National Academies Press: OpenBook

Legal Arrangements for Use and Control of Real-Time Data (2011)

Chapter: Chapter 5: CONTRACTUAL ISSUES AND THE PROTECTION OF REAL-TIME DATA

« Previous: IV. WHETHER A TRANSIT AGENCY HAS PROPRIETARY RIGHTS IN REAL-TIME DATA

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

21 However, transit agencies may choose to make competition among developers over who can serve BART information available with little restriction and without customers "best" on these platforms (e.g. there are four charging for it. The Bay Area Rapid Transit's (BART) BART apps on iPhone alone). This sort of competition is response to the survey was that BART "share[s] real-time extremely beneficial for customers. data in an XML feed format (http://www.bart.gov/dev/eta There are BART apps for Facebook and Twitter (see /barteta.xml) along with documentation (http://www.bart. http://bart.gov/apps), which supplement BART's existing gov/schedules/developers/etas/aspx)." BART's response presence in these social channels. stated also that "[s]ince BART has been sharing data There are BART real-time ETA displays in cafes, build- with others for so long...it always seemed antithetical ings, and shopping malls that use our open-data services to begin charging for it." With respect to developers (See http://bart.gov/display). BART did not fund the capi- wanting to use BART's data, BART's Web site states: tal, maintenance, or operation costs for these displays, Developers please note: If you want more than just ETAs, which essentially advertise BART services for free. check out The Real BART API. It has service advisories, In sum, based on the National Basketball Associa- complete BART trip plans, station information and more. tion and Morris cases, as well as the NYMEX case, it For quick and easy real-time ETAs, use our simple-to- does not appear that real-time data are copyrightable, parse XML feed and crank out your killer app with the because, inter alia, facts such as real-time data are not same real-time data we use on the BART website, hot off subject to copyright protection. Nevertheless, real-time the griddle from BART Central. Here's what you need to data come within the subject matter of copyright, mean- know: ing that causes of action that otherwise could be used to Getting a validation key protect real-time data may be preempted. Second, how- ever, as between private parties, a contract or license Psyche: you don't need one. We're opting for "open" with- may restrict access to or the use of the real-time data out a lot of strings attached. Just follow our simple Li- until it becomes part of the public domain. Further- cense Agreement, give our customers good information more, the weight of authority appears to be that a tran- and don't hog resources. If that doesn't work for you, we can manage usage with keys and write more terms and sit agency may protect its real-time data by contract conditions. But who wants that? and that Section 301 of the Copyright Act does not pre- empt a state court's enforcement of such a private right Keep your work up to date or restriction on access to or use of the data. In addition This feed is a work in progress. When we change some- to contracts, such as licenses and terms-of-use agree- thing, we'll try to give you plenty of notice through the ments, even if real-time data are not copyrightable, RSS feed and the opt-in email list and the BART Devel- there may be copyright-like controls to limit access to opers Google Group. and use of real-time data. As discussed in Section VII, infra, however, a government-owned transit agency Don't use the BART logo may be required to produce its data in response to a Only we get to use official BART trademarks and copy- FOIA or FOIL request. Finally, however, some transit righted works to let customers know when they're getting agencies may choose to make real-time data available info directly from BART versus someplace else. with little restriction and without charge. Don't forget about us Guidance Number 11 Give us a shout out or a link back in your app, then drop Based on current case law, as long as real-time data us a line to make a suggestion for the App Center. have not entered the public domain, a transit agency About the Feed has a proprietary interest in its data. A transit agency has the right to license or sell its real-time data. A tran- The BART Real Time ETA Feed is an XML data file with a root element that encompasses elements holding the sit agency's restriction of access to and use of its real- station name, the station abbreviation, the date and time time data is a reasonable safeguard against would be and a series of ETA elements. Each ETA element con- free-riders or other unauthorized users. Access to real- tains a destination and an estimate showing up to the time data, for example, via a Web site, may be re- next three