Date   

FS: HO Rahoe Model Works Arch Bar trucks w/ high detail wheels

Andy Carlson
 



Hello-
I have 6 pairs of Tahoe Model Works old-time 5' 0" wheelbase Arch Bar trucks (Later archbar trucks had 5'6" w.b.). Good from late 19th century until outlawed sometime mid-century, though many continued in use for MoW work cars. Tahoe # 011

I also have 8 pairs of the TMW 40-ton Arch Bars with the later 5'6" wheelbase. Tahoe # 003

Both of these arch bars are sold equipped with Intermountain's new semi-scale "high-detail" wheels which feature correct for non-ribbed back side wheel profile and code 88 wheel width.These wheels look very nice with such a fine truck such as this.
Offered for $8/pair, plus shipping of $3.25 and up.

I have many of the other trucks from TMW, also equipped with the high-detail wheel sets. Ask for info off-list (Please) at

I accept checks and money orders. With a small fee I also accept PayPal.
thanks,
-Andy Carlson
Ojai CA











Re: Amoco Tank

Dean Kinzley
 

Thanks Dave


On Thursday, June 15, 2017 3:57 PM, "Dave Parker spottab@... [STMFC]" wrote:


 
Dean:

Tim is correct; it is an AC&F Type 21, 10,000 gallons.

These are still available in Walthers Proto line, ready to run.  I have not seen the schemes on the the cars in Ted's book, nor decals for them, but that doesn't mean they don't exist somewhere.

Depending on what era you model, you might consider one of the Amoco predecessors. Amoco (aka American) became the east coast brand name for Standard Oil of Indiana.  Rights to those marketing areas were acquired when Standard bought Pan American Petroleum (in 1929), which in turn held  controlling interests in Mexican Petroleum (MPLX) and the American Oil Company (Baltimore).

There is a nice American Gas version of the car, and it happens to be on sale at Walthers today:
I own this car, but am still not 100% clear on what years the scheme would be appropriate for.  Walthers also has a black Pan Am version, but the same question applies.  I suspect (hope?) the answers may lie in the late Richard Hendrickson's photo collection, which I still have not had an opportunity to peruse.

PS:  As as been discussed here several times, the Tichy kit is based on the ~1918 USRA design that was never built.  It's a nice-looking car that does not model anything (accurately).

Hope this helps.

Dave Parker
Riverside, CA




On Thursday, June 15, 2017 12:11 PM, "Dean Kinzley dean.kinzley@... [STMFC]" wrote:


 
Sorry, I meant to.  P. 22




On Thursday, June 15, 2017 1:34 PM, "Dave Parker spottab@... [STMFC]" wrote:


 
Dean:

Can you provide the page number for the car in question so we don't have to flip through the whole book?

Thanks,

Dave Parker
Riverside, CA




On Thursday, June 15, 2017 9:19 AM, "Dean Kinzley dean.kinzley@... [STMFC]" wrote:


 
I am a bit of a novice so the following are likely novice questions:  In the Speedwitch Freight Cars Ref Manuel, V 2, there is a photo of an Amoco tank AMOX 1799 which looks like it could be represented by Tichy tank kit #4020 and, if it could, is there a source for the decals?  Thanks.

Dean








Re: Hazmat Placards

Tony Thompson
 

Rich Chapin wrote:

 
I have a copy of “Transportation of Explosives and Other Dangerous Articles by Freight including Specifications for Shipping Containers”, issued 12/11/1922, effective 1/1/1923. Required by a 3/4/1921 amendment to the Transportation Act of 1920. This is a ICC publication of regulations [actually labelled as “Freight Tariff No.1”.

Article 900 is required “Placarding of Cars”, but this has illustrations for explosives, poison gas, inflammable liquids and acids only. The last two are diamonds like the packaging, while the first two are rectangles.


