Live London Underground / bus maps taken down by TfL trademark complaint
91 comments
·January 13, 2025andiareso
I don’t see the issue. You were using the TfL schematic map which is very much a form of art. I don’t think it’s unreasonable that they asked you to take that specific map down or continue with a license.
To remove the whole site because of that seems petty.
It was clearly stated in their api documentation. It’s no different than getting a license or usage rights for hosting an image or video on your site. Just because you are a hobbyist doesn’t mean you don’t have to follow the rules.
This is coming from someone who is extremely pro fair-use and right to ownership.
darrenf
> To remove the whole site because of that seems petty.
How have they removed the whole site? It literally says "My traintimes.org.uk is still there." at the bottom of the page. Looks like only the maps have been removed.
(Edited to add: I'm a long time traintimes.org.uk user who never even realised they had maps on the site, so consequently I am happy the whole site has not been taken down)
rossng
They could have easily offered a free license to use the trademark. This project wasn't harming them in the slightest. Demanding the map's removal and implying that he will have to pay to put it back up shows a lack of empathy.
crazygringo
No, trademarks are genuinely important because they allow consumers to distinguish between official things that an organization stands behind, versus hobbyist projects, imitators, etc.
But all the creator had to do was to remove logos and possibly change the name so there would be no confusion around whether this was an official project or not.
And it seems like the geographic map was fine, only the schematic map would have been an issue because its design is presumably specifically copyrighted and yes you would have to license that just like any other map.
The letters he received may have been heavy-handed but there's nothing wrong with the general principle of it.
anigbrowl
The point is that trademark holders could start by reaching out and asking nicely instead of being assholes about it.
mr_toad
The TfL trademarks are all over Apple Maps. The map itself would be covered by copyright, not trademark.
It would seem that nobody bothered to run the notice past a lawyer.
rozab
This is particularly galling because TfL never credited or compensated the designer of the map, Harry Beck, until long after his death.
orra
> You were using the TfL schematic map which is very much a form of art
The site was taken down by a trademark complaint, not a copyright complaint.
dcrazy
Trademarks apply to artistic works that identify an entity. See the TFL roundel.
tuukkah
You can use a logo to refer to the entity in question. Is it not fair use if you refer to a subway station using the subway station logo?
null
samwillis
It should be easy for a human at TfL to make an assessment on something like this, see the autistic and technical value, and offer a free but heavily restricted license to the developer.
But is suppose many organisations just don't give people the autonomy and authority to do such tings.
VoidWhisperer
For that specific map, based on what the email he got sent from TfL said, I don't think they directly have permission to issue that license - their site says people have to go through the partner who produced the schematic art to get a license
tankenmate
Except the schematic art is covered by copyright, not trademark.
tuukkah
If TfL hasn't bought the full rights to their map layouts, the shame is on them.
jrochkind1
autistic value? Trains? I see what you did there?
samwillis
s/autistic/artistic
I violated my own rule of always re-reading a post 5 min after posting it...
polotics
there is such a gap between hobbyist developers that do things for fun if and only if it stays fun, and consumers who will qualify as petty the reasonable decisions to pursue some other one of the very many other things-to-do-for-free that could be more fun.
don't you think?
rad_gruchalski
To own the trademark and defend it means having to proactively find and fight violations. So, nope.
How is the trademark holder supposed to know who they are dealing with? Because they said so? Well, in that case I know a Nigerian prince who would like to send you some money…
andiareso
This is the thing. Most people don't know that in order to keep your brand, you have to continually use it and defend it.
In a similar vein, the lawyers of the popular "hook and loop fasteners" Velcro constantly try and defend their IP so it doesn't become generic.
ForHackernews
This is like claiming you need to license the Mercator projection.
The TFL tube map is almost 100 years old[0] and while we can argue if industrial design is "art" the main point of the tube map is utilitarian - to help people navigate the underground.
[0] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00087041.2021.1...
d1sxeyes
So copyright should only apply to stuff that’s not useful?
Whatever the term of copyright should be, there’s no doubt that it was a significant endeavour to create it, and it creatively expresses the topography of London.
Your analogy doesn’t work very well I’m afraid. The Mercator projection is 500 years old, and generally speaking, you can only copyright specific works, not processes. If you want to protect a process from being used by others commercially, you need a patent, and generally patents are not as long lived as copyright.
mmastrac
No, but it's far more likely that fair use applies to something that is more _useful_ than _creative_, ie: maps and dictionaries.
Regardless of how much effort a copyrighted work to produce, most Western countries have a fair-use equivalent to transformative use of a work: https://lawdit.co.uk/readingroom/intellectual-property-law-g....
ForHackernews
Copyright exists to incentivize creators to make more art.
In the case of "utility" works like maps, charts, diagrams, there is already ample motivation to create them – people want to be able to navigate, scientists want others to understand their data, etc.
lexicality
The first email asking to remove a single map from a sub-feature of the website is very reasonable.
The second email sent an hour later requesting the hosting provider immediately suspend the entire domain was not.
mmastrac
This licensing page appears to be a new addition to TfL, which probably suggests some bureaucrat negotiated a deal with a creative agency to license the tube map for pennies on the dollar, resulting in them sending out these notices.
https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/business-and-advertisers/map-lic...
Amusingly the notice was sent with references to USA trademark law.
