Groundhop.com

The subway system an “asset”? More like a liability of the people.

This is why government should be as small as possible. Everything gov’t touches becomes a political football, grossly inefficient, and impossible to modify or cut back.

“Not making money” doesn’t preclude an entity from being a business. Amazon.com lost money for years - as do countless other companies.

Anyway, virtually no new lines have been built in New York City since municipal takeover, and a number of elevated lines that would have been useful today were torn down with the promise that a modern underground replacement was just around the corner (and a few years after the city took over, they of course started raising the fare to meet the expenses that killed off the private companies). So based on that, maybe they should just privatize the system again, and give the new owners royalties on subway route bullets. It couldn’t be much worse than what’s happened over the past 65 years.

“Since copyright protects only “original expression,” not facts or ideas, it offers thin protection to maps. The transit agencies can’t copyright the locations of stations, their names, or the colors and symbols by which the public identifies them. A new map may look very much like the old ones without copying any copyrightable expression. So long as it’s clear these are unofficial maps, the trademark “confusion” dissipates as well.”

Jeff Jarvis: “Then this: Government should make it a condition of such a franchise to release all information and copyright to the public. ”

But how many other entities does the government subsidize? Should they all lose their copyrights? How about colleges - who should own their research patents and copyrights if they receive public assistance? How about other schools. How about NPR or anything funded by the federal arts budget?

Don’t these lead us to a discussion of the degree of public aid necessary before the government should own the copyright?

I suspect that the names of the subway and locations of the subway lines are in the public domain. But the guy in question used the ‘actual likeness’ of a map published by the government rather than creating his own based on the same information. I’m guessing that is where the hair got split on this one.

That eventually got the MTA into the marketing business itself, with the maps and route designations being the most obvious items up for sale, while offering other things, such as route signs from scrapped subway cars, also at the MTA stores and over the Internet.

But it’s only in the last two years that the lawyers for the system — or the folks who have the marketing deals with the MTA who have been pushing to claim excusive rights to the map images and route “bullets”. They went so far as to sue a bagel shop near the F train stop in the Gowanus Canal section of Brooklyn for using the route designation bullet in its store sign. Most people at the time that story ran thought the MTA was being ridiculously intrusive and acting like a bully, but obviously, they intend on making their money off licensing (which I would probably have less objection to, if it was funding the actual cost of making the maps or other subway items. But the agency spends like a drunken sailor, so whatever money they do gain from this is just going to be wasted on needless frills or perks for the top staff).

Does an artist paid with an NEA grant loose the copyright on his own work?

He should.

In the first place, government has no business subsidizing artists. But if they are, let the artists take the public dime and do their art for the sake of doing their art, out of love. And the people who finance it own it.

All you’re doing is advocating for somebody to have their cake and eat mine, too.

Where, exactly, is this center you’re “right of” located? Havana?

Well, it depends.

Much of the time, the artist is paid for a time specific, location specific presentation. And much of the time, the grant is for operational funds (in the case of organizations). I think NEA grants are drawn much more narrowly than you think…

Is it too much to ask that you be (you know) informed before you blather?

Rush Limbaugh II?

Same goes for weather information, government funded research reports, etc. We’ve paid for this stuff once, I’m damned if I an understand why we should have to pay for it again.

This may be true, but that doesn’t mean that it is right.

I’m also against pseudo private entities which are actually government entities with special privileges. Copyrighting public information like a subway map is unconscionable and an abuse of copyright–regardless of whether it may be legal.

The subway entity undoubtedly has bondholders and creditors who have extended credit to it based on the assurance of the entity’s managers that the subway would be run in a business-like way. Protecting copyrights is a generally accepted business practice.

It may not be a good business strategy in this case to restrict the distribution of subway maps. However, YOU do not get to make that decision.

What ever the case, I would agree that all government work should be in the public domain and that all contractors providing IP as part of government contracts need to ensure that the resulting work is handed over free and clear to the government so that it can be fully public domain.