I agree, we certify courses, not races.
So we should name a course by location, distance and maybe year, rather than event name, which can change over time. Also more than one event can use the same course.
For example "A1A marathon 2017" or "Snider Park 5K clockwise".
There is no need to re-certify just because the event changed name or sponsor, or a second event comes along and uses the same course. Keeping event names out of the certification would help clarify this to all.
I agree that we publicly publish the certification. However I don't agree that the person who measured the course automatically always owns a copyright.
As a general rule, architectural and engendering drawings of basic things are not copywrightable, no matter how tidy the drawing. Not unless there is something "uniquely orignal" in the conception of a spacial aspect or design of the building. Sketches of as-built don't count.
Second, you can't deny that you don't wonder round the countryside randomly measuring courses in the hope of being able to sell one at a future date. You don't go out to measure unless hired to do so. Therefore I feel reasonably comfortable any court would consider this "work for hire". This would mean any copyright, if there is one, would be owned by the person who hired. Before getting on a high horse about ownership, do some research into "work for hire" cases.
Yes, we SHOULD give credit where credit is due. This is just polite in a sport where the rules require sportsmanship on and off the course.
If a race has to change a course I previously certified, they might e wise to come back to me, but don't have to.
They can get a new person to re-measure, and if my start or finish location is still part of the course, re-use that part of the map.
Some courses get re-worked frequently, because of construction, new plans for traffic diversion, or new police man in charge of city permit. Each map is a derivative of the prior one. It might be re-drawn from scratch, it might be just a minor alteration. The work is in the re-measurement. The map is just a sketch for people to identify the course and find the nails, nothing more.
I understand the pride we have in a good map. However lets not get too pompous or fake-legal.
If the race went to someone else for the next edition of the same course, that's the choice of the RD. Maybe we were not available, or were to expensive, or two difficult to deal with. For what ever reason the new RD chose not to return to us. At that point it is out of our control. Let it go.
However the race maps copied above begs the question, why re-certify the already certificated course? It had not expired.
Maybe the old measure is at fault for not explaining the course was good for 10 years.
The new measure SHOULD have said, this course is already certified, unless there is a problem just reuse the course. A new event using the same course does not need to have it remeasured, unless the prior expired.
Both these measures need to contact the event(s) and tell them they don't need to keep paying to remeasure the same course.
It is dishonest to accept payment for work that does not need to be done. That's like a car mechanic charging for changing your air filter, when it is obvious the air filter was changed last week and does not need replacing.
Now if there was a change in the course, that is a different matter. But that is not the case with the maps that started this thread.
Laying out courses on top of existing courses, without good reason, just leads to multiple marks that are closely grouped. This leads to confusion on race day as to if they are looking at last years mark or this years mark. It would be interesting to see if the application for certification stated the new course was to replace the old one.
More concerning for me is the habit of some race management companies, who try to steal the thunder of an existing event by:
(a) Running a similar event on the same or similar course two weeks prior.
(b) Running an identically named race up against an existing race. For example a competing "Jingle Bell Jog", when they could have named their race "Santa Stroll" or "Christmas sprint".
Running, which was once an amateur sport, has turned into a professional cutthroat business for the companies servicing this growing industry. We are just vendors.
We take pride in our work, but we don't own their event or the course. Having produced a work for hire, we probably don't have, or did not retain, any personal copyright enforceable in a court.