The Advocate, the daily newspaper in Stamford, Conn., had a thought-provoking piece the other day that raises an interesting question. Many cities and counties are scrambling to roll out applications for mobile phones. Many of these "apps" are centered around public transit, i.e. helping commuters with schedules, travel times, and route planning.
Several cities, such as Washington D.C. and New York, have launched programs to encourage the public to design applications to share with fellow citizens. D.C.'s successful Apps for Democracy program has inspired New York's recently announced Big Apps. But its New York's Metro Transportation Authority (MTA) that's at the center of a recent controversy.
A Greenwich fellow by the name of Chris Schoenfeld created an iPhone app called StationStops. For $2.99, users can download the app and gain mobile access to MTA bus and train schedules. Earlier this month, Schoenfeld received a cease and desist order from the MTA. The MTA, it seems, believes the timetables constitute copyrighted data and the agency wants Schoenfeld to pay licensing fees as well as a $5,000 royalty fee in order to continue selling StationStops.
Schoenfeld argues that while the timetables themselves may be copyrighted, the data itself is publicly available. Furthermore, Schoenfeld says he's presenting the data in a format that's different from how the MTA presents it, specifically by building an iPhone app with the data, something the MTA hasn't done.
According to The Advocate, the MTA's issue is that any errors in Schoenfeld's app will result in complaints to the MTA instead of to Schoenfeld.
"The bigger concern is that he is not licensed by us, so we can't verify the information he is providing is correct," MTA spokesman Kevin Ortiz told the paper. "If people have problems with his information, they won't be calling him. They'll be calling us."
The story has been picked up by the New York Times and is sure to receive further attention as the question of whether such data is or can be copyrighted is debated. Perhaps the bigger issue here is that if a third-party is doing a public service, and doing it well, should a government agency even pursue a copyright infringement claim, even if it is warranted?
What do you think?
Several cities, such as Washington D.C. and New York, have launched programs to encourage the public to design applications to share with fellow citizens. D.C.'s successful Apps for Democracy program has inspired New York's recently announced Big Apps. But its New York's Metro Transportation Authority (MTA) that's at the center of a recent controversy.
A Greenwich fellow by the name of Chris Schoenfeld created an iPhone app called StationStops. For $2.99, users can download the app and gain mobile access to MTA bus and train schedules. Earlier this month, Schoenfeld received a cease and desist order from the MTA. The MTA, it seems, believes the timetables constitute copyrighted data and the agency wants Schoenfeld to pay licensing fees as well as a $5,000 royalty fee in order to continue selling StationStops.
Schoenfeld argues that while the timetables themselves may be copyrighted, the data itself is publicly available. Furthermore, Schoenfeld says he's presenting the data in a format that's different from how the MTA presents it, specifically by building an iPhone app with the data, something the MTA hasn't done.
According to The Advocate, the MTA's issue is that any errors in Schoenfeld's app will result in complaints to the MTA instead of to Schoenfeld.
"The bigger concern is that he is not licensed by us, so we can't verify the information he is providing is correct," MTA spokesman Kevin Ortiz told the paper. "If people have problems with his information, they won't be calling him. They'll be calling us."
The story has been picked up by the New York Times and is sure to receive further attention as the question of whether such data is or can be copyrighted is debated. Perhaps the bigger issue here is that if a third-party is doing a public service, and doing it well, should a government agency even pursue a copyright infringement claim, even if it is warranted?
What do you think?
Leave a comment