I am not sure how it works with regional governments, but copyright information for government-produced works tends to live as a "crown copyright" in the UK and former colonies.
precommunicator
I don't think this scheme is a recent addition, I've seen it years ago
mmastrac
I wasn't able to locate a previous scrape of it on archive.org.
harry_beck
It's a sad irony that TFL didn't even want this version of the map originally, and it was given to them, and maintained for free (I think) by a map enthusiast like the author of this version
I think Harry Beck would think history was repeating itself
helsinkiandrew
To be fair they explicitly state don't use their branding in the API documentation. They made £200K in 2024 from licensing - I think about a millionth of a penny per journey
https://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-advertising-annual-report-202...
BonoboIO
200k?
That seems very little to be honest. Who is licensing what from the London Metro?
lostlogin
I’m m wondering if it’s people putting the tube map on things. There is an application form and guidelines.
https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/business-and-advertisers/contact...
qeternity
If that is indeed the actual number, it most certainly has deeply negative ROI.
There is no way they are running a licensing department for under £200kpa.
bloqs
This STINKS of 'new person in the job with no personal connection or background to certain relationships, and crucially, allowances, established by the previous person, wants to test/establish their power in new role and is looking for easy ways to do it'
shermantanktop
The Dolores Umbridge Effect
null
davidhyde
It’s CRITAAS proliferation. Copyright infringement takedown as a service. It only feels unfair because right now it’s asymmetric. Wait until there is an automatic SAAS to counter balance it and let the bots duel it out whilst laws eventually catch up.
soco
In case you ever wondered how can some people be against trademarks and copyrights in general.
AndrewOMartin
Itch.io was taken down recently be an over-zealous AI-based service to detect trademark infringement and notify the authority, I wonder if this is a similar case. It'd be nice to know if someone in TFL actually requested this, or if it's a case of fanatical legal enforcement as a service.
lou1306
This is a perfectly legit application of copyright law/brand protection, and I'm no fan of either. The Tube map is copyrighted work that requires a license to be used, even on a free service. The fellow should have stuck to normal OSM overlays, and none of this would have happened.
What is controversial about this?
ForHackernews
If they want to control who uses the roundel logo, so be it, but I think it's absurd that copyright applies to the tube map itself.
In the United States, government works like this would be public domain.
lou1306
The map is a work of design in its own right, it is not a mere geographical representation. Also, while it would be nice if government work were public domain in the UK as it is in the US, that is sadly not the case, and we have to deal with it.
Dylan16807
It's extremely simple. The Tube map shouldn't be a copyrighted work that requires a license to be used.
You're judging the copyright enforcement action by itself in a void, but it's not in a void.
Except it's actually trademark? It's ridiculous to apply trademark law here. No consumer confusion is happening.
lou1306
> The Tube map shouldn't be a copyrighted work
Why not? Mind you I'm not saying any tube map, but the official TfL one.
mikelward
I would complain to TfL, but their complaints form is broken
> Sorry, something's gone wrong We have a technical problem right now. One of the following options might help you:
switch007
Just want to say how much I appreciate traintimes.org.uk
It's perfect
Compare to National Rail that has a pointless loading page, uses the entire initial viewport to show anything but the train times, and search is weirdly stateful. Just terrible all round
Thanks Matthew
mhandley
TFL has obviously been aware of his use for 15 years, as the website was widely publicised in 2010. They have not taken any action to defend any trademarks they think he violates in all that time. IANAL, but I would have thought that if he wanted, he probably has a good case to invalidate those trademarks on the grounds that by not defending them for so long, they have become generic. But in the end, it's probably not a good use of his time and money to fight them on this.
alvis
Many years back, it was a thing that TfL actively encouraged developers to use their data, and I was lucky to be a winner of a notional campaign thanks to that.
But now, the headwinds apparently have changed. Sad :(
helsinkiandrew
> Many years back, it was a thing that TfL actively encouraged developers to use their data
They still do but not the branding:
"Use our data - not our brand" https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/open-data-users/design-and-brand...
tuukkah
However, the map layout is data, not branding. If your service has to alter the layout, it's more confusing to the passengers who TfL should be thinking about.
NoboruWataya
It has a very unique look and feel, and I'm not sure it is "just" data given that the location of stations on the tube map doesn't actually correspond to their geographic locations within London. I do think it is capable of forming part of the TfL brand, though by now it feels quite generic to me.
Regardless of whether the map is capable of being protected by IP law (TfL certainly seem to think it is), this just feels stingy and pointless on TfL's part. They are a public service after all, and these maps arguably furthered their public mission. Given how popular the map is I would much prefer they published it under a licence allowing free non-commercial use with attribution (including a statement that the user is not affiliated with TfL).
The email TfL sent [1] to traintimes.org.uk ISP looks like a catch-all sent in haste. For example, it doesn't even mention the map. Instead, it invokes trademark registration numbers but these resolve [2] to LONDON UNDERGROUND and UNDERGROUND wordmarks and the roundel, none of them covering the map geometry as far as I can tell. It alleges a violation under Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act [3] but the act only applies to domains - and TfL never claims "traintimes" to be an infringing domain name (certainly doesn't look so under the marks cited). And, as a sibling comment points out, the act is a U.S. law but the site appears to be hosted in the U.K.
If you think you have a case about the map, why not state it explicitly? The cynical answer is that ISPs have incentives not to care so making a case doesn't matter but ...
[1] https://traintimes.org.uk/map/tube/email2.txt [2] One can look them up in https://www.tmdn.org/tmview [3] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1125