I posted this on the TNR site and facebook group, re-posting here for any comments and interest in the discussion -

Can a route come under copyright laws?

After finding two commercial companies using the TNR name, details and route yesterday* and having had this come up before (inc logo use), and reading a comment on Audax organiser's routes being used by others on a thread about this whole thing in the Torino-Nice Rally Rider's Group on facebook, I was thinking about copyright law (fairly briefly, I should add) at 4am : ) It's something I know a little about, "little enough to be a dangerous thing". Bear with me .. and if you have any interest or experience in the topic I'd love to hear your thoughts.

A general point of copyright law is how an original work in a material form has assumed copyright as soon as it is published. So if I take a photo and post it on my website there is is copyright protection of my 'creative work'. If you take my image without permission I can use those laws to ask you to remove it. If I sell my images and you're using it commercially w/o permission, I am able to claim damages. I can also post it under Creative Commons rights and allow certain types of use. This is all good stuff, creative work is valued, if only emotionally by the creator, and theft is taking something of value.

Copyright applies to music, photography, art, aspects of design and I would expect some digital works now, styles of code maybe. They are created and exist in material form. They are rarely 100% original, since creativity builds on our prior knowledge of the world and pulls influences from different places to create new things. Copyright is not dependant on total originality.
That hypothetical photo I took and posted on my website? I simply pointed a digital camera set to aperture priority at a stunning sunrise and happened to catch the sun and a church spire aligned. Click, done. I looked at my shots later and I liked it so I posted it up. How much true creativity is there in that? Some, some element of chance too - but it doesn't matter, the end result pleases us and makes us feel something good and copyright applies to it.

So how about a bike route? No writing on Intellectual Property that I've read (skimmed, rather) mentions routes or tour itineraries. Maybe an IP Attorney somewhere has covered this but it's not the typical example used.
I create bike routes to raise a feeling in myself, to challenge myself physically and mentally and to celebrate and experience the beauty of landscapes. I've said before that a great route is like a piece of music - it has an introduction, it builds and develops complexity, it rises and falls emotionally and in intensity. The landscape evolves like a sound stage in the way it takes you on a journey. There are infinite possibilities in music but limited notes, there are fewer possibilities with routes but still, starting in a place, choosing roads, lanes, tracks, trails and hiking paths offers a bewildering level of journey possibilities. Anyone who thinks route creation is easy should hear what went into creating the TNR route and developing it – the time, the recces, the adjustments, all with that story, journey or musical piece influencing the end result. That end result takes me somewhere in the way art or music does, it produces emotion and a memory of places and experiences. A ride along a route to me is like a gig to many people.

I believe a route like this is a creative work. It exists when published as a named route and shared with others. These creative works can have commercial value and reward to their creators, not just in the name and reputation of the route that may develop very time, but the actual trace along the ground that links pre-existing ways into new routes, new ‘ways’.
I believe these routes that show true connection with the rider experience and are shared for any reason, commercial or otherwise, can use copyright protection to allow the route creator to maintain some control over how that route is used. It’s not OK to simply take someone else’s route and use it for your own commercial gain. It may well be OK to use that route with permission and credits though, or a donation to a cause. As the Torino-Nice Rally has shown, a route can become well-known and develop a commercial value in terms of sponsorship and that value can be used for good outside of commercial gain, and I would like to protect that value from the dilution that can come from wider unauthorised use of the route, its name and its reputation.
Ask before taking, credit your sources and share your gains, I say. Before that, maybe do your own work – create rather than misappropriate.

I’m interested in testing this and sharing anything that comes from any test case result with the wider route creation community – it may allow greater protection for audax route planners who find commercial sportive organisers taking their routes and charging 10x the price for a well-marketed and brand-sponsored event. It may help tour planners protect their itineraries. It may help the non-profit TNR see tour organisers use our route respectfully with permission and share a modest amount of the profits with Smart Shelter Foundation, our cause.

If you have opinions on this or can share experiences of unauthorised route use, let’s talk. If the assumed copyright of creative work applies to routes that are published and named in this way, let’s see where we can take this.

*without prejudice - my general take on this is that they are serving a demand which I think we'd all recognise and support. I'm not offering a guided, serviced tour and I personally have no interest in competing with them and nothing to gain by preventing this from happening outright. The TNR can support what they are doing and can help publicise what they offer. I would like to see a benefit to SSF for that co-operation and use of the TNR's work, this topic is about being able to do that in a recognised way e.g. using copyright protection.