      I wrote a blog post about all this back in 2012. My basis was a fine and authoritative article by John Ryczkowski, in Mainline Modeler (Volume 14, January 1993, pages 68–73), and I showed all the early and subsequent placards. Here is a link to that post:


Tony Thompson             Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705         www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; e-mail, tony@...
Publishers of books on railroad history






ADMIN: RE: Mainline Modeler - Hundman Publishing

Mikebrock
 

Guys,

The thread regarding Hundman Publishing’s position on copyright…and the C&O Historical Society’s as well…with only a remote association with steam era frt cars, is now terminated. It is out of scope and has already been discussed at length on the STMFC.

 

Mike Brock

STMFC Owner

 


Rapido boxcar

Jon Miller <atsfus@...>
 

    Any word on the current progress on the boxcar?


-- 
Jon Miller
For me time stopped in 1941
Digitrax  Chief/Zephyr systems, 
SPROG, JMRI User
NMRA Life member #2623
Member SFRH&MS


Re: Lowered Car End Reporting Marks

S. Busch
 


Bob,
 
Looking through my C&O material, it appears this was common practice for C&O cars with that type of Murphy end.
 
For example, here are two cars from another group having this type of end:
 
 
 
Regards --
Steve Busch
Duncan,SC
 

This print is backwards but if you enlarge it you can make out that the car end reporting marks for this C&O boxcar are nowhere near the top of the car, probably due to the lack of space for a stencil:

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/barrigerlibrary/12308079794/in/dateposted/

 

Was this at all common?

 

Bob Chaparro

Hemet, CA


Re: Hazmat Placards

Dave Parker
 

Rich:

I have the same ICC publication as you.  It includes a diagram of the early (earliest) INFLAMMABLE placard:  that word in red, the rest in black, and on a diamond that is 10.75" on a side.  It also include the ACID diamond, but for some reason that was only 8.5" on a side.

For some reason, the ARA (MCB) started requiring the placard holders somewhat earlier.  The 1920 Specifications for Tank Cars included rule 18-A, but only for Class III and IV cars.  It specified "suitable boards for attaching placards prescribed by the Interstate Commerce Commission...of sufficient size to permit placards to be applied with the opposite points of the diamond in vertical and horizontal positions..." .  So the boards could be either square or in the diamond orientation, as long as they could accommodate the placards.  This reg predates the ICC rule by two or three years; perhaps the ARA knew it was in the pipeline. 

I can find no mention of these placards in the earlier MCB Specifications (1917, 1918).

Note that the metal-frame holders that allowed the standard placards to be dropped into place (rather than tacked) were mandated on newly built cars, and on  those receiving general repairs, with an effective date of Oct 14, 1932.  This is according to the 1938 Code of Federal Regulations.

Dave Parker
Riverside, CA


On Friday, June 16, 2017 3:53 AM, "'Richard W. Chapin' rwc27q@... [STMFC]" wrote:


 
I have a copy of “Transportation of Explosives and Other Dangerous Articles by Freight including Specifications for Shipping Containers”, issued 12/11/1922, effective 1/1/1923. Required by a 3/4/1921 amendment to the Transportation Act of 1920. This is a ICC publication of regulations [actually labelled as “Freight Tariff No.1”.
 
Article 700 is “Labels” and shows required placards [classic diamonds]; red for inflammable liquids & gases, yellow for inflammable solids, white for acids & corrosives, white with red letters for poison gases and green for non-inflammable gases. These required on packaging.
 
Article 900 is required “Placarding of Cars”, but this has illustrations for explosives, poison gas, inflammable liquids and acids only. The last two are diamonds like the packaging, while the first two are rectangles.
 
So, 1/1/1923 is an official date for placards.  I note colors noted above are currently used [e.g., yellow flammable solid]
 
So, did the diamond come for the law requiring these regs? Or perhaps from a prior Bureau of Explosives document? I have found articles that say railroads required labels for Dangerous Goods in 1910, but have yet to find any specifics on that.
 
 
Rich Chapin
27 Quincy Rd
Basking Ridge, NJ 07920-2222
 



Re: Mainline Modeler - Hundman Publishing - who really owns the copyright?

SUVCWORR@...
 

