Well, you've got the London Tube Map. Fine piece of work. Invaluable if one is finding one's way around the London Underground. Have a look at the Wikipedia article on the Tube map for more details.
Then you've got a few people taking said map, and making altered versions of it. Celebrity names instead of stations. Anagrams of station names. Geographical accuracy. That sort of thing.
Transport for London (hereafter TfL), who are a functional body of the Greater London Authority, own the copyright on the tube map. They don't always take kindly to people making altered versions of the map: see this report from Boing Boing on their actions against an anagram tube map. They had a similar reaction to a chap called Geoff, who collated a bunch of altered tube maps in one place.
You can read about Geoff's experience at his site - in a nutshell, their solicitors asked him to take the links to the maps down, and he did.
pauldwaite.co.uk is now jumping into the fray half-cocked, and mirroring Geoff's links to the maps. I can't pretend to know anything about copyright law, but I am decidedly uneasy about marketers and brand consultants doing their damnedest to get their images and messages into our culture as widely as possible, and then objecting when we start engaging with them. It's a bit like writing a song and tutting when someone hums it.
I'm even more uneasy about organisations reaching for the lawyers whenever they want to control something (it'll be interesting to see if the London Olympics 2012 web site gets a hyperlink policy like Athens did). Law is pretty opaque even to those of us with law degrees, and it usually takes some non-trivial cash to get legal advice. From what I (as a very ill-informed layman) can gather, the legal basis of TfL's objections are hardly cast-iron, but in the absence of funds to take this to court, the organisations with money get what they want. Justice may be blind, but she sure knows what cash sounds like. Chaps like Geoff are essentially reduced to the status of nuts under the sledgehammer.
And there's the real rub. Geoff holds the record for travelling to all London Underground tube stops in the shortest time. He has two sections on his web site* dedicated to the tube. I suspect that he, like I, travel on it regularly, thus contributing to the 48% of TfL revenues which come from tube fares (source: TfL Annual Report 2004-2005.). I guess we're also both London council tax payers, thus funding the Greater London Authority, of which TfL is a functional body. I like the tube, and I like Transport for London (particularly their genius online London journey planner). I'd like to think they wouldn't make legal threats to private individuals without a pretty good reason, and I'm not convinced there is one.
*As I re-read this page to link up some of Geoff's tube record attempts, I notice they're now removed from his site as well. I don't blame him.
Anyhooo! Enjoy the maps. I sure did, although I wonder how Geoff feels about it all.
On 22nd February, I sent the following message to Transport for London via their web site:
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/02/22/transport_for_london.html Care to explain why?
I received a very nice reply, explaining TfL's reasons for not alllowing the publishing of altered versions of the tube map. As the rest of this page probably makes clear, I don't agree with their decision, but below are their reasons quoted from the e-mail I received.
In general, we do not allow the Tube map to be published with changes to the official version. There are several reasons for this:
It is a working map designed to help passengers navigate around the Tube system and we do not want people to be confused by multiple versions.
If we allow multiple versions to exist, it weakens TfL's legal claim to the map being TfL property.
The map is a design classic and worldwide icon for the Tube and London. It is an excellent example of London Underground's famous design heritage which is still useful and relevant today. As such, TfL has a duty to protect it and ensure it is used in a respectful manner.
However, very occasionally, we will grant permission to publish an altered version but various factors are considered before granting permission. These include whether or not the altered version causes any damage to the TfL brand - ie: whether it contradicts any TfL policies; whether it causes offence to our passengers; whether is it for a good cause.
(I should point out that the e-mail described itself as “confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed”
. So, I assume I'm fine publishing it here, as it's for my use, but bear in mind that TfL may not have envisaged this use. In addition, they “exclude any warranty and any liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached transmitted files.”
So there you go.)
