Ownership of the map of a certified course!

This question comes up from time to time and I counsel the inquirer that the course technically belongs to the entity responsible for getting it measured. There is nothing to stop another race from using the course, but the right thing to do is to contact the entity who originally measured the course and request their permission to use it for their event.

I guess one thing USATF could do is withhold sanctioning of a race run on a "pirated" course. I don't think it's RRTC's job to police this, any more than it's our job to ensure that courses are set up the way they were measured.

As the course is certified, not the race, and the course has not changed, I see no reason why we should require a second map of the same course to be submitted. I'm sure there are situations where more than one race has been run over the same coures, and there are certainly situations where a race has changed its name but is still run over a course certified with the previous name.

I recall the phrase "eminent domain" being used to classify a course once it's out there for all to view. Do we need a legal opinion from USATF?

Since the name of the race appears on the map, anyone looking at it will see that, for instance, "Stu's Super Awesome 5K" is mysteriously listed as the "Komen Race for the Cure" and will ask questions. Any RD unscrupulous enough to poach a course would probably lie under these circumstances as well.

In any event, the ownership of the race lies with the person or group that paid to have it measured. Technically it falls under copyright law. While the map can be reproduced, it is illegal to do so without permission.

Enforcement is not our bailiwick. With 29,000 courses on file (active and expired) it would take an army of lawyers to ensure that none are being misused. Presumably the original owners will care enough to handle it themselves. If not, then is it really a problem?

Sorry I missed the early discussion on this topic. I have queried my certifier about it, but we didnt' discuss in-depth.

How about:
As a measurer (RaceMeasure is my business name), I proactively copyright each of my maps, including a copyright bug on each. (As Stu indicated, each map is inherently copyrighted, but including the bug publicly indicates you intend to keep the rights to that map.) I own the copyright, not the race. Anyone using the map obtained from any source - USATF site, RaceMeasure.com site, or the contracting race's site - and covering or replacing the name of the contracting race, is subject to copyright infringement penalties, if I care to pursue. Included in the copyright info on the map would be contact info for the measurer if someone else wants to use the course.

Then, if someone else wants to use the course, I can request a licensing fee of whatever - say, $75 - and send that to the entity that contracted to have the course certified to begin with. That way, they recover some of their investment in the certification.

I also agree that ideally, USATF would not sanction a race on a poached course. But to enforce, USATF would have to require a letter of permission from the original course "owner", or the measurer. Not practical in any permutation. In Denver, we have a few courses that many entities use. The certification was paid for by one, but used by many, as the courses are within the boundaries of city parks, and are good places for races.

USATF would not know about a "poached" course unless a record was set. Then, the poachers would have to pay for the validation, possibly? If someone submitted a poached map for certification, they woulnd't have the supporting paperwork relating to measurement, so the course could not be certified to them, anyhow.

Thoughts?

Stu, quite often the race name is not on the map - Dave Reik was actually kind of a stickler about that, since often the race name changes ("Stu's Super 5K" might morph into "Jim's Jumbo Pumpkin Run" with a change in directorship or sponsorship) but the course is the same. I generally try to follow that philosophy - I'll use the name of the locale rather than the race when I can.

If a record is set on a poached course, the RD's got some 'splainin' to do.

The runner won't be real happy when he finds out that his record doesn't count, since there's no paperwork on file and a mismatched certification number.

Would a validation stand under those circumstances?

The rules are pretty clear, papers have to be in before race day.

The original owner of the course has a stake in its accuracy, or he wouldn't bother certifying it. Presumably he will go out and set all the boundary cones and TA points accurately. Will a poacher be as thorough? There's no way to tell.

I wondered why there were still people back east still up, responding to my post. Now I see - one of you is from CT, the other from Cleveland. GO ROCKIES!!! to both of you.

If the "poaching" RD doesn't change the name of the course on the map, there is no infraction.
Offensive, maybe, but nothing illegal. The course is public, and the certification is valid. The RD shows on the map that is is the same course as "Joe's Bar Run" had certified.

USATF should have no problem validating that record.

First: I fully support the trend to name courses by the location and distance and NOT by the event name. Both big and small races frequently change names. Tropical to Ing or St Patric's to Bunny hop.

Second: The location belongs to the city or park. If another event puts in an application to use the roads it's none of your bee's wax.

Yes the protocol is to ask, or at the very least not run the new event within a month or two of the prior race.

I live in a city where venues are difficult to find, and LOTS of races take place. So inevitably the same venue is re-used through out the year by different races.

In my opinion it is better that the same exact marks are used, instead of a new set with similar, but offset marks. We have parks with marks all over the place. This has lead to some evens using the wrong marks.

Since I am a member of the RRCA, and the organizations goal is to promote running and racing, I feel it is my duty to share each course with the larger community. I do that indirectly by the USATF course listing. I do it directly by going to the park manager or city manager and giving them a copy of the course.

I would prefer the next chap used my course instead of putting down new marks and possibly painting over mine.

I have, on one occasion found that not only were my course marks painted over but the nails had been pulled out. Maybe the measurer thought they were old marks of his.

I would prefer that the next guy used my marks instead of his because maybe he is only using a GPS.

I would prefer that my marks got re-painted not painted over.

I think the runners also like to re-run the same exact course and compare times. There is a marked seasonal difference here in the tropics.

If joe blow walks into a park or city office and says they want to run a race, I would hope he is greeted with a list of existing courses that he can use, instead of yet another set of marks being laid down.

One park has so much use, that for one course that they have recently put in a perminant registration tent at the start line with, get this, a permanant black-toped paved path, that is wheel chair accessable, for the people who are registering to walk down.

I think the only real thing you can hope for is the proper course number bing used and maybe, as a curtsy, the words 'measured by ......' for credit.

I can show you one bit of road where there are no less than four mile one marks within about 100 yards. What we need is more co-operation to use the same course and not several being layed over each other.

Get over it, you don't own the streets, you don't own the view, you don't even own the nails you banged into the public road.

We all have a personal pride in course we have crafted, for designing and laying out a good course is indeed a craft. But once we publish it is then in the public domain.

The original RD probably paid the fright for getting the measurement done. But no one, not the original RD or any one else needs to pay another nickel to use that course in the future. (At least for the first 10 years.)

Yes I too get a bit miffed when a course gets hijacked, but only if they don't credit the measurer, or contact me for a clean copy of the map, or set out to deliberately set a date to sit on top of the other event.

Legalese is getting overblown and unreasonable to enforce, anyway.

I suggest to anyone consulting with me on using a previously certified course, that an ethical thing to do is to contact the people responsible for the expenses of the original certification. A contribution to the charity that was represented earlier is a gesture that should please both parties.

Multiple uses of a certified course would certainly be in the interest of accurate races for the running community.