Catskillmountaineer.com Forum

Walking News, Inc is out of business. If I recall, someone purchased them, but I could be wrong. I believe that the copyrights to the maps would have expired by now.

Is http://kbk_is-a-geek_net.website/maps/rusk1879/original/ a better scan of the Rusk map than the one you have? If so, would you mind downloading and hosting it (Download link at the bottom of the page), so that I don't have to keep it alive? (I have bandwidth problems on my uplink; that file is on my home server.) Going to the original scan bypassed the resolution problems that you noted in the PDF.

In the scan, which comes from www.archive.org, there's an obvious problem in that the page is torn in three places, and the map didn't lie flat in the scanner. Because of this, we're going to have to be very careful about georeferencing it. I think it can probably be done in pieces, starting with the grid intersections (which are minutes of arc) and then working in other things that won't have moved. Note that the longitudes are measured from the Naval Observatory in Washington, not from Greenwich! Depending on what we want to get out of this, georeferencing might not be worthwhile, of course.

The map agrees fairly well with a modern trail map in the location of Sunset Rocks - both of them - the Palenville Overlook, and "Bowlder." (The Walking News map also uses this curious spelling - ought it actually be spelt that way?) A bunch of the old trails are different, but I imagine that Harding would have relocated the ones on his property, particularly when he built the road (now the New York Long Path) up to the Hotel Kaaterskill.

Kevin - We would be happy to have it hosted here on-line. I have tried to get an original copy for quite some time to photograph and host here on-line. But, I have not been able to get my hands on it. The one you scanned is better then the one we have with Rusk's book, so we'll post it.

Years ago Boulder Rock was called, "Bowlder Rock". Somewhere along the line it got changed. What is worse is that the DEC has many view points with the wrong name (ie: Sunset Rock, Inspiration Point, Bear's Den, North Point, etc)

Another tid-bit: Tim O'Mallary and I tried to locate the Glen Mary house. But, we never located. Rich Kugel thinks he found the foundation. It is referenced in so many books from the past. It is quite remarkable that we can't find it.

Copyright today lasts 75 years after the death of the author, or 95 years for a work for hire. Nothing bearing a copyright date after 1923 that had had its copyright renewed before 1976 will fall into the public domain until 2018 at the very earliest. (This creates a large number of "orphan works" - works belonging to dead authors or bankrupt businesses, where someone owns a copyright that must be licensed, but they may not even know that they own it, and there's no way to trace them. But at various times, the owners of these old works pop up out of the woodwork and sue people for using them.) The Congress extends the term of copyright every time that Mickey Mouse or Winnie-the-Pooh is about to enter the public domain.

Everything bearing a copyright before 1923 has indeed had its copyright expire.

Years ago Boulder Rock was called, "Bowlder Rock". Somewhere along the line it got changed. What is worse is that the DEC has many view points with the wrong name (ie: Sunset Rock, Inspiration Point, Bear's Den, North Point, etc)

Names change. I would imagine that when the various "Buttermilk Falls," "High Peaks", "Round Tops" and "Balsams" were named, there wasn't much need to distinguish them - they were known to the locals, and nobody else much cared. (But they displayed a singular lack of imagination in naming so many things alike!)

Having two Sunset Rocks (which are shown on the Rusk map, so I wouldn't blame DEC), multiple Sphinges (the plural of Sphinx), and so on is to be expected. Look at Rusk's book, and the number of renamings we can see in that time: Schoharie Peaks -> Twin Mountain; Mink Mountain -> Sugarloaf, Slide->Mt Lincoln->Slide again, north summit of North Mountain -> Stoppel Point. Look at the innumerable spellings, all correct of Platte Kill, Plattekill, Plaatkill, Plaaterkill, and so on.

It appears that 'bowlder' was standard American spelling in Rusk's time. It was archaic in England even then. The spelling probably just got modernized as maps got reprinted.

