When the lawyer from MTA called me last week, I started the conversation by asking him explicitly if the call was about the Marketing department’s claims that MTA schedule data were intellectual property which were being used without copyright by my iPhone App, StationStops for iPhone.

The lawyer was emphatic that he did not want to discuss that subject, and that the marketing department did not represent MTA’s legal interests.

He had another bone to pick.

He then proceeded to tell me how my website was pretending to be an official MTA website, When I refuted his arguments, he asked for my lawyer’s contact info so he could send a cease and desist.

Since that time I have been publicizing my refutation of the accusations he made against my website, which was what was discussed on the phone, and what I expected to appear in the Cease and Desist.

My lawyer received the Cease and Desist today, which I will publish after my lawyer has reviewed its contents and spoken to MTA’s lawyer.

In the cease and desist, there is little mention of the StationStops.com website whatsoever, nor is there any language accusing StationStops.com as masquerading as an official MTA site. A stark contrast to what was discussed in the phone call.

?

In fact, the only part of the C&D which refers to the website at all is an graciously accurate retelling of how, in December of 2008, my original marketing contact requested that I remove some photos of Grand Central Terminal and its clock from my website banner as they were some sort of trademarks of MTA.

I gave Marketing no grief about this whatsoever and removed the imagery in 24 hours. Now, between you and I, I think I was legally OK to use that imagery, but I really didn’t care about it, and I wanted to be develop a relationship with MTA and had no interest in that holding us back.

The lawyer documented my compliance accurately (well, except that he said it was earlier this year, when in fact it was December 2008). Why? I don’t know. Basically, all he said about my website is that when MTA had a copyright issue with it, I complied happily.

Gee, thanks for sticking up for me!

So, what exactly is this lawyer accusing me of in the C&D, if it’s not about the website?

My iPhone application.

Why the change of heart?

Well, I think this guy saw my disclaimer banners about MTA silencing a blogger and first amendment rights and decided he didn’t want to go there.

Also, he thought I was going to be on TV on Tuesday. If I had, I would have discussed his website complaint, and the interview would have been irrelevant to the C&D. Clever. Unfortunately for him, I’m on TV tomorrow, so I can accurately refute the latest round of yadda-yadda-yadda.

For the record, StationStops for iPhone is not infringing on MTA, and yes I can certainly put a disclaimer on my app which says I am not affiliated with MTA (which has appeared since day 1), and yes that statement is meaningful (The lawyer continues to insist that there is no disclaimer language I could possibly use which would effectively communicate to users that I am not affiliated with MTA – including ‘StationStops is not affiliated with MTA’ – they don’t really give people much credit

I was trying to be careful in discussing issues that I thought they were concerned about, and careful not to discuss our pending licensing agreement, which had little or nothing to do with the website.

However, now that they want to talk about that, I will discuss that in a future post.

If all this sounds really confusing, it is, and I am porud of you to have made it down this far in the post – I wouldnt have. Tommorrow, however, I will give a more concise overview based on today’s activity.

PS If anyone knows how to get the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s attention, let me know. I have send them emails and voicemails with no response. This latest complaint is right up their alley.

I am also willing to talk to any lawyer with intellectual property or copyright experience who would be willing to put some Pro Bono work into this. Just use the Contact Us form.