I just called through to the other home office* to ask and the response came back 'no, you can't copyright a route'.

* My OH is commissioning editor at a well-known guide book publisher.

FWIW, my thinking is very much with you on this one though, James. It's certainly nuanced although if trademarks are involved becomes less so, at least from a description/branding perspective. Is TNR a trademark? Perhaps pertinently, I was going to use Komoot as an example of where I think this kinda thing gets real messy and I see that TNR host routes there. I don't like 'my' routes essentially becoming Komoot's so won't host them there, but there's nothing to stop someone riding say Mint Gravel and then posting their track, described using the name I use and making it available to all. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Kinda related, Emily Chappell had a nice post re this: Please stop asking me for my routes

I tend to be quite pragmatic about such things. Firstly I feel that no one can 'own' a route as they already existed, someone just took the time to join the dots and then make them available (don't think I'm dismissing that as a small undertaking) ... I have to think like that, otherwise it would mean that I 'own' just about every route and route section in mid-Wales

However, I do think that when a route is named and that name carries some commercial worth or simply cache, then people really shouldn't use said name without permission. It is difficult though given that we live in a world that increasingly believes that once something hits the public domain, then it automatically becomes the property of the public.

Here's another take.

I'm writing a route guide to Scottish Road Riding and spend hours looking at maps trying to figure out interesting loops or routes. I can 100% honestly say I would never rip off anyone route as I'm just not interested, part of my personal "brand" is finding stuff that is scenic and interesting to ride so I have to get out there and see it for myself. I'm really proud that every route in Great British Bike rides has been ridden TWICE by me. A certain other coffee table guide has an admission by the author that he's not ridden all the routes in their entirety, but has ridden every road .. I spat my tea when I read that. How can you possibly convey the experience as a whole.

Anyway, after blowing smoke up my own a$$ let's get to the point.

For the latest book I spotted Glen Kyllachy on the map and wondered what it would be like. So I planned a loop from Tomatin going north to Inverness then returning by the glen. The ride north was OK, but the Inverness section was absolutely terrible. Which ruined the climb up the Glen which I absolutely loved (that's a lie I pushed it in 1 metre of snow). So back at the van I got the map out and spotted a minor road that became a track, hit the A9 then joined the B851. I wondered if that could solve the Inverness problem and vowed to return and see. Earlier this year I returned with Helen, no snow and rode it. Sublime. The track hits a tunnel not shown on the map and there are no access restrictions. I rode the whole loop and wrote it up in a hotel. When writing a route guide I do a bit of research googling around the locations and lo-and-behold Karen Darke has ridden a similar route, it's published at Cycling UK.

Would that stop me putting mine in a book. Never. I don't care if anyone has ridden it before because I discovered it for the book. It's not my responsibility to make every single route completely unique and I firmly believe they should not be trademarked. The aforementioned coffee table book has a route that is 100% the same as one of mine which I published 3 years earlier. But it's got the author's own take on it. If he'd called it the same as mine and nicked my descriptions that might be different.

In Jame's case I think the principle is different as it looks like a big route AND its brand has been lifted and represented wholesale without any back reference, acknowledgement or a simple "would you mind?". I'm trying to say that Jame's branding of it should be protected. Anyone using the GPX who hasn't discovered it themselves should rightly acknowledge the fact and if they don't they are an a$$. This means I'm in agreement with Stu, but used a lot more waffle to get there.

Very funny to read that, Dave. I found and rode that tunnel near Inverness last summer. Will prob be in a route in Lost Lanes Scotland. But not your route, mine is different. BTW there is fantastic old Wade bridge near the tunnel. Track beyond much rough stuff though.

fwiw I agree with what’s been said upthread.

@hyppy - perhaps not a route itself alone, I can't copyright a bridleway by my house as a route afterall, but if the route has a level of complexity, originality and/or other things associated with it and is more than simply a line on a map then I think there's an angle where it does become a creative work. I think it would be allowed for an author of a general area guide book to lift a route from someone and add it to a book without asking - not cool but it's hard to see how that wouldn't be allowed. But if that book was titled 'The Torino-Nice Rally guidebook' I think it might be different. It can't come down to trademarks if you don't hold a trademark, but the basis of assumed copyright is in the publishing of creative work in material form. Music isn't material until recorded. A route isn't material but is presented online, in a pdf and as a GPX file. In the days of material things being digital I'm interested in what the IP / legal view of this may be - essentially IP laws exist to protect creatives and creators so the point seems to be generally about what it is you're protecting and why.

