer: Shame on you for not asking first...but nice job

To the Subway People: Shame on you for being this petty.

To the Subway Restaurants: I'll take a Cold-Cut Combo with Lettuce, Green Peppers, Black Olives, and Salt & Pepper.

Re:Technically, they're right

[deaddrunk]

are they REALLY loosing anything?

No they're restraining something.

Re:Technically, they're right

[jafiwam]

Copyright Violation = copying or distributing without permission

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

[BeerCat]

You can buy everything from t-shirts to tea-towels with the London underground map embossed, and many tourists do, so I guess it's a bit of a cash cow.

As far as I know, all the Underground related items are licenced by LT, so they probably enforce copyright issues.

However, since they also licence the use of the map in diaries and such, then the cost of a licence is probably not too high.

The Ordnance Survey in the UK has a full page devoted to copyright issues, which indicates that, for some uses, the cost for reproduction may simply be an acknowledgement of the original copyright owner.

Re:Technically, they're right

[ergo98]

It's called "public trasit" because the public pays for it. If this is the cause in NY, then what they're basically doing is suing a member of the public for use of publc property.

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

[ZeLonewolf]

It's interesting you ask. Works created by federal government employees during the course of their official duties are not copyright-able. The same may or may not hold for state or local governments.

Re:Technically, they're right

[Fnkmaster]

While this is all nice, the MTA isn't a corporation in the usual sense at all. It is a city government agency, subsidized and funded by the city of New York. This map was already created with taxpayer dollars. City agencies have a fiduciary responsibility to the citizens of their city, not to shareholders, and aim to make profits only to the extent that they should avoid inflicting unnecessary taxes on their citizens through waste or inefficiency.

This doesn't make any sense because making the map available to people in another format is a public good being performed by a private citizen. The MTA is actually hurting citizens of New York by imposing this undue burden on this fellow. There is really no defense for such behavior.

Re:Technically, they're right

[Scudsucker]

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.

Your analogy is stupid. You are talking about making physical changes to existing property. This guy is making maps available for free that have absolutly zero impact on physical property or the operation of it.

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.

And the subway wouldn't be getting a take from people using the guys map to travel on said subway? And besides, a map is a drawing of facts, and you can't copyright facts. They guy should make his own map from scratch and tell those authorities to go to hell.

what does this have to do with apple?

[ralinx]

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?

London Underground map too?

[daern]

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...

Do taxes pay for these maps?

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

I guess the city makes an ass load of money off those maps? :)

Re:Do taxes pay for these maps?

[thinkzinc]

Maybe this is more of an issue to the company that has a contract to print the maps? Less maps needed, fewer maps to print...

Re:Farewell, free country!

[Anonymous Coward]

Once upon a time it was easy to fool oneself that the US was a Free Country. It just happens to get harder & harder to keep up that illusion as more information is dissemminated.

I've visited the US more than a dozen times in the last 30 years. The idea that it's just an illusion of freedom came to me in the late 1970s and has become more & more obvious as time goes by. What saddens me is few living there see it too.

Sue away!

[DaFunker]

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!

Re:Sue away!

[91degrees]

There are reasons to protect with copyright other than preserving profit.

Perhaps the transit authority wants to make sure that all sources of the information are kept up to date. If they let anyone distribute it they can't be sure people will have an up to date map. If they insist people licence it then at least they can control this.

There are other potential problems as well. They simply avoid any issues by clamping down on all copying with no exceptions.

I grew up in NYC

[Vengeance]

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.

Re:I grew up in NYC

[BushCheney08]

I would imagine that they don't want to be held liable in case the maps are wrong or out of date or something. Technically, it's a copyright violation. OTOH, it's free publicity for them and a convenience to their riders. Totally a situation of which way the wind is blowing today.

Re:I grew up in NYC

[aussie_a]

In summary, I consider this lawsuit to be insane and unnecessary.

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:I grew up in NYC

[gowen]

A downloadable map makes a world of sense

Doesn't it just. That's probably why THE MTA ALREADY PROVIDES ONE. I found this one by typing "NY Subway Map" into google and hitting "I feel lucky".

