NY Transportation Authority Cites Schedules as Copyrighted Material
New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority has sent a take down notice to Greenwich man Chris Schoenfeld for using Metropolitan Transportation Authority schedules to power his StationStops iPhone application. The popular blogger created an $2.99 application that gives commuters access to MTA train and bus schedules. He received a DMCA last Friday to remove the application from the app store The MTA claims that its scheduling information is copyrighted intellectual property. You read that right. Public train schedules are being treated as copyrighted material.
In an interview with the Stamford Advocate Schoenfeld said, "The copyright law is very clear that you cannot copyright facts and tables of data. A train schedule itself might be considered intellectual property, but the data itself has nothing artistic about it." Schoenfeld believes the DMCA came as a result of him delaying licensing negotiations. The blogger was expected to pay the MTA 10% of his app profits and $5000 in advance royalties.
StationStops is an iPhone application that allows Metro-North Railroad riders to check their train departures and arrivals from Grand Central Station even when they do not have a wireless connection. The application remembers a user's home station and offers both train track numbers and departures. While these are simple functions, the MTA does not have this data readily accessible. Rather than having to wait at Grand Central's departure screens, riders with the iPhone app are free to relax until their train arrives. Essentially StationStops is a 3rd party application that does a better job of information outreach than the official public entity.
The MTA's cease and desist letter comes at a time when government agencies and semi-public entities are slowly carving out their policies on standardized public data. In late June, even as Mayor Bloomberg launched the first NYC Big Apps contest committing to the publication of machine readable city data, Council's application to expose raw data for web and mobile app development was denied. In an interview with PolitickerNY assistant counselor to the mayor, Sami Naim spoke out against releasing the data saying, "It's not how much paper you can put up on the Internet. It's more, how much can you engage New Yorkers. It starts and ends with the customer."
Judging by StationStop sales and the public outcry for Schoenfeld, customers want a better way to access their transportation information and they don't care whether it's city-run, state-run or citizen-driven. To see more user-generated transportation solutions, visit DIY City or Apps for Democracy.
Share
Facebook
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
So then Google (for Maps) and presumably others are paying for the data, then? Interesting, truly had figured it was via however anyone else had begun sourcing it all.
its a great idea! they must pay to get data!
its really affordable!
They should pay HIM for providing THEIR users with a service THEY don't offer.
Judging by StationStop sales and the public outcry for Schoenfeld, customers want a better way to access their transportation information and they don't care whether it's city-run, state-run or citizen-driven.
Hm....I was under the impression that in the United States that by default data created by government agencies belongs to the people. I expect that if this goes to court it will be struck down.
Posted by: islandinthenet.com
|
August 21, 2009 3:55 AM
scheduling information is copyrighted intellectual property?
LoL .may be NY Transportation Authority just want to share money with the maker i guss
One rarely hears back from anyone unless they think there is money to be made. Less time filing lawsuits, more time creating better products, I say!
Cities can incorporate, so I'm sure than can copyright. Feds however, cannot. Maybe the Federal Government has it's own listings he can use. Just cite the U.S. source.
It's a shame when there are people in State and Federal government who are just not intelligent enough to "get it". Hopefully the "intelligent" gov't folks soon diaplace the non-intelligent ones.
If NY Transportaion Authority would have just looked at what their more intelligent counterparts have done at SF BART, then perhaps taxpayer money could be put to beetter use and people could actually get the information they want, in the form they want it, without having state government dictate.
Here is information on what SF BART has done.
http://www.bart.gov/schedules/developers/index.aspx
Ridiculous, and the kind of thing that gives government a bad name.
Here in Portland, Oregon our transportation agency publishes schedule information and an API for developers.
http://trimet.org/apps/index.htm
The tricky part of this debate is the question of who paid for the original data to be generated. If it was the American taxpayer, for instance, through grants to the city from the Urban Mass Transportation Administration, then the same rule that applies to all federally-collected data should apply: it is not copyrightable, and thus no charge can be made by a city for it. I am unaware of any reason why that should change if the data was gemnerated by any tax-supported entity. Otherwise, for instance, local schools could charge local newspapers for publishing the weekly school lunch menu, and the state could charge to publish the tax code.
Joe Shea
The American Reporter
www.american-reporter.com
This looks like "copyfraud." See this article: http://ssrn.com/abstract=787244
From the abstract: "Copyfraud is everywhere. False copyright notices appear on modern reprints of Shakespeare's plays, Beethoven's piano scores, greeting card versions of Monet's Water Lilies, and even the U.S. Constitution. Archives claim blanket copyright in everything in their collections. Vendors of microfilmed versions of historical newspapers assert copyright ownership. These false copyright claims, which are often accompanied by threatened litigation for reproducing a work without the owner's permission, result in users seeking licenses and paying fees to reproduce works that are free for everyone to use. Copyright law itself creates strong incentives for copyfraud. The Copyright Act provides for no civil penalty for falsely claiming ownership of public domain materials. There is also no remedy under the Act for individuals who wrongly refrain from legal copying or who make payment for permission to copy something they are in fact entitled to use for free. While falsely claiming copyright is technically a criminal offense under the Act, prosecutions are extremely rare. These circumstances have produced fraud on an untold scale, with millions of works in the public domain deemed copyrighted, and countless dollars paid out every year in licensing fees to make copies that could be made for free. Copyfraud stifles valid forms of reproduction and undermines free speech...."
Citizen 1:0 Big, Bad Authorities.
Get over it. Facts and "just" data are not copyrightable. It's just the transit authorities in a mad grab for any cent they can cling their claws onto...