I see that TNR host routes there. I don't like 'my' routes essentially becoming Komoot's

Komoot's ability to reproduce routes seems to be proof that a route trace alone has no IP. The TNR being on komoot the way it is illustrates my point here though, the TNR has grown into a thing that's more than just a route and has value (sponsorhip, donations, goodwill etc). komoot donate to SSF annually to be the sole source of the current route files. They could have had someone ride the route and post it as a collection, they do that, but komoot is staffed by people who are close to the scene and recognise the creative effort or originality, reputation etc some routes have and it would be counter-productive to just help themselves, especially if I wasn't in support of that (I need to be able to keep the SSF message alongside the route info to maintain the value to SSF - if I can't do that then the wider use of the name and route dilutes that message and threatends the value it has). They benefit and I would say get good value from from the agreement we have, SSF benefits, I'm happy.

Stuart I agree - people can create routes for the good of riding or for profit and imho that isn't a factor when it comes to someone taking that work to use for their own gain. It should be down to the creator to have say in how that 'thing' is used, in the way I can publish a photo under various levels of creative commons rules. 'Should' is idealistic but this seems to be a fairly new area of 'creative work'. What level of control is reasonable is one point I'm getting at here - currently it's zero and it allows people to help themselves and undermine the value thay may have been built up. I can't do that with a photo online that isn't mine, same principle here I think.

Dave I agree too, and I used even more waffle : ) I suspect this area doesn't come upder IP laws because there's a long line between strava'ing your route to work and setting up the Trans-Armenia hiking trail that Tom Allen worked on. There has to be more than a line on a map, it has to be something created and built up to have a value of some sort. There's guiding companies who offer Turin-Nice (or even "Torino-Nice") routes that are a bit different to mine and some of them have been big brands. But it's not the same route and riding from Turin to Nice is not a new idea. Taking the event name, talking about it's good rep and using the same routes, stages, options, even copying the logo (which deliberately has no TM potential itself) w/o asking is a bit different.

All in all .. something I'm not just interested in for my own ends, more direct experience of what's probably a wider issue. "Give us some leverage to be able to be reasonable all round". And I'd rather over-think this stuff and see where it goes positively than see an internet pile on via instagram comments etc. A load of bile that gets nowhere as well as forgotten fast.

My take is similar to Stu's and Dave's. Taking someone else's efforts and passing it off as your own, even implicitly, is plagiarism. The fact that such a route is on public roads and tracks and that anyone could have done it is neither here nor there - someone did it first and named it/promoted it or whatever. The route may be "public domain" but that doesn't mean someone can take it over for their own purposes.

Ask before taking, credit your sources and share your gains, I say.

Very much this.

I agree with a lot of what has been said, and I can certainly understand your annoyance at what has happened. Whether it's strictly copyright or IP seems kinda moot, but the conduct is poor and should be challenged. Just a shame you have to do a virtual tap on the shoulder and a 'wtf?' to these people.

I think there's one aspect of your creative endeavour you've probably not given yourself enough credit for, which is an element that is crucial to the whole TNR thing: the things you have created around the type and style of the ride (resisting using the word vibe ). The rally format, the lack of timing and tracking, what is and isn't expected in terms of conduct (implied or otherwise) that's laid out on the website - in essence the manner in which the whole thing is done and presented. It's that, combined with the extensive labour of love route creation, that creates The TNR, rather than just a TNR. I think it's this more than the route itself that is being piggybacked/stolen, and perhaps you could focus your challenges in these areas. Maybe also add something on the website specifically about what is and isn't cool to re-use (like the logo, your route descriptions and photos etc.).

That probably doesn't help at all, and is equally nebulous to any kind of copyright, but I think it's a distinction worth remembering in case there's too much emphasis on 'The Route' which, though inseparable, isn't the whole.

Good luck with it!

faustus wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 1:23 pm the conduct is poor and should be challenged

I think so. To be charitable it may not have occured that it was poor form so essentially I'm looking for something a little more than ethics to have as a negotiating tool when tapping someone on the shoulder. Or, ideally something that encourages them to tap me on the shoulder to talk before they just do it. If done well we should all gain.

Good luck with it!

Thanks. And thanks for the positives about what the TNR is.