This can all be boiled down to Did you sell the copyright or only sell the limited use of copyrighted material?   The answer depends on the agreement you signed.  Let's move this to photographs something I an involved with everyday.   I am a partner is a photographic studio.  When we shoot a wedding our standard contract gives the bride and groom limited rights -- they may publish the photos on social media without transfering any right to anyone viewing the photos, they may have prints made by us or somewhere else for their personal use and use of their family,  they may not sell those prints to anyone nor may they edit, alter or otherwise change our work without purchasing the copyright.   We have never had anyone actually purchase the copyright as we charge $2500 per photograph for the edited file.  Beyond these limited uses we retain the copyright.   We also include a release in the contract that we can use any and all photographs for advertising, promoting our business, displaying on our website or any other use.

So what did you sign?  You own the copyright the moment the article is written.  Did you sign an agreement selling all rights?  Did you only agree to let them publish it?  Are you bound by a time limit from publishing the material elsewhere or bound forever?  Did you agree to let them edit the article?  Do you have any rights with regard to the editing in the agreement?  Does you agreement allow the publisher to further publish the material in compendium or book of reprinted articles?

You need to read the agreement and if you do not agree to its terms say so before you sign it.

The one thing you do not own is the layout.  Even if you own the article and all the photographs, drawings, charts etc the publisher owns the layout.  It is their artistic employees and editors who design they layout.  This will prevent you from simply copying the article and reprinting it even if you are the author.

Rich Orr


-----Original Message-----
From: martiny@... [STMFC]
To: STMFC
Sent: Thu, Jun 15, 2017 10:33 pm
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Mainline Modeler - Hundman Publishing - who really owns the copyright?

I have been reading this thread with interest but the answer still seems murky. But then that could be because the law is flexible. So let me ask a question and hopefully there is a clear answer. Let us say that I wrote an article for a current publication (which I have and am waiting for it to be published).

Do I retain the copyright or does that vary between magazines? If I retain the copyright then in theory I could submit the article to another magazine right now for publication. That, to me, seems unethical and probably would cause me to not have any future articles to be considered. Not a very good idea. If I retain the copyright then it would appear that after a reasonable amount of time, I could update the article and publish it again. But I am more interested in the next question.

Which copyright supersedes article ownership? Is it the magazine you first published in or the company that the magazine reassigned all articles to? The second company could be more strict on articles they own and not allow the author access to anything he wrote. Perhaps even publish the article again without asking permission or possibly not reimbursing the original author.

This has possibly been settled a courtroom already.

Marty
San Diego, CA

---- "Al Kresse water.kresse@... [STMFC]" <STMFC@...> wrote:
> Do not assume anything. Ask a general question to C&O HS folks to get Bob's Hundman's intent. C&O HS rates ease of sharing railroad knowledge as their top priority. I would GUESS not-for-profits just need to ask.
>
>
> I don't have first hand knowledge of the agreement.
>
>
> Al
>
> > On June 15, 2017 at 2:20 PM "rxensen@... [STMFC]" <STMFC@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > That is an interesting change as Bob and I spoke several years ago about C&NW articles and at the time he gave the society verbal permission to use any C&NW article needed for the CNWHS Modeler.
> >
> > Per your statement we now have to ask the C&O society?
> > Ron Christensen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> >



------------------------------------
Posted by: <martiny@...>
------------------------------------


------------------------------------

Yahoo Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
STMFC-digest@...
STMFC-fullfeatured@...

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
STMFC-unsubscribe@...

<*> Your use of Yahoo Groups is subject to:
https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/


Re: Mainline Modeler - Hundman Publishing - who really owns the copyr...

Greg Martin
 

Marty,
 
I would have to ask why you would do it to your own work, unless there was a new procedure or vehicle to accomplish it.
 
I do believe that the shelf life of any subject is two years and at time the subject should be revised, but perhaps by your mentor not you. I think Tony would agree and his blog has done than more than once and one subject that comes to mind is the SHAKE_N_TAKE® Kansas City Southern car, a simple project with a "new" path to completion and I enjoyed the outcome.
 
As I have said gain the respect and you will win the reader, violate it and you will be forever criticized.
 
Copy is a great form of flattery, and welcomed when borrowing a technique when you mention it roots, improving it brings a smile to the creator.
 