"Another tid-bit: Tim O'Mallary and I tried to locate the Glen Mary house. But, we never located. Rich Kugel thinks he found the foundation. It is referenced in so many books from the past. It is quite remarkable that we can't find it."

I have often wondered about the exact location of the Glen Mary Cottage as well. I was hoping to search a little bit when I'm out there in September. The best reference to it that I can find, ( apart from old maps), is Alf Evers mentioning that it was bulldozed to make room for the parking area that used to be at the bottom of Schutt Rd. He does mention part of the foundation being visible. I own an old photo,(Stereoview), of the Glen Mary Cottage but there are no landmarks in the photo to help locate it.

As far as names being used in multiple locations in the Catskills, Bob G. of the MTHS wrote a nice article that can be found on their website about locations with same names. The longer version of the article was published in their newsletter, The Hemlock" Here is the link to it.

http://mths.org/blog/16-yet-another-artist-s-rock.html

Scott

The copyright issue with Walking News, Inc is complicated. Any Works created and registered prior to Jan 1, 1978 would fall under the 1909 Copyright Act. Under the 1909 Copyright Act, the Works are protected for 28 years. If there were derivative works created after the Works after 1977 (on Works prior to 1978), those derivative Works would be protected for 50 years beyond the Author's life, or under corporation would be 75 years. But, the original Works (created prior to 1978) would be 28 years. So, the Walking News, Inc maps protection would have expired in 2003. Walking News, Inc could have renewed the registration in 2002 to extend it another 28 years. But, I see no renewal done for the maps. But, they could have sold the copyrights to another company who could have renewed the copyrights, but this is highly unlikely since it is no longer published. That would create a problem also. Kevin correctly stated that in recent years the length of protection keeps creeping up. But, that is a longer conversation.

The best explanation I have received on Boulder Rock is the change in English. As far as other names for locations, the DEC did NO research prior to putting up the plaques. They create an enormous amount of confusion. The names were fairly consistent for the past 100+ years before the DEC go most of them wrong. As far as Mountain naming most of those were named by the surveyor. But, there were fork-lore names prior to that for some of the peaks. Today the names are regulated by the USGS. Very hard to get a name changed for a peak today. The DEC cannot control the naming of peaks.

The most common explanation of the Glen Mary House was that it was at the end of Schutt Road. Today the road ends at the Lake Creek. But when I was younger, the road extended about 50-100' over the creek and the parking lot was right there. Tim M had pictures of the cottage that didn't match that location. So, there is some controversy. Rich K said that he found a foundation near the trail after it goes over the creek. If you hike a little further up Lake Creek you will find another foundation. Never been resolved. Then there is the Scribner Saw Mill. I believe that it is where the Kaaterskill Laundry is (which is just east of the trail after crossing the creek). The Laurel House Laundry is located on the south side of the junction of Spruce Creek and Lake Creek. Then there is the confusion with the DEC on Spruce Creek and Lake Creek.

Walking News would not have needed to renew copyright in 2002. Any copyright in existence when the 1976 act went into effect was automatically brought over to the new regime, life+50 (now automatically extended to life+70), or 75 (now 95) years for a work-for-hire, and copyright registration became optional.

Anything with a copyright date after 1951 (and which was registered if it was in the 1951-1976 time frame) is still in copyright unless someone has released it, period. Anything copyright betwen 1923 and 1951 is still in copyright only if the copyright holder renewed the copyright. Not all the records of copyright renewal actually have been retained, so it's often impossible to determine with works from that period whether there is a copyright in effect or not, and even more difficult to determine who actually owns the copyright, since copyright transfers are not recorded with the government.

It's a lawyer's dream, and a publisher's nightmare.