Maybe also add something on the website specifically about what is and isn't cool to re-use (like the logo, your route descriptions and photos etc.).

Coming up. In hindsight, an ommission on my part.

Taking someone else's efforts and passing it off as your own, even implicitly, is plagiarism.

This but my experience of people who want to make money is this trumps ( see what i did there ) any ethical or moral concerns.

Its very poor form to just steal something and monetise it even if legal.
I suspect they wont GAS

Can you copyright the Annapurna Circuit trekking route? Can you copyright the Ridgeway? Or the Route of St James to Santiago de Compostela? No. You can’t.

At a certain point a route becomes a cultural artefact / a tradition. And James should be proud that his route has achieved this status.

JackT wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 12:33 pm Very funny to read that, Dave. I found and rode that tunnel near Inverness last summer. Will prob be in a route in Lost Lanes Scotland. But not your route, mine is different. BTW there is fantastic old Wade bridge near the tunnel. Track beyond much rough stuff though.

fwiw I agree with what’s been said upthread.

Don't fancy riding my final two route do you? I've missed my publishing deadline and can hear the fingers tapping at their end. Sadly the weather won last year and Devon is not the ideal base for researching Scotland

JackT wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 2:20 pm Can you copyright the Annapurna Circuit trekking route? Can you copyright the Ridgeway? Or the Route of St James to Santiago de Compostela? No. You can’t.

At a certain point a route becomes a cultural artefact / a tradition. And James should be proud that his route has achieved this status.

I'm pleased to see where the TNR is, of course. I hadn't seen it as being anywhere near that well established tbh hence maybe feeling more threatened by a rise of things like this than i should be. And it's true all publicity is good.

This is really about whether there is an argument for it (and if there is whether it's anything that can be defined and used pratically rather than paying a lawyer). It's an interesting point to me. I'm not interested in using legal threats etc, there's better solutions. Still, this is a commercial area for some and a legal point may be what's needed there. But there's other ways to go. This is a relevant example - https://www.northcoast500.com/trade/

James should be proud that his route has achieved this status

Isnt the obejction someone else is monitising his hard work/ his route ?

Apples hard worj gave us the iphone, this does not mean i can make them and sell them.

Had a chance to get out and pedal this afternoon, always good time to mull things over after some out-loud thinking online.

Route alone = no IP
What goes alongside the route to make a 'thing' or identifiable = IP-able if you choose to do it i.e. TM a name and logo. Copyright on details like images, logo layout, route books and websites.

I decided not to go for TMs from the start (the TNR logo is deliberately generic) because I didn't want to get into commercial stuff with this, even when I didn't think it would get as widely known as it may be.
So what's the point playing wack-a-mole, nothing positive in that and it's just starting down a litigation route (if that was even available) which is a bit grand (?: rich?) for what's going on here. Just riding bikes isn't it. The NC500 approach is a good one, I should have foreseen this and been more proactive to offer something similar to the NC500. The NC500 was set up to benefit tourism and wants to benefit a small B+B as well as the bigger businesses there. The TNR was set up to benefit SSF and type of cycle travel. So if the TNR can benefit a tour operator too and be ridden by more people because of that service, that's within what I'd like to see it do. List and support those who do good things, ignore those who don't. Reward the good, ignore the less ideal stuff.

The copyright for a route point still interests me and would be useful if there was any way to apply it, but I suspect the answer is that even if possible, between google map's directions results and the whole Trans-Armenia it's too hard to define where the llne may be.

Isnt the obejction someone else is monitising his hard work/ his route ?

Yes, but that objection may feel bigger than it need be as it's a personal thing or me feeling defensive. If it'll happen anyway it's prob better to expect it and try to help create a better alternative. I mean, it's not like I personally dug out the Strada Assitetta : )

JackT wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 2:20 pm Can you copyright the Annapurna Circuit trekking route? Can you copyright the Ridgeway? Or the Route of St James to Santiago de Compostela? No. You can’t.

At a certain point a route becomes a cultural artefact / a tradition. And James should be proud that his route has achieved this status.

I guess there's kinda a parallel with TMB which is everyone's or UTMB where they'd come down like a ton of bricks on you if you tried using it. Ergo, Torino-Nice is a route, Torino-Nice Rally is the thing, although Komoot do seem to see it as 'The Komoot Torino-Nice Rally'. I hope they donated handsomely to SSF!