trains arriving at the specified station with the stricted by a transit agency's terms-of-use agreement 261 Given destination. The file is updated every 60 seconds. for its Web site. BART's response to the survey stated also that open data initiatives have allowed BART to reach more V. CONTRACTUAL ISSUES AND THE PROTECTION customers in more places than otherwise would be possi- OF REAL-TIME DATA ble: There are dozens of mobile apps, free and fee, for An- A. Use of Contracts, Licenses, and End-User droid, BlackBerry, iPhone, J2ME, and other mobile plat- Agreements forms (see http://bart.gov/apps). In fact, there is literally A transit agency may impose restrictions on access to and the use and dissemination of its data by a terms- 261 Available at http://www.bart.gov/schedules/developers/ of-use, end-user license or other agreement. In respond- etas.aspx, last accessed on May 6, 2010. ing to the survey, several transit agencies reported that

22 they would rely on contractual provisions to protect data feed called the Level 1/Last Sale feed" for which real-time data. Indeed, a "contract is the chief, and "[m]arket professionals...pay $20.00 per month for sometimes the only, means of the protection" of such unlimited access to real-time (less than fifteen-minute data.262 It may be noted that the license agreement, for delayed) data. Non-professionals are charged just $4.00 example, used by the Regional Transportation District, per month for the same information. Professional and Denver, Colorado, contains a provision referring to non-professional users who can wait fifteen minutes or copyright. Paragraph 9 states, more for the information receive it free of charge."267 The Data and all content of this website is the property of According to one authority, "the Nasdaq Subscriber RTD or its content suppliers, and is protected by United Agreement generally prohibits retransmission of the States and international copyright laws. The compilation real-time data."268 of the Data on this website is the exclusive property of Nasdaq does permit numerous entities to freely redis- RTD, and is likewise protected by US and international seminate its data, but it does so under a different contrac- 263 copyright laws. tual structure--a vendor agreement. Under this agree- It appears that Google relies on licensing restric- ment, a vendor is given the authority to redisseminate tions, not copyright, as its primary means of controlling data, as long as it agrees to obtain the Subscriber Agree- the use of information.264 ment from its customers, and report and bill the number A licensing agreement may prohibit a licensee­user of customers it services to Nasdaq. In this way, Nasdaq is able to facilitate broad dissemination of its real-time data from extracting data for uses other than those intended 269 worldwide while guarding its vital revenue stream. by the transit agency, such as making the data avail- able to third parties or using the data in a manner not As noted, several agencies responding to the survey sanctioned by a transit agency. Nevertheless, as dis- stated that they would rely primarily on their contracts cussed in subsection B, infra, there may be an issue to protect real-time data. An example of a contractual whether a provision in a licensing agreement seeking to clause protecting a transit agency's real-time data is the protect real-time data, even if noncopyrightable, from one appearing in the August 2009 agreement between unauthorized copying and use is preempted by the the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency copyright laws. (SFMTA) and NextBus: In addition to the example of the PGA Tour's use of 1.33. Ownership of Data. The City recognizes that the an agreement in Morris Communications Corporation v. AVLS and related software provided by Contractor under PGA Tour, Inc,265 an example of an entity taking meas- the AVLS Contract are proprietary systems to which the ures to protect its real-time data is the stock market City's interest is limited to the license provisions set out in this Maintenance Agreement and in the AVLS Con- exchange known as the Nasdaq.266 Nasdaq Stock Mar- tract. Notwithstanding any understandings or agreements ket, Inc.'s, up-to-date quotations and information on created prior to this Maintenance Agreement to the con- stock trades "are packaged by Nasdaq into a broadcast trary, however, all data generated, transmitted, distrib- uted, manipulated, compiled, stored, archived, or reported 262 Wolfson, supra note 7, at 84. by the AVLS concerning SFMTA vehicles and operations, 263 Available at: http://www.rtd-denver.com/License_Agreement/ including but not limited to data concerning vehicle loca- License_Agreement.pdf, last accessed on June 30, 2010. tion, predicted arrival times, route and stop configuration Paragraph 4 in the license agreement provides that "RTD and historic AVLS data