Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Transportation Government News Your Rights Online

New York MTA Asserts Copyright Over Schedule 395

Posted by timothy
from the might-be-a-bargain-if-they-always-kept-the-schedule dept.
Presto Vivace writes "Greater Greater Washington reports that 'The New York Metropolitan Transit Authority's lawyers are going after a local blogger, and attempting to block an iPhone application showing Metro-North railroad schedules. The blog StationStops writes about Metro-North Commuter Railroad service north of New York City, and often criticizes its operations. Its creator, Chris Schoenfeld, also created an iPhone application to give Metro-North riders schedule information. Now the MTA is insisting he pay them to license the data, and at one point even accused the site of pretending to be an official MTA site.' I can't believe that this the MTA's actions are going to go over well with the public."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New York MTA Asserts Copyright Over Schedule

Comments Filter:
  • by Cutie Pi (588366) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @05:04PM (#29139117)

    There is significant precedent in copyright law that lists of facts or data cannot be copyrighted.

    See, e.g. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991)
    Link [findlaw.com]

    • by Jurily (900488) <[jurily] [at] [gmail.com]> on Thursday August 20, 2009 @05:09PM (#29139223)

      Not to mention stupid. It's their own best interest to make that information as widely available as possible.

      • by DutchSter (150891) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @05:24PM (#29139439)

        Not to mention stupid. It's their own best interest to make that information as widely available as possible.

        Not that I agree with what the MTA is doing, but I can see where they might be coming from, if for no other reason from an accuracy standpoint. I'm sure they wouldn't disagree that it is in their best interest to make the information as widely available as possible. However, you'll note that it says that Schoenfeld enters the data manually. What happens when he has a typo or transcribes a column wrong and borks an entire train? Customers get angry because they miss expected connections and blame MTA not Schoenfeld.

        Of course they've got other issues where they've supposedly got a deal with some vendor to provide some kind of mobile scheduling service, but I wonder most about the liability MTA could face if people rely on someone's home grown hobby and it goes bad. Sure in the end they'd come out OK, but there'd be lots of bad press and time spent cleaning up the mess.

        As one of the posters to the blog pointed out copyright law isn't the proper way to go about this objective. Sadly it's probably just the first thing that came to mind when Director Somensmuck called Legal and said "Johnson? We've got a problem. I want to know what you're going to do about it before you go home tonight."

        • I wonder most about the liability MTA could face if people rely on someone's home grown hobby and it goes bad.

          How about the liability anyone faces for 3rd-party actions not under their control (hint - there is none).

          A simple disclaimer would suffice - even one written in Engrish, like the "Do not iron clothes while wearing them" on irons.

          • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @08:44PM (#29141659) Journal

            Another reason these schedules are not copyrightable is because the MTA is owned by the NY government, and the NY government is owned/funded by the People, therefore the schedules belong to the citizens of New York State. They are free to copy the schedules as often as they desire, especially since they already paid for them via taxation.

            This is just yet another case of government forgetting why it exists - to serve us.

            All legitimate power flows from the bottom, up, and politicians which forget this need to be fired & replaced.

            • by badasscat (563442) <basscadet75@yahoo.STRAWcom minus berry> on Thursday August 20, 2009 @11:36PM (#29142831)

              Another reason these schedules are not copyrightable is because the MTA is owned by the NY government, and the NY government is owned/funded by the People, therefore the schedules belong to the citizens of New York State.

              Authorities are not "owned" by the NY government. This is one of the big issues with authorities in New York - they were invented precisely because they are independent of state government (they're designed as a workaround for various inconvenient state laws). The state has no direct control over the MTA or any other authority, and the authority's finances are intentionally kept separate. For all intents and purposes, authorities are simply very large non-profit organizations that have been granted broad powers by the state to provide public services, and have governing boards comprised of state and local officials, among others.

              Some authorities are actually completely financially independent; they're not subsidized at all. The MTA is not in that category, but it does make more of its own money than any other transit system in the world. Its subsidy is relatively small in percentage terms, and it is not direct government funding, like an agency. It's an agreement that needs to be negotiated and renewed every few years.