My (very much I assume) personal take is that it's fairly easy to become precious about some things and it is completely understandable but as you rightly say James - do you really need the grief and aggro? These days, I kind of simply allow things to wash over me and the more I do, then the sooner it's forgotten.

Dave Barter wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 12:20 pmI'm trying to say that Jame's branding of it should be protected. Anyone using the GPX who hasn't discovered it themselves should rightly acknowledge the fact and if they don't they are an a$$.

Didn't James write something about Komoot? Once it's there, he's made a deal with Komoot. Paragraph 10 and 12 especially of importance. If they took the contract (their terms and conditions) very seriously James would probably have to change a few thing regarding the TNR. Or simply delete it from Komoot.
Pretty stupid actually. One more reason to not join.


I'm afraid there are more – how can we call them – Jessicas and Jeffs than Johns out there.

Jessica sends me a DM via IG and asks for the .gpx file, since she saw some photos she liked. Just like that. "Hi, can you send me the .gpx file of your XYZ trip? Thanks."
Since it's in bits and pieces, loops around places were I got off the bike to explore further etc. I put a little effort in it, clean it up, write a few words and share it with her.
But that was it. Never heard anything from her again. I keep an eye out on her feed(s) but she never went to XYZ.

Jeff does the same, perhaps with a tiny little bit more effort, but goes on the trip (other than Jessica). Never a "thank you" once he gets the .gpx file, but oh so full of nice words before. Once he's back from the trip he publicly says how lovely his route was/is and what not. In some cases it was (just a little bit) commercialised.

It's not the lack of credits, just the lack of gratitude from Jess and Jeff that puts me off.

Then there's John. He asks in a way Jeff did. Gets what he wanted and keeps giving back by showing gratitude (eg. you crazy w*nker). He'll also say where he got the inspiration (or .gpx track and some beta) from and will stay in touch. He suffers from dickhe*ds like Jessica and Jeff. John and I can become friends.

Jessica covers about 80 % of folks that get in touch with me regarding a route.
Jeff is 15 % and John 5 %.

It's quite amazing how many folks there are out there who seem to give a sh*t as long as they have what they want. And, surprise, surprise; have a fairly famous (in bikepacking circles) name involved and the Jessicas and Jeffs behave quite different.

For the last few years I've simply (not completely as some on here may know from our exchange via PM which I enjoy since all in touch with me here seem to be Johns) stopped giving a f*ck myself if I got contacted – no matter if it was folks I had met during an event or bikepacking princesses with their names on books. I tend to give a brief answer, perhaps suggesting to go earlier or later and simply say it's all on my Strava account, which, I was told, was similar to "faire la figue". It's a shame, the Jess's and Jeffs have pulled the joy from me to provide the Johns out there with information I'd be happy to receive if I was in their situation. But then I like to study maps too much, so, there you are. Have the fig.

(If you're reading this Liam, you might realise why I may not have been overly helpful and asked you to check my Strava, I get requests every 2nd week.)

James, I'm afraid you'll just have to indulge in one hand, and more positively, enjoy on the other.
I wish there were more Johns out there for you and from an outside perspective am not pleased to see what some do with what the TNR has become.

Comes to mind, didn't we, many years ago exchange a few words on liability? I'm sorry I was of no help and not sure if I ever wrote back what I got from friends (legal advisors). I would have to ask again. And in this case, having been mildly involved with patents and IP through my profession, I can't see a copyright for the route. Make a brand and it's different. But then what for? Are you really going to run around and sue folks for using your logo? Perhaps to make sure no one else claims it..?
Shame you are even just thinking about it actually.

Lazarus wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 3:58 pm

James should be proud that his route has achieved this status

Isnt the obejction someone else is monitising his hard work/ his route ?

Apples hard worj gave us the iphone, this does not mean i can make them and sell them.

Well, every smart phone after the iPhone has looked and functioned more or less like an iPhone. Without actually being a iPhone. Apple couldn’t patent the basic idea of a phone with a big touch screen and cameras front and back.

JackT wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 12:33 pm Very funny to read that, Dave. I found and rode that tunnel near Inverness last summer. Will prob be in a route in Lost Lanes Scotland. But not your route, mine is different. BTW there is fantastic old Wade bridge near the tunnel. Track beyond much rough stuff though.

fwiw I agree with what’s been said upthread.