is the property of the SFMTA trademarks and copyrighted materials, including any without reservation of rights or other restriction of any confusingly similar variants, may not be used in association kind. AVLS data concerning the location of SFMTA vehi- with [the] Data." For links to other license agreements used by cles in real time and predicted arrival times are records transit agencies, see Google Transit, "Public Feeds, List of that the City may make available to the public through Publicly Accessible Transit Data Feeds," available at: passenger information display signs, data feeds (includ- http://code.google.com/p/googletransitdatafeed/wiki/PublicFeeds, ing but not limited to XML data feeds), internet web last accessed on June 30, 2010. pages and weblinks, information kiosks, public informa- 264 The copyrights Google holds in relation to Google Maps tion systems, PDA and cell phone applications, electronic consist of the images, the symbols and legends used, and other messaging, and other technologies that may be utilized to works of authorship related to their mapping service. Although inform persons wishing to access, process, or archive in- Google has a copyright in its photos and maps, Google, Inc., formation concerning public transit in San Francisco. apparently has registered only two copyrights with the Copy- Contractor may retain and use copies of SFMTA AVLS right Office. One of the copyrights is for a documentary movie data for reference and as documentation of its experience 270 Google produced on polio eradication, and the other is a soft- and capabilities. (emphasis supplied) ware program named InCircle. 265 235 F. Supp. 2d 1269, 1327 (M.D. Fla. 2002), aff'd, 364 267 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2004) (stating that access was conditioned Wolfson, supra note 7, at 89. 268 on the PGA Tour's agreement that required that real-time Id. (footnote omitted) (citing The Nasdaq Stock Market, scores obtained in the media center would not be syndicated). Inc., Consolidated Subscriber Agreement). 269 266 Another example is Dun & Bradstreet, "which prohibits Id. at 90 (footnote omitted) (citing The Nasdaq Stock redissemination of its reports. D&B is able to protect the pri- Market, Inc., Vendor Agreement for Level 1 Service and Last vacy of the subjects of its reports by strict contractual prohibi- Sale Service (on file with the author)). 270 tions that undoubtedly `abrogate or restrict' fair use rights." Available at http://sfappeal.com/news/2009/08/mike- Wolfson, supra note 7, at 92. smith-of-next-bus-said.php, last accessed on Jan. 5, 2010.

23 BART stated in its response to the survey that its notated Code of Maryland. To assist the Administration "license agreement is very straightforward:" the Contractor, if he wishes, shall, as hereinafter de- scribed in Article E below, clearly identify each portion of Developer License Agreement the technical data it considers a "trade secret" to which The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District the public shall be denied inspection. Contractor ac- (BART) hereby grants you (Licensee) non-exclusive, lim- knowledges that such classifications are advisory only. ited and revocable rights to use, reproduce, and redistrib- D. The following categories of technical data shall not be ute BART Data (Data) subject to the following Terms: construed or stamped or otherwise identified as "trade se- · BART trademarks and copyrighted materials, including crets": any confusingly similar variants, may not be used in as- 1. Technical data prepared or required to be delivered sociation with Data. under this contract and any subcontracts hereunder for · Data is provided on an "as is" and "as available" basis. the purpose of identifying sources, part numbers, size, BART makes no representations or warranties of any configurations, mating, attachment characteristics, func- kind, express or implied. BART disclaims all warranties, tions characteristics and performance requirements. express or implied, including but not limited to implied 2. Manual or instructional materials prepared or required warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular to be delivered under this contract and any subcontracts purpose. BART and its employees, officers, directors and hereunder, for installation, operation, maintenance, re- agents will not be liable for damages of any kind arising pair, replacement, overhaul and training purposes. from the use of Data including but not limited to direct, indirect, incidental, punitive and consequential damages. Finally, as will be discussed in the next part, when there are FOIA or FOIL requests in New York and · BART reserves the right to alter and/or no longer pro- South Carolina, but not in California or Florida, a pub- vide Data at any time without prior notice. lic authority may require an individual or entity re- · BART