              I'm not disagreeing that this stuff can't be copyrighted, I'm just saying it's not for the reason you provided. There's no direct link between any NY authority and the taxpayer. There are indirect links, but it's not an unbroken chain between authority and taxpayer.

              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                Alright.

                Well since MTA is a regulated monopoly (like the phone and electric companies) one could argue that in exchange for being granted that monopoly by the State, they are obligated to provide schedules free of charge and without copyright. Else, their monopoly will be revoked, and the monopoly given to someone else to operate, like Conrail.

                This is the same argument used to force Comcast, Cox, and other cable monopolies to provide free CSPAN service. "Do as we tell you to do, or else you will lose your

          • Holy Hell! (Score:5, Insightful)

            by celtic_hackr (579828) on Friday August 21, 2009 @12:51AM (#29143263) Journal
            I hate PC comments like yours. It should not be anyone's responsibility to warn blazing fools not to put steaming hot coffee in their lap and try to drive, or not to iron clothes while wearing them, or that a jar of peanuts contains (wait for it) PEANUTS! Yeah that last one is a real warning message, pick a jar of peanuts and read it for your self. Anyone ignorant enough to not know that a jar of peanuts contains peanuts needs a lifetime treatment at the local electrical shock therapy center.
            I am so tired of this "label anything because someone might sue you for them being an idiot" fad. It should be an affirmative defense of anyone that you are not responsible for other people being too stupid to live. Maybe that was your point. I hope so.
            • obvious peanuthood (Score:3, Interesting)

              by epine (68316)

              Yeah that last one is a real warning message, pick a jar of peanuts and read it for your self. Anyone ignorant enough to not know that a jar of peanuts contains peanuts needs a lifetime treatment at the local electrical shock therapy center.

              There are so many things wrong with this sentiment, from an engineering perspective, I hardly know where to begin. This flies in the face of almost everything we've learned about software development in over the last thirty years. But I'm posting belatedly, so I won't belabour the point.

              1. common sense is not common
              2. use case blindness: not everyone is standing in a brightly lit retail store, carefully contemplating the interior contents of each individual bottle, with a full slate of ordinary human sens

        • Doesn't matter what press the MTA faces. There's no other way to get that many people all around NYC. Roads are congested as-is. Take away the biggest form of mass transit there, and everyone will run back because nobody can get anywhere.
        • by Jurily (900488) <[jurily] [at] [gmail.com]> on Thursday August 20, 2009 @05:47PM (#29139793)

          What happens when he has a typo or transcribes a column wrong and borks an entire train? Customers get angry because they miss expected connections and blame MTA not Schoenfeld.

          This is bullshit. When they arrive at the station and their train is not there, usually they'll ask someone working there or start to complain to someone working there, at which point they'll get informed about the facts of life.

          The problem is, a third party service is required to spread the information. In the UK, there are at least 10 different websites, where you can search, book and print anything you could possibly need (including a bus service or a taxi at the destination), and if you're on the move already, you can just send an SMS, and they'll text you back with the information you need.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by DutchSter (150891)

            This is bullshit. When they arrive at the station and their train is not there, usually they'll ask someone working there or start to complain to someone working there, at which point they'll get informed about the facts of life.

            You've obviously never been in a public facing position with an angry New Yorker who's Tom Tom is telling them to go down a road that's closed either. Why should they require their staff to put up with rude and aggressive asshats when the situation is caused by something totally ou

            • by Runaway1956 (1322357) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @08:40PM (#29141617) Homepage Journal

              Whiney pusses and crybabies. "Oh, I missed the train by a minute and a half, now I'll have to wait for FIFTEEN MINUTES for the next train!!"

              Oh boo hoo. He should have pulled his pecker out of - wherever - a few minutes earlier, so that he could have some TIME to catch the train. If his source of information was faulty, well, he had an opportunity to use another source. Why didn't he pick up a dead-tree version of the schedule last month? Finally, I'm forced to ask - who gives a damn if this inept dilrod is late for some stupid appointment, anyway? He's been riding trains most of his life, and hasn't figured out how things work yet? Screw him.

            • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @08:48PM (#29141705) Journal

              >>>Why should they require their staff to put up with rude and aggressive asshats

              Because that's what they are paid to do. Just the same as when I worked for JCPenney years ago, I was required to put-up with angry customers complaining about broken products, or late fees on credit cards, or whatever. It's called customer service, and you are expected to be patient with the customer, whether he's happy or angry.

            • by syousef (465911)

              You've obviously never been in a public facing position with an angry New Yorker who's Tom Tom is telling them to go down a road that's closed either. Why should they require their staff to put up with rude and aggressive asshats when the situation is caused by something totally out of their control?

              Because it's public transport, not a gentleman's carriage service. If the public are rude and aggressive enough, you call the police in.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by pjt33 (739471)

          I'm sure they wouldn't disagree that it is in their best interest to make the information as widely available as possible. However, you'll note that it says that Schoenfeld enters the data manually.

          There is a simple solution here, which I'm sure everyone on Slashdot has already spotted. OTOH paying a lawyer vast sums of money to sue people is easier than paying a programmer moderate sums to add a formatted text download to their website.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        I imagine they believe it's in their own best interest to create and sell an iPhone application themselves or (more likely) somehow get a cut from his.
        • by omnichad (1198475)

          get a cut from his? That's the same as saying they own the data. Maybe offer a paid API to get realtime updates to the schedule. If he wants to pay, then it makes his site a better one.

      • by richardkelleher (1184251) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @05:42PM (#29139723) Homepage
        They are afraid terrorists will get a hold of the schedule and to keep that from happening they are going to stealth the whole process. Buses and trains will now be randomized. Numbers and routes will change spontaneously. Sometimes trains will run on bus routes and buses on train routes. Every once in a while one (either a train or bus) will cross over to NJ, drive off in the pine barrens on its own and self destruct on the off chance it is carrying a terrorist. That will solve everything.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        I don't follow. Having the info available would increase ridership. How is that in the MTA's interest? Its going to make the trains run slower. How can you expect them to keep schedules if the blasted riders keep getting on and off.
    • by UncleFluffy (164860) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @05:18PM (#29139359)

      There is significant precedent in copyright law that lists of facts or data cannot be copyrighted.

      You're assuming that the schedule is a list of facts, as opposed to a work of fantasy. My experience with public transport in the US is that it's generally the latter.

    • Never say "never" (Score:2, Insightful)

      by jayme0227 (1558821)

      There is ample evidence on Slashdot, if you're not too lazy to look,* of armchair lawyers coming up with perfectly reasonable precedents that the courts seemingly refused to cite in their decisions. Just because the precedent is there and seemingly applicable doesn't mean the court will follow it.

      *I am

  • Disbarment (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @05:04PM (#29139119)

    The MTA lawyers ought to know that they're persecuting the blogger beyond what copyright law allows. They should be disbarred.

    • The MTA lawyers ought to know that they're persecuting the blogger beyond what copyright law allows. They should be disbarred.

      They should be disbarred only after paying all his legal fees as the prevailing party in the lawsuit.

    • Re:Disbarment (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 20, 2009 @05:22PM (#29139413)

      After being punted around by a lawyer over lots of BS, leading to the loss of my home, its clear to me the bar for disbarment is pretty high.

    • Re:Disbarment (Score:5, Insightful)

      by michaelhood (667393) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @05:41PM (#29139715)

      DNRTFA but there's no misconduct in sending what amounts to a cease & desist to someone. Anyone can do this, lawyer or not. A C&D is not a court action, it's just a scary looking letter on expensive paper.

      IANAL.

      • by omnichad (1198475)

        And it means your claim doesn't have to even be valid. Just scary enough.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Trepidity (597)

          There's some level of obvious invalidity past which it can become illegal, if it's coupled with monetary demands (doesn't seem to be the case here). If the sender of the C&D knew or should have known that the claim was frivolous, and demanded monetary settlement, at least one case [volokh.com] has held that to constitute criminal extortion.