Greg Martin
 
Eventually all things merge into one and a river runs through it.
Norman Maclean
 

In a message dated 6/16/2017 1:27:19 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, STMFC@... writes:
Greg and Tony, I absolutely agree with your comments concerning the ethics of sending the same article to more than one periodical at the same time. The editors have to trust the authors will not do that and violating that trust will have consequences. I can see publishing the same article in another periodical several years later (the original might no longer exist, for example), HOWEVER I would include a cover letter explaining that this article was previously published in xyz magazine in June 2001 and would include a copy of the original article with my submission. The new article should not be a word for word copy of the original but would include new content. There would also have to be a reason for submitting it again. Perhaps there has been an advance in products thus providing a better way to accomplish what the original article covered.

Marty Young
San Diego, CA


Re: Tank Car CIL 805

william darnaby
 

Both of these cars were indeed in company service.  I saw and photographed these cars a lot during my Purdue years as they were always around the Shops.  It was my understanding that they were in relatively captive service between Whiting, Indiana (Standard Oil) and Shops for specialty oils for locomotive and car maintenance.  Hence, the small compartments.

Bill Darnaby



From: "Andy Carlson midcentury@... [STMFC]"
To: "STMFC@..." <STMFC@...>
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 4:27 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Tank Car CIL 805



This car (or a sister) is a subject for one of the 1950s color slides often referred to as "the Gerstley Collection". It is, of course, a frameless Van Dyke tank car which the Monon acquired for company service. I had a brief discussion with Richard Hendrickson about this car and he noted that this was one of very few Van Dykes with AB brake conversions. Look at all of the brackets visible in the underside.
-Andy Carlson
Ojai CA



From: "thecitrusbelt@... [STMFC]"
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 1:58 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Tank Car CIL 805

 
Another backward print from the Barringer Library:
 
 
This is CIL 805, a three-compartment tank car. I seem to recall the presence of the two smaller domes indicates this car originally was a single-compartment car that was subsequently modified.
 
Any comments on this car?
 
Bob Chaparro
Hemet, CA







Re: Hazmat Placards

RICH CHAPIN
 

I have a copy of “Transportation of Explosives and Other Dangerous Articles by Freight including Specifications for Shipping Containers”, issued 12/11/1922, effective 1/1/1923. Required by a 3/4/1921 amendment to the Transportation Act of 1920. This is a ICC publication of regulations [actually labelled as “Freight Tariff No.1”.

 

Article 700 is “Labels” and shows required placards [classic diamonds]; red for inflammable liquids & gases, yellow for inflammable solids, white for acids & corrosives, white with red letters for poison gases and green for non-inflammable gases. These required on packaging.

 

Article 900 is required “Placarding of Cars”, but this has illustrations for explosives, poison gas, inflammable liquids and acids only. The last two are diamonds like the packaging, while the first two are rectangles.

 

So, 1/1/1923 is an official date for placards.  I note colors noted above are currently used [e.g., yellow flammable solid]

 

So, did the diamond come for the law requiring these regs? Or perhaps from a prior Bureau of Explosives document? I have found articles that say railroads required labels for Dangerous Goods in 1910, but have yet to find any specifics on that.

 

 

Rich Chapin

27 Quincy Rd

Basking Ridge, NJ 07920-2222

 


Re: Mainline Modeler - Hundman Publishing - who really owns the copyr...

Martin Young
 

Greg and Tony, I absolutely agree with your comments concerning the ethics of sending the same article to more than one periodical at the same time. The editors have to trust the authors will not do that and violating that trust will have consequences. I can see publishing the same article in another periodical several years later (the original might no longer exist, for example), HOWEVER I would include a cover letter explaining that this article was previously published in xyz magazine in June 2001 and would include a copy of the original article with my submission. The new article should not be a word for word copy of the original but would include new content. There would also have to be a reason for submitting it again. Perhaps there has been an advance in products thus providing a better way to accomplish what the original article covered.

Marty Young
San Diego, CA

---- "tgregmrtn@aol.com [STMFC]" <STMFC@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Marty

It did happen between the two magazine we were talking about within the
same publishing month of both by the same author we likely all know.

