6 ms·

>“But given your access to the MTA map on the MTA website, and the substantial similarities of your map to the MTA map, the only rational conclusion is that you

>“But given your access to the MTA map on the MTA website, and the substantial similarities of your map to the MTA map, the only rational conclusion is that your map is based on the MTA Vignelli map.” >But there is a potentially critical flaw in that logic. The MTA created The Weekender in 2011, two years after Berman created his map, which he uploaded to Wikipedia in 2009. There needs to be consequences for such blatant fraud and abuse of the DMCA, ridiculous claims like this have gotten so common.

ummonk 7y ago
In fairness, I think the claim (still meritless) would be that he adapted the original Vignelli map, not the version of it that the MTA started using in 2011.
- blackearl 7y ago
  Doing a search of "transit maps" yields lots of similar looking maps. Maybe there was an originator of the style, but it certainly wasn't the MTA
  - romwell 7y ago
    This is referenced in the article. The style originated with the London Tube maps in the 1930's.
sitkack 7y ago
The MTA is a government org, how can it even own the copy right to ‘its’ map?
- JackFr 7y ago
  Why would they own intellectual property they created any less than they own the trains and the land?
- SamBam 7y ago
  You'd be surprised. Some cities even claim copyright over their own laws. https://abovethelaw.com/2017/10/can-you-copyright-the-law/ https://abovethelaw.com/2017/10/can-you-copyright-the-law/
  - TallGuyShort 7y ago
    To be clear, it's not cities claiming copyright: it's private standards organizations, etc. that have written up a document (that can be covered by copyright law), and then it gets included or referenced in a city's law (that shouldn't be). They're just ignoring that transition. I don't think the city should be able to automatically nullify someone's copyright claim by referencing it in law, and I don't think they should release laws that require citizens to pay fees (or anything else unreasonable) to read. It should be on the city to figure out a deal before it's the law. That said, I think it's counter-productive for a standards organization to not make standards public domain in the first place if they're so widely applicable as to become a law, but maybe there's an angle here I'm missing.
    - zentiggr 7y ago
      I'll take the countervailing opinion here: regardless what the usual expectations of the standards organization might be, the situation changes as soon as it's included as legal requirements. At soon as its inclusion in law is effective, their ability to collect fees or in any way restrict access is void. The referenced version, from that point forward, needs to be publicly accessible at no charge for as long as it is legally binding. If they don't want to relinquish financial control, don't make it part of the public record or legally binding. QED.
      - TallGuyShort 7y ago
        I would agree, but only if the copyright holder is an active participant in making their standards legally binding, otherwise some city council somewhere is just unilaterally eliminating their copyright, which they have no right to do IMO. I mean if the standards bodies are pushing for their standards to become laws because that's an amazing business model, then I agree they should be waiving license fees as part of that push, but the buck stops with the government on that IMO. It shouldn't just be assumed or permitted. Don't have time to go dig myself right now to see if that's what's happening.
- EvanAnderson 7y ago
  The federal government's works are public domain, however state and local government may claim copyright.
  - chimeracoder 7y ago
    > state and local government may claim copyright. This isn't relevant to the issue at hand, though, because the MTA isn't part of the state government.
    - xxpor 7y ago
      What? It absolutely is.
      - Retric 7y ago
        MTA is a public benefit corporation which is a separate things and has different rules. This is why state works and MTA workers have different pensions etc. MTA police officers being the exception that proves the rule. https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/retirement-and-social-security-law/rss-sect-343.html https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/retirement-and-social-security-...
    - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
      > the MTA isn't part of the state government The MTA is a “public benefit corporation“ owned by the State of New York [1]. [1] http://web.mta.info/mta/compliance/pdf/Description%20and%20Board%20Structure.pdf http://web.mta.info/mta/compliance/pdf/Description%20and%20B...
      - chimeracoder 7y ago
        > The MTA is a “public benefit corporation“ owned by the State of New York. I've explained in a comment below what a public benefit corporation is. Court rulings have confirmed their status as private corporations, even though the governor has the authority to appoint the board of directors.
- vonmoltke 7y ago
  State and local governments oven plenty of copyrights and trademarks.
- trickstra 7y ago
  The privatization of profits and the socialization of losses are the signs of a corrupt system. "Let's make money on something that was created with public money" "Let's rescue this private business with the public money"
  - icebraining 7y ago
    What's the privatization part here? They money would still go to a public organization - the MTA.
- chimeracoder 7y ago
  > The MTA is a government org Surprised none of the other comments have pointed out that this is not true. The MTA is a public benefit corporation, which is a concept particular to New York State. The simplest way to describe a NY public benefit corporation is that it's a private corporation, but the board of directors for the corporation is appointed by the governor. Court rulings have confirmed that employees of PBCs in NY are not state employees; they are employees of the corporation.
  - CamperBob2 7y ago
    A distinction without a difference.
    - anon73044 7y ago
      They're not state employees, so they won't receive that same benefits or retirement as a state employee. If minimum wage for NY state employees is different than the Federal minimum, the MTA would use the Federal minimum.
      - CamperBob2 7y ago
        Can I patronize another MTA -- or start one - if I don't like the policies of this one? No? Then they're either state employees, or private actors wearing the colors of state authority. Which one of those is true is not interesting or relevant.
        vonmoltke 7y ago
        So, an electric utility in a state where such are regulated is a state agency then?
        CamperBob2 7y ago
        If it behaves the way the MTA is behaving, what difference does it make? That's the point that people taking your side of this question keep ignoring. As we've seen with PG&E's behavior on the other side of the country, these entities are treated like official state agencies whenever they find it convenient to be treated that way, and like private businesses when that's more convenient. It is not in the riders' interest -- or the taxpayer's -- for anyone to be allowed to dictate who can publish maps of a publicly-funded transit system. Whether the MTA is called a "public-private partnership," a "utility," a "transit authority," a "public benefit corporation," or simply a "government agency" is, again, not the least bit relevant.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  At the root of it is corruption. Someone is collecting benefits privately from taxpayer funded organizations.
- fortran77 7y ago
  In the United States, only the Federal Government's works can't be copyrighted. But it's complicated. See https://www.copyrightlaws.com/copyright-laws-in-u-s-government-works/ https://www.copyrightlaws.com/copyright-laws-in-u-s-governme...
- scarejunba 7y ago
  They can. California cannot copyright its products by California law, a law that would be unnecessary if California could not copyright its work.
blackearl 7y ago
It would be great if he could flip this on the MTA
ChikkaChiChi 7y ago
>There needs to be consequences for such blatant fraud and abuse of the DMCA, ridiculous claims like this have gotten so common. Absolutely. Unfortunately, common sense does not appear to be a powerful lobby in any country. People in power are never going to prescribe consequences for their own behavior.
ikeboy 7y ago
There would be consequences if he sued, but most likely the complaint will just be reversed and everybody moves on. Based on the article, though, the MTA might have a good faith defense. If they believed it was based on their map, and retract it after being made aware that it was not, they could win on a good faith defense.