          • Re:Disbarment (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Trepidity (597) <delirium-slashdot AT hackish DOT org> on Thursday August 20, 2009 @07:07PM (#29140783)

            (Replying to myself with a bit of historical trivia I remembered.)

            At the risk of a tangent, the ancient Greeks actually had a specific derogatory word for people who brought frivolous suits for the purpose of extorting settlements or intimidating their targets: that's what the word sycophant [amazon.com] originally meant (it now means something else, more like "yes-man" or "toady"). And there was a considerable debate at the time over how widespread the problem was, and what sorts of legal reform, sanctions, or prosecution of egregious offenders could do something about it.

  • by puppetman (131489) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @05:04PM (#29139131) Homepage

    try to stop someone from making their service more user-friendly?

    And the MTA should welcome constructive criticism - it's better than have your customers quietly leave.

    I guess being a created-by-legislature, public-benefit company, run by political appointees means that you don't actually have to server your customers.....

  • by Animaether (411575) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @05:04PM (#29139133) Journal

    I thought this was old news...
    http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/01/089229 [slashdot.org] ...but I guess that was maps, and this is schedules?

    Damn near the same situation, though, although I'd say the MTA stands less of a chance in this case (raw data) than in that case (if one could argue that the map design, layout, coloring, etc. makes it enough of a unique piece to be able to claim copyright... how -did- that case end anyway?)

  • Huh? (Score:3, Funny)

    by sheepweevil (1036936) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @05:05PM (#29139157) Homepage
    Oh no! Heaven forbid someone knows our train schedule so they can ride our trains! Wait...
    • No no no, it's they want people to PAY for those schedules in a future deal to be made.

      The MTA provides its schedules to Google Transit...

      Uh... okay nevermind about that.

  • not ideal but... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Tim4444 (1122173) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @05:07PM (#29139179)
    There is some precedence for preventing private distribution of public material. There was a company in Missouri a few years back charging a large fee to get a copy of freely available documents about your home. Since that was already illegal they got shut down. If it wasn't I suspect you'd end up with so many copy cats that it would eventually be difficult to find the actual government site.

    India has a similar problem with all sorts of fake government offices popping up trying to rip off tourists.
  • Why pay when paper ones are free?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Desler (1608317)
      Because it means there is less paper schedules that people just dump into the normal trash?
      • Well, that's not the only reason.

        NYC has more inhabitants than Copenhagen and the NYC metro area probably covers more ground than the greater Copenhagen area. As for the number of lines - I've no idea.

        Then Copenhagen bus lines alone are comprised of more than 250 different lines. I for one would not want to try and carry that around with me. Much easier to use a computer. And that's only part of Denmark. I've no clue how many different lines there are if you just cover Denmark.

        That's why we have Rejseplanen [rejseplanen.dk]

    • Because that represents more to carry/lose/forget?
      Because you don't always have the right paper ones for the route you are using?
      Because paper ones will eventually crumpled/torn/worn out?
      Because paper ones become outdated when names/numbers/routes change?
      Because paper ones make you figure out which operating schedule applies to the current date/time ?

      Their iPhone app would actually be much more useful if it was location-aware, and could tell you the nearest stops or station, but it doesn't seem to have that

  • WHO CARES? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Frosty Piss (770223) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @05:08PM (#29139201)

    I can't believe that this the MTA's actions are going to go over well with the public.

    Unfortunately, very very few people will ever know about this, and even fewer still will give a shit. The MTA lawyers know this, which isn't to say they care who knows.

  • by erroneus (253617) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @05:11PM (#29139259) Homepage

    You can't copyright "facts." There have been debates and legal wrangling over phone books, schedules and sports statistics over the past 20 years or more to my recollection and every time, the courts decided that "facts" cannot be copyrighted -- only the organization, layout and presentation of the facts can be. All these other things like the blogs and software apps are at the VERY LEAST "derivative works" if anything at all related to the ownership of the data offered up through their original "official" sources.