maintains title, ownership, rights and interest in questing access to public data to sign an appropriate and to Data. agreement restricting the requester's dissemination or By using BART Data, you agree to be bound by all of the other use of the data. 271 Terms and Conditions set forth in this agreement. Guidance Number 12 The Maryland Transit Administration stated that The authorities seem to be in agreement that a tran- "[r]ights in technical data are covered by our standard sit agency may restrict access to and the copying or dis- Special Conditions language, included in contract solici- semination of its real-time data by a terms-of-use, end- tation packages." user license or other agreement. Possibly other forms of SGP -7.04 Rights in Technical Data copyright-like controls noted above could be used as A. Technical data means any and all information of a sci- well. However, a preemption issue could arise with any entific or technical nature, regardless of form or charac- agreement or control seeking to protect non- teristics, to be furnished by the Contractor pursuant to copyrightable data as though the data were protected this contract. It includes, but is not limited to, documen- by the copyright laws. tation of research, experimental, development or engi- neering work plus the information used to define a design B. Whether Copyright Law Preempts Provisions or process or to procure, produce, support, maintain or of Licenses or Other Agreements Seeking to operate the goods, supplies, systems, and equipment fur- nished hereunder. Examples of technical data include re- Protect Noncopyrightable Data search and engineering data, engineering drawings and There is an issue as to whether a contract or license associated lists, specifications, standards, process sheets, may protect data that are not copyrightable under the manuals, technical reports, catalog item identification copyright law and, thus, whether a restriction imposed and related information. by a license or other agreement may be preempted by B. The Administration, its employees and its consultants, the Copyright Act.272 Federal policy favors the free dis- shall have the unlimited right to use, duplicate and dis- semination of facts and ideas. Thus, there is an argu- close, in whole or in part and without charge, all technical ment that the copyright laws preempt restrictive provi- data, in any manner and for any purpose when, in the sions in contracts, which otherwise are enforceable opinion of the Administrator, such use is required by the under state law, to the extent that they attempt to keep Administration in the installation, operation, modifica- information out of the public domain that Congress in- tion, maintenance, repair, replacement, overhaul and tended to be available to the public. Under 17 U.S.C. training in respect to the Baltimore Region Rapid Transit § 301, a state may not create rights that are equivalent System. to any exclusive rights provided under the Copyright C. Nothing herein shall be construed as modifying or Act. abridging the obligations of the Administration in respect One writer maintains that "interpretations of the to the provisions of the Public Information Act, Section appropriate scope of a copyright license or of the suffi- 10-611 et seq. of the State Government Article of the An- 272 Deborah Tussey, UCITA, Copyright, and Capture, 21 271 Available at http://bart.gov/dev/schedules/license.htm, CARDOZO ARTS & ENT. L.J. 319, 340 (2003). See Copyright Act § last accessed on May 6, 2010. 301.

24 ciency of a written transfer of an exclusive license are contract right claims were not preempted because the deemed matters of federal copyright law, not state con- general scope requirement was not met." 282 tract law."273 The commentator argues that "Supremacy Clause preemption would occur [when] contract terms Guidance Number 13 undermine the objectives of federal copyright law."274 Although real-time data as such are not copyright- Although some courts have refused to enforce contracts able, the majority view seems to be that a license or that provide copyright-like protection to facts or un- other agreement with provisions restricting access to or original databases in the belief that the Copyright Act use or dissemination of data are not preempted by the preempts such contracts, the majority view appears to Copyright Act. The rationale is that contracts affect the be that such contractual clauses are not preempted and rights of the parties to the contract and do not involve are enforceable.275 exclusive rights against the world as exist under the As the 11th Circuit has observed, "courts generally copyright laws. read preemption clauses to leave private contracts unaf- fected."276 The basis of the apparent majority rule is that C. Transit Agencies' Survey Responses Regarding "[a] copyright is a right against the world," whereas