I scoped that out years ago, you's owe me Royalties

Years ago I also scoped a really good way of getting from Schneckie to JoG or Cape Wrath on mostly double track and wee roads. Now every route under the sun uses it
That said if you look at an OS map of the area, it's quite obvious....

Didn't James write something about Komoot? Once it's there, he's made a deal with Komoot. Paragraph 10 and 12 especially of importance. If they took the contract (their terms and conditions) very seriously James would probably have to change a few thing regarding the TNR. Or simply delete it from Komoot.
Pretty stupid actually. One more reason to not join.

Too crypic sorry - can you expand on that? I have a deal with komoot, yes. If you mean how they store the info and the general terms, yes technically once up it's theirs to use. If I was to delete it the route would go back on there under someone else's name, just without the mention of SSF and the ride's aims. They would have the route either from me or someone else so was better it's done in a way that SSF benefit from it and I know it's correct, has the right copy and info etc.

And in this case, having been mildly involved with patents and IP through my profession, I can't see a copyright for the route.

- I agree, the Q came to mind after I couldn't find anything that might suggest a difference between a google map direction and a large pice of routing work creation that's named and branded. But I think the answer is that the branding is what you can protect, not the other stuff.

Comes to mind, didn't we, many years ago exchange a few words on liability? I'm sorry I was of no help and not sure if I ever wrote back what I got from friends (legal advisors).

I don't have anything if you sent it to the TNR email but no worries, and if you have it to hand it'd be of interest. I've a pretty good handle on what I'd be liable for these days and like IP it just comes down to whether you're insured to cover a defence and how confident you are in your nsurere. It's an area where komoot are a useful filter and beyond that I don't get involved anymore, the risks grew as the event got more popular. Was fun while it lasted and there's possible ways to re-establish it.

Torino-Nice Rally is the thing, although Komoot do seem to see it as 'The Komoot Torino-Nice Rally'. I hope they donated handsomely to SSF!

It is The komoot Torino-Nice Rally, but it doesn't fit into the logo I already have and they're ok with that : ) They do donate directly to SSF as annual sponsor, it's a positive relationship, always has been. They add to the rider benefits for any riders who donate to SSF too. I only have good things to say about my dealings with komoot and their 'rally series' is cool to see happening, the 'rally' term seems to have taken off for non-timed social tours. (no, I don't feel I'm due any ownership rights there )

fatbikephil wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 7:05 pm Years ago I also scoped a really good way of getting from Schneckie to JoG or Cape Wrath on mostly double track and wee roads. Now every route under the sun uses it
That said if you look at an OS map of the area, it's quite obvious....

Dotted line sickness. It's a real thing. I might elaborate once. Many of us seem to have it.

I recall meeting other cyclists on the train back home from a days or a couple of riding in the Alps. The amount of folks who believe they were the first (to ride a specific mountain path) is astounding. I usually start with describing details (if I've ridden it myself) of it and end up explaining that there have been folks as early as the '40ies 'riding' bicycles up there (also way before RSF).

It was nice to experience how relaxed Joffrey Maluski was after he'd completed the first known E-W traverse by bike of Iceland (through the Highlands) in winter. He mentioned it not once when we met in Reykjavik and didn't do so on his various media outlets. A nice touch to an incredible feat - for a change.

Well, every smart phone after the iPhone has looked and functioned more or less like an iPhone

You seem to have argued you can make a bike route or event ( phone)but not one identical to another persons( phone or route ).
A phone has to be similiar microphone screen speaker etc. Here they have taken his route, not made one like it.



Ps it a debatable point as to whether the iphone was indeed the first smart phone.

I've been thinking about copyright this evening and how we feel about it might depend upon the value we place on whatever it is we're talking about ... and that maynot simply be a monitory value.

Last week the publishing house that owns a magazine I write for asked me to sign a contract. It stipulated that once something was published, then ownership would pass to them. I write a monthly column and I'm happy enough to lose ownership - after all, I'm paid to write these things. However, I also write pieces of fiction for them and although still paid, I'm not happy to lose the rights to those. There's been noises made about a book of these stories (nothing to do with the magazine publishers) but my reluctance to hand over ownership isn't about money, revenue etc but about the fact that those stories all contain a small piece of me and in my simple mind, losing ownership would feel like losing a piece of myself.

I appreciate that might make no sense at all

I stopped writing for Future Publishing for that exact same reason Stu. I had the email and thought "f*ck that". Creaters should never have to give up copyright. It's fine to license it but take it when you didn't make it..no