ummonk 7y ago

In fairness, I think the claim (still meritless) would be that he adapted the original Vignelli map, not the version of it that the MTA started using in 2011.

blackearl 7y ago
Doing a search of "transit maps" yields lots of similar looking maps. Maybe there was an originator of the style, but it certainly wasn't the MTA
- romwell 7y ago
  This is referenced in the article. The style originated with the London Tube maps in the 1930's.

sitkack 7y ago

The MTA is a government org, how can it even own the copy right to ‘its’ map?

JackFr 7y ago
Why would they own intellectual property they created any less than they own the trains and the land?
SamBam 7y ago
You'd be surprised. Some cities even claim copyright over their own laws. https://abovethelaw.com/2017/10/can-you-copyright-the-law/ https://abovethelaw.com/2017/10/can-you-copyright-the-law/
- TallGuyShort 7y ago
  To be clear, it's not cities claiming copyright: it's private standards organizations, etc. that have written up a document (that can be covered by copyright law), and then it gets included or referenced in a city's law (that shouldn't be). They're just ignoring that transition. I don't think the city should be able to automatically nullify someone's copyright claim by referencing it in law, and I don't think they should release laws that require citizens to pay fees (or anything else unreasonable) to read. It should be on the city to figure out a deal before it's the law. That said, I think it's counter-productive for a standards organization to not make standards public domain in the first place if they're so widely applicable as to become a law, but maybe there's an angle here I'm missing.
  - zentiggr 7y ago
    I'll take the countervailing opinion here: regardless what the usual expectations of the standards organization might be, the situation changes as soon as it's included as legal requirements. At soon as its inclusion in law is effective, their ability to collect fees or in any way restrict access is void. The referenced version, from that point forward, needs to be publicly accessible at no charge for as long as it is legally binding. If they don't want to relinquish financial control, don't make it part of the public record or legally binding. QED.
    - TallGuyShort 7y ago
      I would agree, but only if the copyright holder is an active participant in making their standards legally binding, otherwise some city council somewhere is just unilaterally eliminating their copyright, which they have no right to do IMO. I mean if the standards bodies are pushing for their standards to become laws because that's an amazing business model, then I agree they should be waiving license fees as part of that push, but the buck stops with the government on that IMO. It shouldn't just be assumed or permitted. Don't have time to go dig myself right now to see if that's what's happening.
EvanAnderson 7y ago
The federal government's works are public domain, however state and local government may claim copyright.
- chimeracoder 7y ago
  > state and local government may claim copyright. This isn't relevant to the issue at hand, though, because the MTA isn't part of the state government.
  - xxpor 7y ago
    What? It absolutely is.
    - Retric 7y ago
      MTA is a public benefit corporation which is a separate things and has different rules. This is why state works and MTA workers have different pensions etc. MTA police officers being the exception that proves the rule. https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/retirement-and-social-security-law/rss-sect-343.html https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/retirement-and-social-security-...
  - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
    > the MTA isn't part of the state government The MTA is a “public benefit corporation“ owned by the State of New York [1]. [1] http://web.mta.info/mta/compliance/pdf/Description%20and%20Board%20Structure.pdf http://web.mta.info/mta/compliance/pdf/Description%20and%20B...
    - chimeracoder 7y ago
      > The MTA is a “public benefit corporation“ owned by the State of New York. I've explained in a comment below what a public benefit corporation is. Court rulings have confirmed their status as private corporations, even though the governor has the authority to appoint the board of directors.
vonmoltke 7y ago
State and local governments oven plenty of copyrights and trademarks.
trickstra 7y ago
The privatization of profits and the socialization of losses are the signs of a corrupt system. "Let's make money on something that was created with public money" "Let's rescue this private business with the public money"
- icebraining 7y ago
  What's the privatization part here? They money would still go to a public organization - the MTA.
chimeracoder 7y ago
> The MTA is a government org Surprised none of the other comments have pointed out that this is not true. The MTA is a public benefit corporation, which is a concept particular to New York State. The simplest way to describe a NY public benefit corporation is that it's a private corporation, but the board of directors for the corporation is appointed by the governor. Court rulings have confirmed that employees of PBCs in NY are not state employees; they are employees of the corporation.
- CamperBob2 7y ago
  A distinction without a difference.
  - anon73044 7y ago
    They're not state employees, so they won't receive that same benefits or retirement as a state employee. If minimum wage for NY state employees is different than the Federal minimum, the MTA would use the Federal minimum.
    - CamperBob2 7y ago
      Can I patronize another MTA -- or start one - if I don't like the policies of this one? No? Then they're either state employees, or private actors wearing the colors of state authority. Which one of those is true is not interesting or relevant.
      - vonmoltke 7y ago
        So, an electric utility in a state where such are regulated is a state agency then?
        CamperBob2 7y ago
        If it behaves the way the MTA is behaving, what difference does it make? That's the point that people taking your side of this question keep ignoring. As we've seen with PG&E's behavior on the other side of the country, these entities are treated like official state agencies whenever they find it convenient to be treated that way, and like private businesses when that's more convenient. It is not in the riders' interest -- or the taxpayer's -- for anyone to be allowed to dictate who can publish maps of a publicly-funded transit system. Whether the MTA is called a "public-private partnership," a "utility," a "transit authority," a "public benefit corporation," or simply a "government agency" is, again, not the least bit relevant.
lotsofpulp 7y ago
At the root of it is corruption. Someone is collecting benefits privately from taxpayer funded organizations.
fortran77 7y ago
In the United States, only the Federal Government's works can't be copyrighted. But it's complicated. See https://www.copyrightlaws.com/copyright-laws-in-u-s-government-works/ https://www.copyrightlaws.com/copyright-laws-in-u-s-governme...
scarejunba 7y ago
They can. California cannot copyright its products by California law, a law that would be unnecessary if California could not copyright its work.

blackearl 7y ago

It would be great if he could flip this on the MTA

ChikkaChiChi 7y ago

>There needs to be consequences for such blatant fraud and abuse of the DMCA, ridiculous claims like this have gotten so common. Absolutely. Unfortunately, common sense does not appear to be a powerful lobby in any country. People in power are never going to prescribe consequences for their own behavior.

ikeboy 7y ago

There would be consequences if he sued, but most likely the complaint will just be reversed and everybody moves on. Based on the article, though, the MTA might have a good faith defense. If they believed it was based on their map, and retract it after being made aware that it was not, they could win on a good faith defense.