The MTA has been very cautious with the information people take from their webpage. In 2006, a bagel store named “F-Train Bagels,” in Brooklyn, was threatened to be sued for using the MTA’s copyrighted “F” symbol even after the owners bought the rights. To avoid the change the bagel store began using signs like this: 
More recently and unlike other transit systems in the U.S. who have “embraced the ethos of open source,” the MTA has been tackling the problems with outside developer use of their intellectual property. The system timetables, maps and routes used in newly developed iphone applications and outside webpages has led to cease and disist orders and thousands of dollars in potential fines.
An article in the New York Times which can be viewed here, explains how these recent charges have been dropped. The New York Authority argues that, “it asks for fees only if developers use copyrighted material like the round symbols for subway routes.” 
(uh oh …)
Trimet, Oregon’s public transit, does not charge for the information on its webpage, nor does San Francisco, Washington or Boston.
The developers of these programs advocate ridership and provide public information. I do not feel they are mis-using any data and I found the whole thing (web developers and bagel store issues) crazy. To play devil’s advocate, I suppose the whole “potential market” idea could be argued, but c’mon really? This system gets so much money out of us already, the poor web developers are just trying to make it slightly more accessible.
I think the article is quite interesting and MTA’s worries seem unmerited.
While I try to be sympathetic with copyright owners’ viewpoints in protecting their CREATIVITY, in this case, MTA is literally concerned with protecting their copyright of the CIRCLE and letter symbol? That’s outrageous. It’s not as though the web or app developer is blatantly appropriating the design and trying to pass it off as something else. It seems as though the “public interest” argument here holds no merit and actually seems to prove that developers who use the MTA symbols DO serve a very real public interest (in when a train is coming, what schedule changes are, etc.). It is important to MTA, and really all IP enforces, to keep up with the changing times. Really what harm is there in having an iPhone or web app that provides your commuters information to use YOUR service more effectively? The developers aren’t taking away any business. And if MTA argues they have a potential market, then they may wanna get on that…since we’ve all been waiting for them to come out with a service like these apps for a very long time.
From the MTA Director of corporate and community affairs himself, Christopher P. Boylan says, “We don’t have a staff that sits around thinking about apps.” Good, because while I see the potential market, the app-business-stealing idea can be put away and others can actually make it happen.
But worrying about the logo? Hopstop.com still makes planning your route easier, while using circles and letters, and I see no harm; if anything, it encourages people to use the subway by simplifying it. Like Elizabeth is saying, the app would be for others to use the service more effectively. I would understand if the MTA just wanted to ensure the information was according to/representing their system accurately.
Wouldn’t this be an issue regarding trademark, not necessarily copyright? And if that’s the case, what is the stance on fair use when it comes to trademark law? Would it apply here? (doubtful)
In my most humble opinion, I say the MTA drops the price back down to $2.00 and stops complaining.
I think this is an interesting idea to look at especially in reference to applications on iPhones and the Internet. Interestingly enough, numerous venues such as Google provide ways to see the routes online. The New York Times’ article says that the MTA has provided its data to Google for no charge, but why is this information not accessible to other web developers? Other cities do not charge these web developers any charge of their public transportation information. But the MTA is trying to prevent the accessibility of information.
“I love that the subversive act of the 21st century in the subway is not graffiti, but mapping out the stations so you can know where to exit the car,” said Jonathan Zittrain, an expert in Internet law and a director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard, in the article.
Graffiti, which is something that lessens the potential value of the subway, is being compared to applications and programs that ultimately provide a better service as Elizabeth and Caroline point out. I know in the beginning of coming to NYC, Hopstop was my best friend for learning the different subway routes. As a result, I took the subway more and more, which is increasing the foot traffic in the subway. As long as the information is not portraying the MTA in a negative or unfair light, this information should be made available.
I think we’re all in agreement about how ridiculous it is (not to mention a complete waste of their time and resources) for the MTA to go after people who use/reproduce their symbols. And I find it laughable that their justifications for such actions is that “it needed to ensure that information provided to the public was accurate, and that it was concerned about protecting its copyrighted logos, maps and other trademarks,” when we all know that most of the apps were created to provide the public with more accurate and up to date information about the subway than the MTA does. I know I’m not the only person who has socks with the subway map printed on them and I can’t imagine it being a crime to wear them (don’t worry MTA, they’re accurate). It would kind of be great though if NYU get in trouble for those T-shirts that they sell in the bookstore that say “NYU” in subway letters…
This guy has no idea what he’s talking about. Some kid developing an app is going to have more at stake interms of accuracy than the transit entity itself??? Not likely. And what about long term reliability? Will these apps have staying power? Doubtful.
I had a bad hair cut, but in 2006, I went on public access in Brooklyn to talk about F-Line Bagels:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7049716738918892283#
Like Danny said, the bagel story is more of a trademark issue than anything else, but the MTA has since been raising copyright claims over their times, etc.
Essays like this are so imptornat to broadening people’s horizons.