Both editors regretted publishing it and they never published his work in
their magazine again.

The lack of ethics lead to the use of business ethics and that was the end
of that story. I was in Bob's office when the issue came up and the resolve
was handed down.

Let your conscience be your guide... Respect is a hard thing to gain and
easily lost.

Greg Martin

Eventually all things merge into one and a river runs through it.
Norman Maclean


In a message dated 6/15/2017 7:33:47 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
STMFC@yahoogroups.com writes:

I have been reading this thread with interest but the answer still seems
murky. But then that could be because the law is flexible. So let me ask a
question and hopefully there is a clear answer. Let us say that I wrote an
article for a current publication (which I have and am waiting for it to be
published).

Do I retain the copyright or does that vary between magazines? If I retain
the copyright then in theory I could submit the article to another
magazine right now for publication. That, to me, seems unethical and probably
would cause me to not have any future articles to be considered. Not a very
good idea. If I retain the copyright then it would appear that after a
reasonable amount of time, I could update the article and publish it again. But I
am more interested in the next question.

Which copyright supersedes article ownership? Is it the magazine you first
published in or the company that the magazine reassigned all articles to?
The second company could be more strict on articles they own and not allow
the author access to anything he wrote. Perhaps even publish the article
again without asking permission or possibly not reimbursing the original
author.

This has possibly been settled a courtroom already.

Marty
San Diego, CA


Re: Mainline Modeler - Hundman Publishing - who really owns the copyright?

Tony Thompson
 

Marty (not signing his full name) wrote:

 

I have been reading this thread with interest but the answer still seems murky. But then that could be because the law is flexible. So let me ask a question and hopefully there is a clear answer. Let us say that I wrote an article for a current publication (which I have and am waiting for it to be published).

Do I retain the copyright or does that vary between magazines? If I retain the copyright then in theory I could submit the article to another magazine right now for publication. That, to me, seems unethical and probably would cause me to not have any future articles to be considered. Not a very good idea. If I retain the copyright then it would appear that after a reasonable amount of time, I could update the article and publish it again. But I am more interested in the next question.

     For you not to hold copyright, you have to relinquish it to the magazine. You can do this on a one-time use basis, in other words they have the right to publish it one time. No republishing, including in "collection" volumes. Obviously you have to assign them SOME right or they will not publish. This, however, has nothing to do with WHEN an article may get chosen to publish.
      There is a VERY strong rule in the publishing world: your submission to anyone MUST be only to them. Anything else and your name will really be "mud" permanently, even if you are only caught in advance and nothing actually gets published. Editors in most fields do know each other and do talk. Your odds on getting away with multiple submissions are slim.

Which copyright supersedes article ownership? Is it the magazine you first published in or the company that the magazine reassigned all articles to? The second company could be more strict on articles they own and not allow the author access to anything he wrote. Perhaps even publish the article again without asking permission or possibly not reimbursing the original author.

       I don't know what you mean about "reassigned" copyright. Rights are like property. They can be bought and sold, but only one entity holds them at any one time. It is true that a magazine that holds unrestricted copyright to your material could sell it to someone you don't like, but you would have given up rights and can't object. Another reason to only assign "one-time" rights to any periodical. And if you have given up all rights, yes, you have no access to your own material. Either don't assign rights that way, or be very sure you trust the recipient.

Tony Thompson




Re: Mainline Modeler - Hundman Publishing - who really owns the copyr...

Greg Martin
 

Marty
 
It did happen between the two magazine we were talking about within the same publishing month of both by the same author we likely all know.
 
Both editors regretted publishing it and they never published his work in their magazine again.
 
The lack of ethics lead to the use of business ethics and that was the end of that story. I was in Bob's office when the issue came up and the resolve was handed down.
 
Let your conscience be your guide... Respect is a hard thing to gain and easily lost.
 