    And if facts ever become a form of intellectual property, you can pretty much kiss ALL human advancement goodbye. Imagine a world where facts and history are no longer available because some jackass corporation decided not to publish because it's not profitable enough.

    • Well, nature's just trying to invent better idiots. And some of them become lawyers.

  • by drDugan (219551) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @05:13PM (#29139277) Homepage

    << steps up >>

    There can be no rational discussion about copyright until people acknowledge
    that current copyright laws, created almost entirely to meet corporate interests,
    are completely out of whack with people's expectations and with any semblance of
    fairness or social good for individuals.

    The current norm is "Life + 70 years" with a comprehensive list here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries'_copyright_length [wikipedia.org]

    This means that *NOTHING* created by artists, musicians, or *ANY* of
    the culture created today will move into the public domain in your lifetime
    (expected lifetime) unless the people or companies who control the rights let
    you have access to it through licensing or sales. You will die first before
    the vast majority of today's' culture is available to you legally.

    That is absurd. It is not how the intellectual property system was ever
    intended to work.

    << / steps down off my soapbox >>

    • by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @05:28PM (#29139501)

      This means that *NOTHING* created by artists, musicians, or *ANY* of the culture created today will move into the public domain in your lifetime (expected lifetime) unless the people or companies who control the rights let you have access to it through licensing or sales.

      Time to start knocking off the creative element in our society so that we can get that 70 clock to start ticking.

    • by MarkvW (1037596)

      What it means to me is that talking motion pictures will never go into the public domain by passage of time in my lifetime. That really sucks.

    • Luckily, I live in a nation where copyright laws specifically only forbid for-profit unlicensed copying of works, and thus non-profit sharing of such works, whether over the torrent protocol, ftp or sneakernet, is strictly licit.

    • by westlake (615356) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @06:33PM (#29140381)

      You will die first before the vast majority of today's' culture is available to you legally

      There is damn little that isn't available legally.

      It's just that not everything is available for free.

      Entry into the public domain does not guarantee you access to the original - to the master prints or recordings.

      It doesn't give you access to unpublished drafts, storyboards, concept designs, deleted scenes, sets, props, costumes, etc.

      It does not guarantee funding for storage, restoration or distribution.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by tinkerghost (944862)

        There is damn little that isn't available legally.

        Hmm, off the top of my head:

        • Concert recordings - most concerts are recorded & the recordings are buried unless the tour company decides to make a tour album. Phish & The Greatful Dead being 2 exceptions since they both have publicly stated they want people to bootleg the concerts.
        • Music Recordings from the 20s through the 40s - most don't exist because the masters were thrown away when the music stopped being profitable.
        • Many of the original Dr Who
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 20, 2009 @05:15PM (#29139311)

    Since they never run on time, the schedules are clearly a work of fiction and therefore covered under copyright laws as such!

  • by SOdhner (1619761) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @05:15PM (#29139323) Homepage Journal

    The MTA told the Stamford Advocate that without a license, the iPhone application might provide inaccurate information. [...] Ironically, the MTA's proposed agreement refuses to provide reliable data updates.

    I never get tired of listening to the silly reasons people come up with when the *actual* reason is "We hear you're making money off of something. We aren't sure how, but we'd like to be making money off of it instead."

  • Creators of the application should refer to "MetroNorth" rail-road schedules something else like "Mighty North" rail road schedules then make the time for each station "off" by a minute or so.

    With this approach, authorities cannot legally come back to say creators are using their data without a license.

    How about that?

  • prior art exists (Score:3, Interesting)

    by swschrad (312009) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @05:20PM (#29139381) Homepage Journal

    london train schedules were copyrighted in the holmes days, too.

  • Referendum (Score:3, Interesting)

    by copponex (13876) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @05:23PM (#29139435) Homepage

    This is why we need the power to compel referendums for city or county wide issues, and make sure the heads of all departments can be kicked out at the next yearly election by direct democratic action.