Laws and Contractual Issues "[c]ontracts...generally affect only their parties" and do 277 not "create `exclusive rights.'" For example, in ProCD, 1. Laws Applicable to Contracts and Real-Time Data Inc. v. Zeidenberg,278 a customer purchased the plain- The survey of transit agencies for the digest sought tiff's CD-ROM in which ProCD had compiled informa- to identify any laws and contractual issues of which tion from more than 3,000 telephone directories into a they were aware that are pertinent to transit agencies' computer database and proceeded to resell it. The court agreements for the collection or sharing of real-time held that the contract or license at issue that limited data. Twenty-seven transit agencies responding to the the use of the program to noncommercial purposes was survey stated that they did not know, or were unaware, enforceable. The contract or license, which the court did of any applicable laws or stated that the question was not seek to distinguish, was not unenforceable on the inapplicable. Three agencies responded that any issues theory that Section 301(a) of the Copyright Act had pre- would be covered by the agency's contract.283 empted the parties' ability to restrict the dissemination One agency responded that "[t]o the best for our of facts that Congress had decided should be in the pub- knowledge, the only such regulations are federal in na- lic domain. The court explained that [O]ne function of § 301(a) is to prevent states from giving 282 special protection to works of authorship that Congress Nat'l Basketball Ass'n, 105 F.3d at 850. Firoozye v. Earth- has decided should be in the public domain, which it can link Network, 153 F. Supp. 2d 1115, 1126­27 (N.D. Cal. 2001) accomplish only if "subject matter of copyright" includes (stating that "[w]here a plaintiff's breach of contract claim only all works of a type covered by sections 102 and 103, even asserts that a defendant violated a promise not to use a certain 279 if federal law does not afford protection to them. work, that breach of contract claim is preempted," but holding However, the court held that, unlike the copyright that "[a] promise to pay for a work constitutes an extra ele- ment such that a breach of contract claim is not preempted by laws, a contract usually only affects the rights of parties section 301"); Wolff v. Inst. of Elec. & Elecs. Eng'rs, Inc., 768 F. to the contract and does not involve exclusive rights Supp. 66, 69 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (contract claim preempted). See, 280 within the meaning of the Copyright Act: however, Huckshold v. HSSL, LLC, 344 F. Supp. 2d 1203 (E.D. "[c]ontracts...generally affect only their parties; strang- Mo. 2004) (contract claim not preempted); Telecom Tech. Servs. ers may do as they please, so contracts do not create Inc. v. Rolm Co., 388 F.3d 820, 829­30 (11th Cir. 2004) (con- `exclusive rights.'"281 tract claim not preempted); Lipscher v. LRP Publ'ns, Inc., 266 It may be noted that the Second Circuit in the Na- F.3d 1305, 1318 (11th Cir. 2001) (no preemption of contract tional Basketball Association case, stated that "the mis- claim); Nat'l Car Rental Sys., Inc. v. Computer Assocs. Int'l, appropriation claims [were] preempted" but that "the Inc., 991 F.2d 426, 431 (8th Cir. 1993) (restrictions on use may constitute an additional element making a breach of contract 273 not equivalent to a copyright action); ProCD, Inc. v. Zeiden- Id. at 334­35 (footnote omitted). berg, 86 F.3d 1447, 1454 (7th Cir. 1996) (holding that a claim 274 Id. at 339 n.111 (citation omitted). for breach of contract was not equivalent to the exclusive rights 275 See ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. protected by the Copyright Act); Taquino v. Teledyne Monarch 1996). Rubber, 893 F.2d 1488, 1501 (5th Cir. 1990) (holding that be- 276 Lipscher, Inc., 266 F.3d at 1318. cause a breach of contract action involves a promise that is in 277 addition to the mere reproduction, distribution, or display of a Huckshold, 344 F. Supp. 2d at 1207. 278 work, the contract claim was not preempted by § 301 of the 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996). 279 Copyright Act). Id. at 1453 (citation omitted). 283 One agency responded that it "normally requires each 280 Id. at 1454 (citing Nat'l Car Rental Sys., Inc. v. Computer contract to contain provisions that give it rights to contract Assocs. Int'l, Inc., 991 F.2d 426, 433 (8th Cir. 1993); Taquino v. data." BART's response was that it "address[ed] rights and Teledyne Monarch Rubber, 893 F.2d 1488, 1501 (5th Cir. ownership in our form of agreement." Likewise, the Maryland 1990); Acorn Structures, Inc. v. Swantz, 846 F.2d 923, 926 (4th Transit Authority replied that "[r]ights in technical data are Cir. 1988)). covered by our standard Special Conditions language[] in- 281 Id. cluded in contract solicitation packages."