Greg Martin
 
Eventually all things merge into one and a river runs through it.
Norman Maclean
 

In a message dated 6/15/2017 7:33:47 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, STMFC@... writes:
I have been reading this thread with interest but the answer still seems murky. But then that could be because the law is flexible. So let me ask a question and hopefully there is a clear answer. Let us say that I wrote an article for a current publication (which I have and am waiting for it to be published).

Do I retain the copyright or does that vary between magazines? If I retain the copyright then in theory I could submit the article to another magazine right now for publication. That, to me, seems unethical and probably would cause me to not have any future articles to be considered. Not a very good idea. If I retain the copyright then it would appear that after a reasonable amount of time, I could update the article and publish it again. But I am more interested in the next question.

Which copyright supersedes article ownership? Is it the magazine you first published in or the company that the magazine reassigned all articles to? The second company could be more strict on articles they own and not allow the author access to anything he wrote. Perhaps even publish the article again without asking permission or possibly not reimbursing the original author.

This has possibly been settled a courtroom already.

Marty
San Diego, CA


Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Mainline Modeler - Hundman Publishing

Greg Martin
 

Doug,
 
I didn't ask a question; however, I may have raised some from others. 
 
I never raised the question with Bob, but I had a different relationship with Bob than from the things I have seen and have been told from others. I won't go there with all do respect.
 
Greg Martin
 
Eventually all things merge into one and a river runs through it.
Norman Maclean
 

In a message dated 6/15/2017 7:44:45 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, STMFC@... writes:
Doug;

Hundman told me the same thing that Steve was told by RMC. I hold the rights to my article to publish again.

The compressing of said article and miniscule photos were what gave birth to TKM, but that is another story.......

Elden Gatwood


Re: Mainline Modeler - Hundman Publishing

Greg Martin
 

Doug,
 
I understand the LAW very well and yes when I signed my Carstens checks I realized the same, and while it might have been presumed that I signed my rights away with Hundman I never actually signed anything of the likes, so it would be presumed I did retain them.
 
The Byline issue, well that was settled long ago and my Byline(s) are protected whether it was Scuttle Butt, at the Interchange, Weekender Project or whichever and I have used many, they are mine and I can share them but they are mine.
 
But, even more than the law I would think it a matter of business and ethics... again I would hole they would not without my permission. I can't speak for someone else.
 
Greg Martin  
 
Eventually all things merge into one and a river runs through it.
Norman Maclean
 

In a message dated 6/15/2017 5:35:05 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, STMFC@... writes:
Greg did you retain copyright of your articles that Hundman published? If not, and you were compensated, they are most likely the property of the publisher, and by transfer, thus property of the C&OHS.

While I did not write anything for Hundman, and do not know his author agreements, I did write for Railroad Model Craftsman when published by Carstens Publications INC. I recall the checks from Carstens had a clause on the back stating when I endorsed the check (ie to cash/deposit) I was signing over ownership of the article. This meant Carstens could do anything they wanted, including reprinting/publishing, and I could not prevent them. At the time Bill Schaumburg advised me to retain copyright of my material by including a copyright notation on all work submitted. This permits me to use my work as I wish.

I think this practice is pretty standard in the publishing world. I undertand Kalmbach "buys" articles, and sometimes they sit for years before getting published, if ever. By paying for the article, Kalmbach becomes the owner and the author is prevented from publishing elsewhere.

Perhaps someone in the publishing industry or legal field can speak more directly to this matter. But if you did not retain copyright, you may not have control over material Hundman Publishing printed. That is my understanding.

Doug Harding


Re: Mainline Modeler - Hundman Publishing

David Turner
 

All,

Thank you very much for the enlightening discussion of the procedure to obtain permission to reprint articles from Mainline Modeler.

As modeling columnist, I was inquiring for the purpose of determining the possibility of reprinting articles about the Spokane, Portland and Seattle Railway in the quarterly journal of the SP&S Historical Society.

As always, the members of this group are a great help in many projects.

Best regards,

David Turner

Keeping the S. P. & S. Ry. alive in Santa Rosa, California


Re: Mainline Modeler - Hundman Publishing

Greg Martin
 

Dave,
 
I find myself asking this question once again. Why in heavens name would you ever try to reproduce a model of something from a $5.00 set of drawings? They ma be beautiful but they are nothing more or nothing less. It would be different id you have a professional copy of the velum/mylar. 
 
