I am going to go against the grain here a bit. While I do think it is dumb that publicly funded IP isn't shared under a creative commons permissive license, I do think the maps do look very similar.
I'm having a little trouble finding the link, but I read an interesting article sometime in the past few years (possibly after it was posted on HN) about the difficulty of designing good metro maps. Geographically accurate maps would be cluttered and confusing, so lots of thought has to go into how geography is manipulated to make an understandable and visually pleasing design. The work that goes I to this is copyrightable, and I do think the two maps share a lot of these elements. Yes the independent map was worked on for 300 hours, but adding up all of the changes over the years probably amounts to thousands of hours to generate the original map.
Again I don't necessarily think this is a good use of government funds or time, but I don't believe the copyright claim is compeletely invalid.
I have to pick a nit here. In terms of copyright, effort matters only in a very specific way. Generally, only artifacts matter. The map is a thing. The creator of the map holds copyright.
Copyright is also very specific. It is literally the right to make copies. This becomes important when we talk about things like clean room design for reverse engineering. The wikipedia article gives a good summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design
Independent invention is a valid defense in copyright claims. If you can show that two similar artifacts, e.g. a piece of bootloader code or a map, derive from independent work, then there is no violation of copyright, because no copy has been made.
The effort matters only insofar as its independence.
This stands in contrast to a patent which specifically protects an idea and its application.
Agree on most points here, but the article I think does some damage to any claim to "clean room" approach. He saw the one map and thought he could improve it. The map is all there is, there isn't a secret underlying implementation that can be ignored to accomplish similar goals and dutifully respect IP right be not de-compiling or otherwise reverse engineering. Copyright law definitely is a complicated topic, and I don't think there is a brightline I can point to, but being derived from something else I certain instances is a copyright violation. For written works, using the likeness of copyrighted characters in totally different storylines and universes is a violation of copyright.
I should have read more carefully, I didn't realize that the map he was frustrated with wasn't the one shown on the article. I do then agree that it looks like they are claiming copyright after copying his work which is definitely BS.
Copyright is about exclusive right to copy a work of art from some creative effort. Copyright is implicit upon creation of a work of art.
Patent is about means and ends. Process applied to achieve outcome. Patents must be approved by some authority.
Trademark is "recognizable sign, design, or expression which identifies products or services of a particular source from those of others" (from wikipedia [0]). A trademark may optionally be registered, but need not be (the difference between (tm) and (r)). Registered trademarks are governed by some authority in a given jurisdiction.
Copyrights and patents can expire. The property right need not be exercised to be maintained.
Trademarks can be maintained in perpetuity, but must be exercised, or else they may be lost.
Facts cannot have any copyright. Nor ideas. Only the creative expression of these can have copyright.
Ideas + specific process and application may receive a patent.
A clean room design for a map would include only geographic facts, but no creative representation of these. Similarly a clean room design of a piece of software would include only requirements, but no implementation details. A clean room design is not necessary to prove lack of copyright infringement. It is a strong defense against an accusation.
Derivative works are typically protected under copyright law. For a derivative work to not be an infringement of copyright, it must be itself a substantial creative effort. You'll notice that creativity is a significant part of copyright.
The application of creativity to create a new work means that there is a new creator with a new copyright. Definitionally, a derivative work is not copyright infringement. Failing to prove (in the face of an infringement claim) that something is a new, derivative work means that copyright infringement has occurred.
Characters may be subject to both copyright and trademark protections. For example, Mickey Mouse is trademarked by Disney.
There are several legal tests applied to characters when it comes to copyright. Simply, the character themselves must be important in the copyrighted work and be a creative element themselves. "Extras" cannot be protected by copyright - i.e. a villager with a pitchfork is not protected by copyright. A character who happens to be a villager, with distinctive characteristics that delineate them from other individuals and make them recognizable, and around whom the story revolves (and perhaps in the story, this person carries a pitchfork) may be protected by copyright.
I cannot put Harry Potter or his significant likeness into a new work. I cannot publish a 7-part series following the exploits of "chosen one" Gary Rotter in the school of Pigpimples School of Magic and Sorcery as he fights against the rise of "He Whose Name Cannot Be Spoken", and so on.
The name "Harry Potter" is likely trademarked. Assuming it is not, I certainly can tell a story about an old man named Harry Potter if my story is significantly different than J.K. Rowling's series.
This sort of thing is why satirical works are typically not copyright infringement.
Decompiling a program would be a copyright infringement, because there is no creativity there. It is a rote reproduction, specifically the thing that copyright says you cannot do.
> Again I don't necessarily think this is a good use of government funds or time, but I don't believe the copyright claim is compeletely invalid.
Maybe you missed this line from the article:
> 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.
Of course they have to look similar, same as pictures taken by two different people of the same object will look similar. The representation of the routes is totally different (ignoring that they are colored lines).
"Looking very similar" isn't sufficient for a claim of copyright infringement. It can be suggestive of it, and used as support for an element of it, but it's certainly not sufficient on its own.
I'm having a little trouble finding the link, but I read an interesting article sometime in the past few years (possibly after it was posted on HN) about the difficulty of designing good metro maps. Geographically accurate maps would be cluttered and confusing, so lots of thought has to go into how geography is manipulated to make an understandable and visually pleasing design. The work that goes I to this is copyrightable, and I do think the two maps share a lot of these elements. Yes the independent map was worked on for 300 hours, but adding up all of the changes over the years probably amounts to thousands of hours to generate the original map.
Again I don't necessarily think this is a good use of government funds or time, but I don't believe the copyright claim is compeletely invalid.