25 ture. They can be found in FTA Circular 4220.1f and 2. Contractual Issues Regarding the Sharing of Real- the FTA Master Grant Agreement." The referenced Time Data Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Circular, Third Transit agencies were asked to identify any contrac- Party Contracting Guidance, "provides contracting tual issues that the agencies had considered to maxi- guidance for the recipient of financial assistance mize revenue from real-time data or to restrict the fur- awarded by the [FTA] when using those funds to fi- ther dissemination of the data. nance their procurements (third-party contracts)."284 The One agency said that it had a contract to provide a Circular includes provisions regarding FTA's rights in live feed to Google Transit.290 Another agency stated data. For example, "when FTA provides Federal assis- that it had an information-sharing agreement with its tance to support the costs of a research, development, transit partners, which it identified as FTA subrecipi- demonstration, or a special studies project, FTA gener- ents. The Maryland Transit Administration responded ally seeks sufficient rights in the data developed so that that "[t]his has only come up in relation to static sched- the resulting data can be made available to any FTA ule data, not real-time data. We recently executed a no- recipient, subrecipient, third-party contractor, or third- cost licensing agreement with Google Transit for sched- party subcontractor."285 (One transit agency (AC Tran- ule data and itinerary planning." sit) stated that funds from a federal grant paid for the BART's response was that initial cost of its AVL system.) Although the Circular seems relevant to a development project involving the [S]ince BART has been sharing data with others for so long...it always seemed antithetical to begin charging for collection of real-time data, it does not seem particu- it. Our license agreement is very straightforward larly relevant to the collection of real-time data after a (http://bart.gov/dev/schedules/license.htm). system is implemented. We've closely watched other transit agencies attempt to Another agency cited the New York Public Authori- monetize schedule and real-time data for years. Like ties Law 1265-A that governs acquisitions that do not every other public agency, we're always interested in de- involve the acquisition of real property. The statute veloping viable revenue streams. applies, inter alia, to "all purchase contracts for sup- plies, materials or equipment involving an estimated But we've never seen a transit data revenue model that expenditure in excess of fifteen thousand dollars and all can scale well, generate enough revenue to offset admini- stration and legal costs, and not stir up a negative public contracts for public work involving an estimated expen- 286 backlash against the agency (an often overlooked factor in diture in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars." The the cost-benefit analysis). At some point, agencies must law provides that contracts "shall be awarded by the weigh the benefits of serving customers, and the public's authority to the lowest responsible bidder after obtain- expectation of transparency, against the hopes for a big ing sealed bids in the manner hereinafter set forth."287 revenue stream that has yet to materialize. As the law provides, contracts may be let without com- Twenty-seven agencies responded that they were petitive bidding in the event of an emergency, as de- unable to identify any contractual issues. fined in the statute,288 or when "the authority wishes to experiment with or test a product or technology or new 3. Transit Agencies' Other Actions for Protecting Real- source for such product or technology or evaluate the Time Data service or reliability of such product or technology...."289 The referenced statute does not appear to be relevant to Transit agencies were asked to identify other steps legal arrangements for the use and control of real-time they take to protect their rights to the information they data. collect. Of the 34 agencies responding that they are col- Finally, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit lecting real-time data, 24 did not identify any steps or Authority (WMATA) advised that it "is not subject to actions that they are taking to protect their data. Some any local acquisition laws and regulations on this mat- agencies responded that they would rely on their pro- ter." curement laws; that they would stipulate in any agree- ment for sharing real-time data that the agency re- tained ownership of the data; that they would use data- 284 U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Transit Admin., FTA Circular encryption and limit access to data only to authorized 4220.1f, Third Party Contracting Guidance (Nov. 1, 2008, rev. personnel; or that they would make information avail- Apr. 14, 2009), available at http://www.fta.dot.gov/laws/ circu- able only through the agency's Web site. lars/leg_reg_8641.html, last accessed on Jan. 3, 2010. The re- The Long Island Rail Road's (LIRR) response was vised Circular "incorporates the new procurement provisions of that the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Eq- uity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA­LU), and includes the [I]nformation extracted from our operational systems, most current available guidance for the Federal public trans- such as TIMACS, is stored in the LIRR Data Warehouse portation program as of the date of publication." Id. (DW). DW is a collection of non-volatile subject oriented, 285 time-variant, integrated data, stored and maintained for Id. ¶ 2(i)(2). 286 N.Y. PUB. AUTH. L. § 1265-a(2)(a) (2009). 290 287 A copy of license agreements being used by transit Id. agencies may be obtained at Google Transit Data Feed, 288 Id. § 1265-a(4)(a) (2009). http://code.google.com/p/googletransitdatafeed/wiki/PublicFeeds, 289 Id. § 1265-a(4)(a) (2009). last accessed June 30, 2010.

Next: Chapter 6: PROTECTION OF REAL-TIME DATA UNDEROTHER FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS »
Legal Arrangements for Use and Control of Real-Time Data Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Legal Research Results Digest 37: Legal Arrangements for Use and Control of Real-Time Data is designed to help transit officials understand the legal options and limitations for real-time data ownership, protection, and use.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!