Greg Martin
 
Eventually all things merge into one and a river runs through it.
Norman Maclean
 

In a message dated 6/15/2017 12:46:54 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, STMFC@... writes:

It would be awfully nice if he were to draw what’s on the original drawings – stuff like dimensions and/or steel shape and weight -- instead of assuming everything was going to be used exactly as he made models – sheet of paper with un-dimensioned drawing at HO scale where one lays out styrene of the approximate size – or oversize -- for gluing.  As they were done all of his drawings – and most in MM from others -- are without value to me and in all likelihood w/o value for anyone trying to make something at Shapeways.

Dave Nelson


Re: Mainline Modeler - Hundman Publishing - who really owns the copyright?

Martin Young
 

I have been reading this thread with interest but the answer still seems murky. But then that could be because the law is flexible. So let me ask a question and hopefully there is a clear answer. Let us say that I wrote an article for a current publication (which I have and am waiting for it to be published).

Do I retain the copyright or does that vary between magazines? If I retain the copyright then in theory I could submit the article to another magazine right now for publication. That, to me, seems unethical and probably would cause me to not have any future articles to be considered. Not a very good idea. If I retain the copyright then it would appear that after a reasonable amount of time, I could update the article and publish it again. But I am more interested in the next question.

Which copyright supersedes article ownership? Is it the magazine you first published in or the company that the magazine reassigned all articles to? The second company could be more strict on articles they own and not allow the author access to anything he wrote. Perhaps even publish the article again without asking permission or possibly not reimbursing the original author.

This has possibly been settled a courtroom already.

Marty
San Diego, CA

---- "Al Kresse water.kresse@comcast.net [STMFC]" <STMFC@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Do not assume anything. Ask a general question to C&O HS folks to get Bob's Hundman's intent. C&O HS rates ease of sharing railroad knowledge as their top priority. I would GUESS not-for-profits just need to ask.


I don't have first hand knowledge of the agreement.


Al

On June 15, 2017 at 2:20 PM "rxensen@yahoo.com [STMFC]" <STMFC@yahoogroups.com> wrote:



That is an interesting change as Bob and I spoke several years ago about C&NW articles and at the time he gave the society verbal permission to use any C&NW article needed for the CNWHS Modeler.

Per your statement we now have to ask the C&O society?
Ron Christensen








Re: Mainline Modeler - Hundman Publishing

Tony Thompson
 

Years ago, Bill Schaumburg advised me to simply cross out that agreement on the check and write "no transfer" beneath. Absent such an agreement, the publisher only has rights to the appearance of the piece as published, that is, to the design and layout. The CONTENT remains the property of the author.

This means you cannot scan and post magazine articles without permission from at least the magazine, and in many cases, the author ALSO.
Tony Thompson 


On Jun 15, 2017, at 5:34 AM, 'Doug Harding' doug.harding@... [STMFC] <STMFC@...> wrote:

 

Greg did you retain copyright of your articles that Hundman published? If not, and you were compensated, they are most likely the property of the publisher, and by transfer, thus property of the C&OHS.

While I did not write anything for Hundman, and do not know his author agreements, I did write for Railroad Model Craftsman when published by Carstens Publications INC. I recall the checks from Carstens had a clause on the back stating when I endorsed the check (ie to cash/deposit) I was signing over ownership of the article. This meant Carstens could do anything they wanted, including reprinting/publishing, and I could not prevent them. At the time Bill Schaumburg advised me to retain copyright of my material by including a copyright notation on all work submitted. This permits me to use my work as I wish.

I think this practice is pretty standard in the publishing world. I undertand Kalmbach "buys" articles, and sometimes they sit for years before getting published, if ever. By paying for the article, Kalmbach becomes the owner and the author is prevented from publishing elsewhere.

Perhaps someone in the publishing industry or legal field can speak more directly to this matter. But if you did not retain copyright, you may not have control over material Hundman Publishing printed. That is my understanding.

Doug Harding

37561 - 37580 of 187811