[lightbyte]

>“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.

[sitkack]

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

[SamBam]

You'd be surprised. Some cities even claim copyright over their own laws.

https://abovethelaw.com/2017/10/can-you-copyright-the-law/

[TallGuyShort]

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]

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]

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.

[nybble41]

The end result is the same either way: The law, including all required references, must be available to the public in a free, non-discriminatory, and modern form (i.e. on the Internet, not a single paper copy accessible only in the basement of the state capitol building behind a door marked "beware of leopard") before it can be enforced. That means the state must find a way to make the law available to the public before it takes effect, and standards organizations likewise must agree to allow public access before their standards can be incorporated into the law. The federal government can, of course, revoke the copyright on a standard to achieve that result if permission is not forthcoming—despite the name it's merely an artificial privilege, not a natural right, and as such ought to be revoked the moment it fails to serve its intended purpose of benefiting the public.

[rebuilder]

What is your interpretation of the law based on?

[zentiggr]

I wasn't trying to interpret existing law, I was expressing my opinion on how the process _should_ work.

No one should be denied access to legal documentation that they could be held liable for compliance/non-compliance.

I'd argue even further and say that if any portion of the law or any supporting documentation is not fully accessible at any time, there should be no liability for non-compliance.

[EvanAnderson]

The federal government's works are public domain, however state and local government may claim copyright.

[chimeracoder]

> 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.

[JumpCrisscross]

> 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%20B...

[chimeracoder]

> 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.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Court rulings have confirmed their status as private corporations

Which are not part of the federal government and are allowed to make copyright claims.

[xxpor]

What? It absolutely is.

[Retric]

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-...

[trickstra]

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]

What's the privatization part here? They money would still go to a public organization - the MTA.

[chimeracoder]

> 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]

A distinction without a difference.

[JackFr]

Talk to the municipal bond markets.

A bond issued by the MTA is considered a revenue bond. The only source of income to pay the bond holders have is the revenues of the MTA. A bond issued by New York State is considered a general obligation of the state, with the expectation that New York State will use its tax power to pay the bond holders.

[anon73044]

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]

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]

So, an electric utility in a state where such are regulated is a state agency then?

[fortran77]

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-governme...

[scarejunba]

They can. California cannot copyright its products by California law, a law that would be unnecessary if California could not copyright its work.

[JackFr]

Why would they own intellectual property they created any less than they own the trains and the land?

[vonmoltke]

State and local governments oven plenty of copyrights and trademarks.

[lotsofpulp]

At the root of it is corruption. Someone is collecting benefits privately from taxpayer funded organizations.

[ummonk]

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]

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]

This is referenced in the article. The style originated with the London Tube maps in the 1930's.

[blackearl]

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

[ikeboy]

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.

[ChikkaChiChi]

>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.