If the artist gleaned facts from the official MTA map, and re-represented them on his own map, that does not make his a derivative work, even if the facts came solely from the map. The facts also could have come from riding every line and noting the station names and locations.
It's like copying a phone book. You can take numbers from AT&T's customer directory and put them in your own phone book, because that's all facts. There's no creative representation there. If the phone book represented the numbers in hand-drawn calligraphy, that visual representation would be protected, but not the factual content; you could still copy the names and numbers and re-render them in your own typeface.
Fair use doesn't even come into it. Naked facts are non-copyrightable. They have no protections whatsoever. Facts are public domain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R....
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Feist_Publications_v._Rural_T...
In this case I think the MTA is still wrong though, just not for this reason.
The visualization rules for "transit map" are more open to interpretation than for "pie chart", but if you look at the maps for London, Paris, Shanghai, Washington DC, Chicago, etc., they are almost self-evident:
1. Represent major stations as white circles with black outlines.
2. Represent service lines with easily distinguishable colors.
3. Constrain lines to angles divisible by 45 degrees (Paris divisible by 30 degrees).
4. Represent non-standard service with a dashed, dotted, or broken line.
5. Stations that are connected by pedestrian access are connected on the map. Minor stations, without service interchanges, may be represented by a smaller white dot or a tick mark.
Apply the rules to the facts, and the map appears. Some human tweaking may be necessary for clarity, and that is the only opportunity for copyrightable creativity to creep in.
MTA would need to assert a particular map feature that cannot be derived from applying transit map rules to the MTA transit facts. They did not.
A map isn't "naked facts", maps can certainly be copyright protected.
"Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, an adaptation of that work."
EDIT:
[1] https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html [2] https://foundrylawgroup.com/copyright-copywrong-what-are-der...
To clarify my sibling response here, I'm acknowledging that statement was wrong. However, to say that _derivative_ works are "not at all" protected by Fair Use isn't entirely accurate either, as they absolutely can be depending on the the judgement and application of the four-point doctrine of Fair Use. The parent comment here cites part of the copyright law, but Fair Use, which I cited, is a core component of the same copyright law that limits the application of the section they cited.
> Lester Freundlich, an attorney for the MTA, told Berman in an email Wednesday that his subway map was “clearly a derivative work of MTA’s current version of the Vignelli subway map.”
The MTA's attorney literally calls his map a "derivative work" which is something that's protected by Fair Use. When I read that in the article, I immediately thought that the artist's response should have been, "Thanks for clarifying that it's clearly a derivative work; so you'll drop the claim now?"
EDIT: For anyone reading this without additional context, I should clarify, derivative works are protected as long as they're transformative, which this seems pretty clearly enough so to count. So, it's less a point that being a derivative work itself means it's protected, than the point that being a derivative work doesn't mean it's not protected like the MTA's attorney seemed to imply.
That said, I wouldn't even call what I was looking at derivative. I can barely match the transit lines up for most of it, and the styling is completely different. It goes beyond transformative to just being a unique artistic rendering of the same base system. That's the phone book scenario the article raises to a T.
I was definitely being imprecise with my wording though, as I was thinking about a _transformative_ work when I read their attorney say "derivative" work, where a transformative work is a type of derivative work that is protected by [subjective] Fair Use.
I also agree with you though that I wouldn't even necessarily consider this a transformative work of the other map, as that assumes he started with the other map. But just starting with the same facts, which aren't copyrightable, and following standard cartographic conventions while exercising the author's own artistic expression into the final rendition would just be a separate work entirely.
Ex: I write and produce a new SW film, and attempt to sell it without a license from Disney. I'm going to get sued into oblivion, because their copyright still applies, in terms of setting up the setting and characters.
Fair use can apply with derivative works (ex: I make a parody version of Star Wars, such as "Troops"), in which case you may succeed in being able to do stuff with your new SW parody, but you're likely to have to pay a bunch of lawyers a lot of money first if they don't like it. But being derivative doesn't guarantee it's Fair Use.
>“Yes, there are minor differences between your map and the MTA map,” Freundlich wrote in his email. “But given your access to the MTA map on the MTA website, and the substantial similarities of your map to the MTA map, the only rational conclusion is that your map is based on the MTA Vignelli map.”
MTA acknowledges the artist map is based on the MTA map and acknowledges differences no matter how minor.