Absolutely stunning!
Stitching is great........

 

I like the bright colors better.

 

Are you a professional photograhper?

If not did you actually spend the time/money to copyright amature photos?

If not then you dont have a copyright on them, so dont claim you do?

 

I can't even enjoy those pictures with that stupid copyright logo...so unprofessional...

 

Um, is replying to your post abusing your copyright?
Superb car!

 

Can you guys stop complaining about the copyright logo?
He already addressed the issue and there are photos without them...
To the OP, great looking car and congrats on your purchase.
I see that you bought it from Rusnak Pasadena, do you live around there?

 

All red tail lights for sure.

 

A friend with a similar RS had the shift-boot specified with stitching and it arrived without the stitching. He's been assured of receiving a properly stitched shift-boot to be retrofit. If that ever unfolds, I'll make a point of posting a pic and part number.

 

Yowsers, thread revival. I don't even have the car anymore.

Yes, I'm around the Pasadena area.

To those complaining about the logos, get over it. I've since posted many (and better) pix of my collection unobscured for your enjoyment. Do a search.

Cheers...now let this nearly one-year old thread die...

PS: Thanks flatcrank...if you ever get the part #s, please post. I'm sure people here would be interested...including the buyer of my RS who's a member here.

 

If they are not actually copyright protected though I could take the pics without the logos on them. Register them under MY copyright and then sue you for infringement if these photos are distributed by you.

Hence I wouldnt claim copyright if they are not.

 

 

Agreed... if I could find a place that would sell me a shift boot and e-brake handle stitched in red, I'd buy it in a second. Anybody???

 

Not to be the lawyer in the group, but anything that expresses an idea that any person reduces to a tangible form like a photograph is protected by U.S. copyright law, presuming these photos were taken in the United States or a jurisdiction with similar laws. The distinctions some are making here seem to confuse copyright with trademark, where there is a substantial difference between a trademark (TM) and a registered trademark (R)... I'm not an IP lawyer, but my understanding is even the most basic protection prevents a person from stealing your photo and representing that it is a photo he/she took (fraud in the factum situations).

Just FYI... not legal advice, not an area of expertise, etc.

 

I looked it up on the offical copyright sight. It says you must have your work registered to file any lawsuit. If I registered his work first then they would have no way to prove he didnt actually steal them from me. Music companys have done this to amature music pieces if they havent already been copyrighted.

Im no expert either but it certianly seems plausible to do this and possbily sue someone over it. Perhaps not in this exact case but in similar ones.

Hence if you havent forked the money to have a copyright to your work then DONT do it.