    Get 1% of the population to sign a petition, get your spot on the ballot, and voila! Government officials miraculously stop acting like they own the place. I know they have some similar policies out West, but know of none in the East.

  • Jeopardy (Score:5, Funny)

    by HotNeedleOfInquiry (598897) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @05:30PM (#29139535)
    I'll take copyright for $200, Alex. Copyright is defined as "The legal right granted to an author, composer, playwright, publisher, or distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work" What is the MTA schedule? Sorry, that's incorrect.
  • Calling NYCL (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @05:30PM (#29139539)
    This sounds like a case for New York Country Lawyer - Defending the innocent and the oppressed against the ungodly weight of the CCI - Combined Copyright Interests! A force for good wherever he goes.
  • by amiga3D (567632) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @05:31PM (#29139561)
    To allow someone else to utilize this information diminishes the power of the New York MTA. It's really all about control. The more ignorant people are the better off the government and corporations are. Too bad most people choose to be ignorant.
  • by Hurricane78 (562437) <.gro.todhsals. .ta. .deteled.> on Thursday August 20, 2009 @05:32PM (#29139575)

    ...the MTA is owned by the people of New York, and therefore any copyright would mean, that they got the ultimate right... and could maybe even revoke the MTA's right to use it.

    Yay for a "free market". :/

    • [...] the people of New York [ ... ] could maybe even revoke the MTA's right to use it.

      That wouldn't make any difference -- the MTA already seems to ignore it completely!

  • by nurb432 (527695) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @05:36PM (#29139653) Homepage Journal

    Supported in part by public taxes. So, its public data.

  • by smellsofbikes (890263) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @05:42PM (#29139733) Journal
    So what if he increments every time listed in the schedule by 1 minute? Then it bears little resemblance to the original text but is still useful. The added plus is that in order to show that his schedule is based on their schedule, they have to violate the DMCA.
  • Unless their schedule specifies the seconds, they are infringing on my 1440 time of day copyrights and I simply can't let that stand. I'll be seeing them in court!
  • by lordsid (629982) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @06:07PM (#29140063)

    The metro north transit has a copyright on the schedule they produced, i.e. styling, layout but they cannot copyright the data within it. If he scrapes the data by hand entering or even an automatic reading of the page and produces a new schedule with it it is an original work.

    IANAL, but this my understanding of copyright law.

    I hope he can fight this, perhaps the EFF will step in on his behalf.

  • by pluther (647209) <pluther@@@usa...net> on Thursday August 20, 2009 @06:49PM (#29140551) Homepage
    For an example of how to do it right, take a look at my local transit system, TriMet.

    They publish their data in well-defined formats, including real-time location information for all buses and trains, free for anybody to use.

    Anyone is free to write their own applications using their data. TriMet maintains links to many of them [trimet.org] on their web site.

  • Public Service (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Mike Rice (626857) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @06:50PM (#29140571)

    The MTA is supposedly providing a public service in transporting people from one place to another.

    In order for that service to actually be useful, a published schedule is required.

    For that published schedule to be useful it must be Accurate, Timely, Accessible, Sufficient, and Understandable to the great majority of the public.

    If the MTAs published schedule met these minimum requirements, there would be no viable market for third party involvement.

    Since there obviously IS a third party market, it stands to reason that the MTA is not providing one or more of the requirements to be useful, to the public it is supposed to be serving.

    So a third party steps in to provide that service. It's the American way, and I say the MTA should spend more effort making sure their published information is actually useful to their customers.

  • by stevew (4845) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @07:17PM (#29140887) Journal

    Thought I would take a look at the local transit system and see if they had similar restrictions.

    http://www.bart.gov/siteinfo/copyright.aspx [bart.gov]

    Sure seems like it!

    "Copyright
      All content on the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) website (http://www.bart.gov) including the collection, arrangement, assembly and presentation of pages and all logos, maps, text, images, feeds and databases are the property of BART or its content suppliers and are protected by copyright laws.

    You may not use the BART logo, the BART map or any other content from the BART website without express written permission in advance from BART."

Never say you know a man until you have divided an inheritance with him.

Working...