I understand what you are saying. For individuals this is how it works. Even if the Works author dies, the copyright stays active with his estate. But, Walking News, Inc is a corporate entity. When the corporation ends, so does the copyright. The copyright can be revived if (1) The owner of the copyright can transfer the copyright to himself prior to dissolving the corporation; (2) He sells the corporate asset (copyright) to another entity. In either case he MUST file a renewal (Form RE) with the PTO within a limited amount of time. Most owners will not transfer the copyright to themselves. This would require a large tax payment. Very few people would do option #1. In most cases the PTO would not accept the renewal of the Works. He could have sold the copyright to another entity, but that is unlikely due to out-of-date material. The optional renewal is often done by corporation to ensure that their IP assets are not declared invalid.

Other twist to this is if he stopped doing business with Walking New, Inc for a couple years, but kept the corporation active with the Sec of State. He could start the company back up and the copyright would continue. If this happen during the 28 year renewal, the automatic renewal could be declared invalid. But, we know that the company was dissolved, and the copyright was not updated with a new owner.

Corporate entity copyright are hard to salvage if the company is dissolved without a sale. This is why most small companies file the copyright in the owners name, and license the software to their company. More protection and no tax problems.

USPTO has nothing to do with copyright. They register patents and trademarks. And yes, trademarks usually die when a corporation is dissolved, and patents have substantial fees associated with transfer. But copyrights require no formalities for their transfer, other than that they require a bill of sale. It's easier to sell a copyright than a car. Copyrights owned by a defunct corporation either pass with the sale of its assets or come into the hands of the creditors in bankruptcy. If the bankruptcy trustee makes no accounting for them, they remain in limbo - belonging to someone, but nobody knows whom.

The two reports linked to in http://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/orphanworks.html (Duke University Law School) give a pretty good picture on just how knotty the problem is. It would be easy if copyright died with the corporation that holds it.

As an accountant I can tell you that when you dissolve a company all the assets need to be sold or disposed of within a reasonable amount of time. Owners Intellectual Property, such as, Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights are all assets. Licenses generally are not assets unless they are transferable. Licenses are generally an expense line item. From an accounting stand point they are all treated the same. When the company is dissolved the Intellectual Property MUST be sold. Any assets that are not sold must disposed of. That would also apply to IP assets of the corporation.

If the company is in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, the IP MUST be sold or disposed of. The court will give the Trustee a reasonable amount of time to find a buyer for the IP. The Trustee can request a continuance from the court with a reasonable explanation. But, the judge will decide if the continuance is granted. Sooner or late the bankruptcy will come to an end, with the sale and disposal of all the assets. Remember the judge is there to protect the money owed to the creditors, and there to protect the company from unreasonable seizures from creditors.

If the owner of the company decides to buy the IP assets from the company he MUST pay fair-market value for the assets. Let say that this happens and the owner paid the company $1 for the IP assets. He does nothing with the IP assets. Ten years later he sues some party for infringing upon his copyrights, and claims 1 million dollars in damages. The first problem he is going to have is that declared the IP assets as worth $1 to IRS, but then tells the courts that they are worth $1 million dollars. IRS would then charge him with criminal tax fraud. Furthermore, the defendants would then push the courts to declare the infringement is only worth $1, and not worth $1 million. The courts are going to agree with the defendants. But, IRS isn't going to see it that way. He would most likely have to pay IRS millions, and get nothing from the defendants.

If the owner or officers of a company decides to dispose of the IP assets, the ownership of those IP assets would be terminated. IRS is very strict about disposed assets. You must really dispose of it. For example, if you dispose of expired inventory, you cannot just put it in the back room. You must actually destroy the assets. Same situation for IP assets. If you declare them as disposed, you cannot then later start using them. You cannot resurrect the assets of a dead company for a quick gain.

Do people cheat? Sure, but if you get caught you can expect to pay a very large fine, and spend time in prison.

I have to agree with Mike that personal ownership of IP assets is a smart way to go. If the company goes belly up, the IP assets will remain without having to pay taxes on them. The person would just have to pay taxes on the royalties as they are paid out. The assets never die until their full term is fulfilled. I do see a lot of small companies doing this type of ownership.