.

''the majestic yosemite hotel''

...Sounds like an 8 year old came up with that...

Actually, this is not with the best wishes of the NPS, but they have been forced to do this due to copyright. Read the article. The nightmare from hell corp. (i have friends who work in the park) who run the concessions have trade marked the iconic institutions and sites. They even TM'd the phrase "Yosemite National Park". And they want $50m (yes, $50,000,000) to release trademark. Lawyers.

This is kinda sad, problem with our trademark / copyright system in our country. Question is did the concessioner come up with these names originally or did they create them? I guess they may have some kinda right if they built the buildings etc originally but at the same time they aren't the owners of these places. They are in a national park and the rights should go to the park (at least for location type things, one thing to have a business in the park like a restaurant but a camp site or hotel name should belong to park even if it was "Name Stays" run by whatever the people running).

It is I guess somewhat the fault of the park for allowing this to happen and the way the trademarks are run there.

I know there has been cases in the US where someone lost rights to the name of their business because they never trademarked it and someone else did.

Why not at least change Curry Village to Camp Curry or something with curry in the name to keep with the history?

Wonder what they are going to replace Yosemite National Park with? The Valley National Park?

somebody who knows how needs to start one of those petitions that goes to the whitehouse. We can't simply just sit and watch while some rich asshole tries to destroy history in the valley. Somebody make this thread a sticky

Andrew Pow wrote:''the majestic yosemite hotel'' ...Sounds like an 8 year old came up with that...

ppfffttt.... I am close to that age, and I think that eight year olds can make up better names. :-P

Those names are really cheesy and I am going to call them the original names.

eli poss wrote:somebody who knows how needs to start one of those petitions that goes to the whitehouse.

Done , for what that's worth.

Two sides to every story.

prnewswire.com/news-release…

limpingcrab wrote:Two sides to every story. prnewswire.com/news-release…

Put out by DNCY, lawyer speak.
They came, they bought, they profited. Now pay up.
Sad.
Sign the petition, pass it on.

limpingcrab wrote:Two sides to every story. prnewswire.com/news-release…

Is this press release true?

If it is, no matter who wrote it, the National Park dropped the ball after requiring the corporation to buy the names years ago.

Am I missing something?

Edit: After digging around for news stories. The National Park should come to agreement with Delaware North. Problem solved. They sold the names to a corporation and excepted what? This wouldn't happen?

Looks like they never originally owned the names Curry Camp owned the names and than the current owner was forced to pay millions to buy them when they took over. I think now the current owner is trying to extort the park for money when selling to the next manager (probably cause they are pissed they lost the bid).

All this really does is hurt the people going there if every 15 years they change the name of every location in the park. Imo after they change the name we need to get some Graffiti artist to go change all the names back in the middle of the night!

At least Camp 4 isn't changing. (well... runs off to copyright Camp 4)

ViperScale wrote: ....At least Camp 4 isn't changing. (well... runs off to copyright Camp 4)

Brilliant!

The park formerly known as Yosemite.

Does the Ahwahnee tribe still own the rights to their name or their language?

Really puts a new twist on "Yosemite."

Jonathan