My Vista Cruiser is a Calendar and Cover Girl!

Just thught I'd let everybody know that I'm flying the wagon flag high.
My Vista Cruiser was chosen for the 2011 all Oldsmobile calendar and I just found out from another member on Classic Olds that its one of the cars on the cover of the latest Fusick Oldsmobile parts catalog, best place to get Oldsmobile parts BTW.
They're actually starting to reproduce some parts becuse of the wagon's rising popularity over the past couple of years and all the inquiries for parts they've been getting they say.
Now if they would do interior soft trim and parts, Vista glass, patch panels, rack and spoiler gaskets and a couple of other wagon parts us Vista Cruiser guys would have it made.
They have the fender and tailgate script, tailgate emblem bumper fillers, inner and outer window weatherstrips, along with a couple of other things like the sill plates they had before, say there's more to come.

I guess they found the pic on the net somewhere, I took it in my driveway.
Everybody is telling me they should give me a discount on parts or something, I'd take a free catalog.

 

Cool Beans, BV! It really IS a beauty. Of course....all of us Wisconsinites have beautiful cars.
I have to say, though, I almost like the other one better. I love the way that dark blue one is done up! Even though I don't care for the rear fender eye brow above the wheel well on that model year.
Thing about your calendar car...it IS a great representative of a stock Vista of the era. Congrats!!

 

Thanks.

I hate to say it but I'm not a Wisconsinite, I'm a Buckeye not a Cheesehead.
Take no offense, but I really don't hate to say it.

I found the car in Hartland, Wisconsin...isn't it ironic? Is that's why it's beautiful?
It was transported there from from California and stored in a heated garage for 15 years awaiting a father and son resto but the guy's son got older and lost interest, the car was full of parts that the guy was getting for it over the years too.
You Wisconsin wagon guys must have been sleeping because I drove up from Ohio and snatched the car right out from under you.

 

OK...I mixed you up with ......drcutlass from Appleton? I do these mix ups all the time.....my apologies.

 

They're right. Fusick owes you a royalty payment or something for using the image of your car on their cover. At least, they owed you the courtesy of asking you if they could use it.

 

What's the deal with that? I know a photojournalist. He has a Flickr account which says his pics are copyrighted. If you don't copyright, anybody can use them without penalty?

 

The law is that copyright is ASSUMED. The burden is on Fusick or whoever wants to use the photo to obtain permission. Your photojournalist friend is doubly protecting himself by posting the notice specifically stating the photos are copyrighted. But he doesn't have to actually do that for them to be considered his property.


Check this page:

http://gigaom.com/collaboration/understanding-online-photo-rights/


Particularly, check this quote from that page, especially the second sentence:

"The first thing that needs to be understood is that every photograph is the intellectual property of the person who took the photograph. Copyright protection attaches even where the person has not put a copyright notice and even if the copyright is not registered with the Copyright Office."

 

First of.....Congats man! That is a stunning wagon and they realized it, your wagon is for real famous now!:2_thumbs_up_-_anima

2nd.... I guess if copyright is such a big deal Steff better delite 90% of the posts and gallery

 

When I was a kid I washed a LOT of cars at the local Olds dealership.
WAAAAAY back then (1968) the Oldsmobile Cutlass was the coolest most popular car in the USA and station wagons were in every other driveway.
Oldsmobile managed to combine the coolness and style of the Cutlass with the usefulness and practicality of the ubiquitous station wagon with the Vista Cruiser.
Even though most teenagers then and today disdain wagons as "mommy cars," the (Cutlass) Vista Cruiser rated pretty high then, and the increasing interest in these cars is no surprise to me.
Congratulations.

 

Man, I've got to change how I operate on the internet.........

 

I have two more comments.

First, if you look at the third sentence in that article I quoted above, it says that, while the copyright for a photo belongs to the person who took it, that person can't actually sue for damages unless they have registered the photo with the U.S. copyright office. I wonder how many people who have their weekend car show photos on Photobucket have registered them. I'd guess close to zero. Doesn't mean they couldn't register them after the fact, but I doubt any of them would or would even know they could or would think of doing so. I don't know if registering a photo costs anything.

Second, what about owning your car's image? In other words, BlueVista posts a picture that he took of his Vista Cruiser on the net. He owns the copyright, and Fusick should have asked his permission before using the photo. BUT, what if someone from FUSICK was at a car show where BlueVista's car was on display and took a photo of it. It's Fusick's photo, but it's BlueVista's car IN the photo. So now who has the last say in ownership of the photo? I don't know.

I'm guessing the ownership still resides with the person taking the photo. After all, you see many photos of cars individually and at car shows in all kinds of hobby publications, including Old Cars Weekly and many others. I doubt that OCW went to all of the people whose cars are in their photos and individually asked each one of them for permission to use a photo of their car. I think there's some kind of "public display" clause or something like that in the law that says that if your car is in a public place (not in your private driveway behind a 10-foot-tall fence), and people taking a photo of your car are in a public place (on the sidewalk or in the parking lot, but not up in a tree in the yard next door so they can peer over the fence), there's no rights attached to images of your car.

Remember, something similar came up with the Chicago Cubs. Wrigley Field is in a residential area, and one of the great traditions was for people who lived in the houses on the other side of the outfield to sit up on their roofs, which were high enough that they could see over the grandstand, and watch the games. The Cubs believed that this was an infringement of their rights to the images of the games, whether those images are live or on TV. They couldn't realistically sue people for just going up on their own roofs, so they ended up putting up billboards or something like that to block the view.

 

One last comment here. This is the argument that Google used for its posting of its "street view" feature on Google Maps. People were complaining that you could see cars, people, and so forth in the various street views. Google's argument is that they weren't photographing anything that isn't visible to anyone walking or driving down the street, so no one's privacy is invaded, and no one's rights violated. Google appears to have won that argument. At least, I haven't read anything new on it in a while (a year?) where for a while there there was quite a bit about it in the news.

 

Thanks for the compliments guys.

That's okay, I bet you never mix up the Browns and the Packers though?
I could only wish the Browns were Super Bowl champs.
The Dr. Cutlass Vista story is neat, I remember following it over on Classic Olds.
It was cool when it found it's original owner, reminded me of The Incredible Journey movie or Lassie Come Home.
I wonder how much money it would take to have him sell you that car now?

 

That's cool - congrats!