Elton John and a Dino

I know Elton John has had a few Ferraris and I just saw this picture of him sitting on a Dino. Check out the link while it is still posted.

http://music.msn.com/music/gallery.aspx?photo=761961&gallery=13461#photos

Perhaps Rocket Man is all about driving the Dino? ;-)

 

Gee, I hope that was his car and not some random car on the street.

 

Tried to find a picture of Keith Moon and his dino after he tried to roll it (when told it could not be rolled).

 

...!!
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Wow he used to be skinny.

 

Elton John had a red 72 GT chassis no 03300.
From memory it was sold recently and I think it was repainted yellow..

not 100%

 

I just asked someone who knows him, said he's never seen a Ferrari at either of his homes, and that he didn't seem much of a car guy.

 

1) It's OK to post a link to a photo but not OK to post the actual photo unless you have the rights (Marcel Massini can elaborate).

2) Ryalex, apparently he is/was a big car collector. Christie's auctioned off 20 cars from his collection in 2001 for $2.75M. Among the cars was a 1987 Testarossa

3) Homophobic and racist comments have no place on this forum.

 

Maybe that 'someone' doesn't know him at all..

http://www.classics.com/eltjohn.html
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

True, it drags the site down a notch.

Interesting list. It doesn't answer the Dino question, though - I'm sure he bought and sold a lot of cars.

 

Checkout the Dino register. He is registered as a prior owner of chassis no 03300; a Red 72 gt.

 

Well, they've only known him for a few years now - after this auction where he sold all of his cars off!

 

No he didn't sell 'all' his cars. He sold 20 of his collection. A further 10 did not go to auction because he wanted to keep them.
Elton is a known 'car person'; you don't need to go far on Google to find more info on cars he has owned, sold and given to charity etc

 

There's no notation on the photo of any copyright, althoough that's not a requirement on the internet. It has a link to email it anywhere you want, and it's posted on a public photo gallery. Interestingly, if you hold your cursor over the picture, the copyright information appears. (Which I did not initially notice.)

I'm pretty careful about what I post from other websites, I expected MSN (a Microsoft company) to be equally careful and not post a picture to share (as indicated by the "email it" link) that had the potential for copyright infringement.

THEIR TOS AGREEMENT FOR THIS PORTION OF THE WEBSITE STATES,

You may be able to submit materials for use in connection with the service. Except for material that we license to you, we do not claim ownership of the materials you post or otherwise provide to us related to the service (called a “submission&#8221. However, by posting or otherwise providing your submission, you are granting to the public free permission to:

use, copy, distribute, display, publish and modify your submission, each in connection with the service;
publish your name in connection with your submission; and
grant these permissions to other persons.

http://tou.live.com/en-us/default.aspx?HTTP_HOST=tou.live.com&url=/en-us

There's a lot of gray area with this stuff, but the TOS agreement seems to cover it pretty completely. I wonder if EVERY original picture posted on the internet is copyrighted by definition. PAGING WHART!!

ARE YOU OUT THERE BILL???

Dave M.

 

If memory serves, I believe a former Elton John 512 TR was listed in the Dupont Registry not long ago. Red / Tan. Right Hand Drive with only 2000 or so kilo's on the clock.

When I lived in Atlanta, he had / has a Buckhead penthouse. I saw him driving around in Bentley Convertible a few times. He had also donated a HUGE display of art work and furniture from his home to the Atlanta Fine art museum.

 

Apparently (in the UK) he auctioned his cars and then later his memorobilia and wardrobe etc to make way for more of his growing art collection.

 

What's crazy is that you can sell all those cars on that site you linked, get $3mm for them, and then go and spend that on one 3 foot painting!

I'd take the cars!

 

I totally agree...

 

Looks like he thinned out the lesser cars with the possible exception on the A-M's. Does anyone see themselves even thinking about a jag supplanting their Dino's parking space?
(obligatory comment on Dinos to bring this thread back to the 206/246 forum)

 

Leave the Religous ideals in the P&R section or you'll get a time out.

 

Someone has to find a photo of Keith Moon and his Dino!

 

Dino 03896 hasn't been seen in ages, but oddly enough is the same Blue Chiaro color that OMGJON is selecting to paint his restoration.

 

www.dictionary.com

Show Spelled Pronunciation[pyoo-er-il, -uh-rahyl, pyoor-il, -ahyl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective
1. of or pertaining to a child or to childhood.
2. childishly foolish; immature or trivial: a puerile piece of writing.


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

[Origin: 1650–60; < L puer&#299;lis boyish, equiv. to puer boy + -&#299;lis -ile]

 

Yeah that poop chute remark was really the Christian thing to say there huh?

 

Since Bill hasn't answered, I thought I'd chip in.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Copyright#Federal_Statutes

As I understand it, a copyright always exists (in the US, not sure about international law) when an original work is created (photographs, writings, videos, songs, etc) whether the work is registered or the copyright is explicitly asserted. So the answer to your question is "yes" in the US.

However, the copyright holder can provide a license to its use or distribution. So that part depends on what happened when the copyright holder first posted their photo. If it went out with a "feel free to use this" message, then the copyright holder still owns the copyright, but they have allowed anyone to use it or repost it. If they put restrictions on it, "copyright owned by XYZ, do not copy", then no license was given (other than the implicit license to the posting site) and it should not be re-distributed. If nothing was asserted at the time of posting, then no license is granted unless the TOS covers the question. I don't know what happens when the TOS and the user's assertion conflict (e.g. the TOS says, anything you post can be freely re-distributed as a condition of service, while the photographer asserts restricted copyrights on the posted photo).