Re:I grew up in NYC

[jeti]

The copyright is necessary as an incentive to produce subway maps in the first place.

Re:Farewell, free country!

[gowen]

Yeah, how dare they impinge our freedom to take the fruits of other people's labours and treat them as our own... It's interesting that if the map had been GPL'd, and the redistributor was infringing that licence -- rather than a more standard copyright -- most of the people here would be taking exactly the opposite viewpoint on this infringement.

Someone, someday will RTFA

[The Slashdotted]

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"

Re:Duh.

[Vengeance]

"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 is kind of a grey area...

[joshiz]

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.

Re:It is kind of a grey area...

[OldeClegg]

"a quasi-public agency"

Bingo. When public ifrastructure services are relegated to market driven private interests, some degree of public ownership rights must be maintained. If the subway owners want to sell private property, they should do so in the private domain, on their own and without tax funded investment.

Although I do not like MTA

[layer3switch]

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

Article

[dorkygeek]

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

Correct informaction is the case

[Pecisk]

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.

Freundlich

[Einherjer]

funny thing is that "Freundlich" in German means something along the way of "friendly","cordial","pleasant" :-)

Public information should not be made public.

[MTO_B.]

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?

Re:I love the fact....

[ifwm]

repeat after me C-O-P-Y-R-I-G-H-T trademark is completely different, copyright can be selectively enforced

mandatory enforcement

[cbr2702]

If you don't enforce the copyright, you lose it

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?

Government Copyright and Public Domain

[sofakingon]

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?

Re:Government Copyright and Public Domain

[Teancum]

U.S. Postage is not copyrightable by itself, but the USPS does contract out designs to private artists, sometimes duplicating prior art that was not done specifically for the Post Office. They usually get a "license" to publish the artwork as a stamp, but they don't get subsequent "licenses" to redistribute the image elsewhere, so if you want to get a license to redistribut the stamp image you need to contact the original creator of the artwork.

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.

share the wealth (of knowledge)

[thor]

any of the more than 9,000 people who downloaded the NYC and SFC maps care to share?

thor

Re:Technically, they're wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Farewell, free country!

[aussie_a]

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.

A taxpayer funded service

[plnrtrvlr]

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.

Re:Farewell, free country!

[aussie_a]

Once upon a time US was a FREE country

What the fuck are you talking about? Or are you just babbling the slashdot group think to get your ass modded up? (+1 Insightful as of posting this, so he aint being very successful).

America had the ability for Congress to enact copyright law in it's Constitution. You know, the piece of paper that says what America can and can't do. It was completed in 1787, 11 years after the United States of America was first formed (sorta. See here for more details.) It took effect two years later. This power was first exercised in 1790, only 1 year after the Constitution was placed into effect. Here's a small quote from this article which you might find enlightening. Emphasis mine:

The Act secured an author the exclusive right to publish and vend "maps, charts and books"

Now while the term limit has been increased dramatically, that isn't the issue here (we're not talking about maps that are over 14 years old are we?). So don't give me that bullshit about this being another example of copyright "thing" getting worse and worse. Unless you were talking about the US being a free country before 1790 of course.

Re:Technically, they're wrong

[aussie_a]

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).

Might not be copyrightable information

[Bruce Perens]

I wonder if the MTA can own a copyright? Federal government can not. I think MTA is a regional government organization...

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

For the love of...

[Dreamland]

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...

MOD PARENT UP

[aussie_a]

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.

US Government Workers Can't Copyright Things

[samuel4242]

Any work produced by the US Government can't be copyrighted:
http://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.ht ml#toc30

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.

Feh: Irrelevent details.

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

RTFA

[ThatsNotFunny]

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.

Why not a script?

[TheDarkTrumpet]

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.

Bad idea, see Columbus

[PaSTE]

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.

Government agencies copyrighting public documents?

[voss]

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.

Re:Government agencies copyrighting public documen

[nsayer]

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.

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.

Are they kidding?

[localman]

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.

Re:Technically, they're wrong

[1u3hr]

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 map in question is highly stylised, and not to scale. That makes it copyrightable.

Re:i think he is rendering his own? i read AN arti

[rhizome]

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.