Marcel Massini

IMHO the most important thing is full disclosure , when you read Simon Moore's Alfa book or other truly important books/ documents etc., they explain VERY CAREFULLY why a certain conclusion, might be true, false or mere speculation. When looking at old artifacts that were designed to be modified, like racing cars etc. everything becomes shades of grey. So when I read someone stating
"I know that this vehicle is the real 250Lm and this one the fake 250Lm"
I think hmmmmmmmmm. If they restate it as
"I think/ believe that this vehicle is the real ...... and here is why"
Whats the difference well obviously it changes the whole statement. It gives the reader, buyer etc. a better sense of judgement. After all has the author seen the vehicle, have they seen the documentation, have they taken the time to do their homework, down all the right things . Or have they sold the car (not exactly impartial), do they own the car...., have they just tried to get their cut of the sale price.
When I see Jim's information for his 330P3/4/412 you have to be impressed, and admit that in all probability he has the original car (or what is left of it). But that is only my OPINION, not some fact that I can bandy about/ sell to someone or write a book about, after all I was only born in 1968, I dont personally know anybody connected with the car, and living in New Zealand I am not likely to see the car in the USA.

Again just my IMHO

Tim

 

If you think about it, that really applies to any subject discussed, especially those that pop up in the media. Did Michael Jackson do those things he is accused of? I don't know. I don't know Michael Jackson. Same thing with OJ. It sure looks like he did it, but we weren't there.

There have been so many frauds committed at every level of society and government. How do we know who to believe about anything? There will always be divergences in opinion, especially when the debate becomes emotional. To me, Jim has done his homework and due diligence to prove the provinance of 0846. But there will always be those that debate the veracity of his assertions. At some point you have to tune out the noise, acknologing that you can't make everybody happy, ever.

As I said before in regards to Marcel and Jim, I'm grateful for the time and energy they have spent here, making positive contributions to this unique community. You can only hope that they don't get frustrated with the dissentors that want to twist the knife to get a reaction.

And Jim, I think that the Ford GT40 serial # 1029 can be added to the list of questionable provinance. (My previous post had a scan of the original invoice for the purchase of 1029 from Ford.)

warm regards

Ken

 

I'm just curious why, when it comes to Ferrari photos, everybody is so rabidly fanactical about plastering their copyright logo over any particular photo? Even if somebody technically "owns" the rights to a photo in 2007, can there be any guarantee that the same photo wasn't published in a book or magazine somewhere over 30 years ago? Why the rabid obsessiveness over the rights to an old photo? It's not like they are photos of Elvis decending from a UFO to shake hands with Bigfoot. If I go to a flea market and find a photo of a Ferrari at a race in 1963, do I really "own" the rights to publish the photo if I buy the picture? Who is to say that the previous owner didn't send the same photo to a car magazine back in 1965 and the picture was published and copywritten way back then. Wouldn't the picture have therefore been copywritten by the magazine back in 1965, and therefore my flea market find is really nothing from the legal standard of reference?

 

WM Hart is the one to ask.

Regards

 

Could it be because some who make their living out of collecting historic photos need to protect their collections? That's not to say that they are the original "owner" of a particular photo, but if they are the first to publish it, and it's considered a part of their collection, they have to protect it.

I know I would. Or else anyone could grab it and say, "Hey, I've got this photo....."

gp

 

If you buy a photo or a painting you own the physical object, however, you don't own the copyright, that is retained by the original photographer/artist. The problems encountered with photos grabbed from the internet is no one bothers to attribute those photos to the copyright holder, they assume they are in the public domain, which some may well be but usually aren't. Unauthorized use of images has become an epidemic because of the web which is why photographers must plaster their images with copyright notices. Copyright is the only way the author can legally hold on to an image.

 

Collecting old photos for inclusion in a collection does not guarantee the collector has the copyright to those photos. Generally, when a person buys a collection he will also buy the copyright to the images because without it all he has is a nice collection of old photos he can't publish

 

There are very few people in the position to actually buy a collection along with the copyrights. People like Millanta's wife charge a substantial amount of money for the rights to use just one of his photos. It is a BIG problem, and is the reason that any number of books haven't been done.

I have had enough information to write (for example) an etceterini book for more than 10 years, but I can't afford the photo rights to make it a viable project.

Some people charge as much as $100 just for the rights to use one photo!!

 

It is expensive to buy even limited rights to a photo. We paid 1500.00 to use a photo of a famous row of houses in San Francisco for a display at Universal Studios. $100.00 isn't too much to charge for a photo, but if you want to write a book with 100-200 photos, it becomes seriously unprofitable and who wants to buy a book with only text! As a photographer I can understand the need to charge a fee for usage of an image, but on the other hand, if that fee is too much, the photo will never be seen and the photographer loses out. I shoot my own photos because I don't want to have to pay someone to use their photo for my paintings. Bertochii recently had several of his photos used in a book without his permission and the excuse given was there wasn't time to track down the photos owners before publication. That kind of logic can wind up costing the author thousands of dollars in legal fees and fines for unauthorized usage.

 

Just a few nights ago, I rediscovered an old photo that I obtained from an old friend's estate. He died several years ago. The photo was a very interesting picture of a propeller driven ice boat on some frozen lake back in the 1930s. It was an actual photographic print. Just like some old family photo. If I published this picture in a book, I might think that it is "mine" because who else would have this actual old photograph that was owned by my old friend? But could I bet my legal rights on that assumption? How does one "know" that you really own the rights?

 

Unfortunately, I'm talking about trying to do a 500 page "etceterini" book with at least 1000 period photos. I already have done 99% of the text, and it only needs an update, which would take no more than 6 months to do. The cost of the photos makes actually doing the book impossible.

 

Rights are usually transfered in a contract between the photographer and the person seeking the copyright. Something in writing specifying the rights transfer to be legal. Copyright does have a finite life, however.

 

I see your point, the cost would be astronomical.

 

Good. Nice to see & hear his voice, albeit briefly, on the History Channel > Man, Moment, Machine > Enzo Ferrari & the Historic Race.

 

Works prior to 1978 have 95 year protection, my understanding is they would need to have been published or recorded/registered in order to have that.

Works from 1978 or newer do not have the same publication requirement. All creative works, published or not, are considered copyright protected.

Works Originally Created on or after January 1, 1978
A work that was created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author’s life plus an additional 70 years after the author’s death. In the case of “a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire,” the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author’s death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author’s identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hlc

So any realistic approach to publishing photos, brochures, etc. from the "Ferrari Era" would require a release from the current copyright holder. Sure they have a finite life, but then again, so do all of us. Even photos published in 1948 would be protected until 2043, right?

It seems to me less clear how the law would treat unpublished photos from before 1978, unless the copyright was asserted on the picture itself.

DM

 

paolo, e-mail him back and tell him even if he never posts another photo we need and miss his knowledge. he more than anyone has kept me involved with ferrarichat.. tongascrew george

 

bill you have owned many ferraris in your day and i am sure marcel knows who you are. tell him even if he never posts another picture we all want him back in ferrarichat. noone out there has the info he has and we miss his comments. thanks tongascrew george

 

I appreciate the kind comments.

I pass no judgement on this site and the many others.

I have great respect for Marcel's decision and would never ask him to change his mind.

Others would be kind to respect his decision as well.

Regards,

Bill Noon

 

Another F-Chatter was in touch with Marcel quite recently - In so many words... Marcel is quite busy, expects to return to some F-Chatting in July & has no animosity towards site or members thereof.

 

George, Thank You, for your kind comments, but I have had contact with Marcel Massini, only a few times and he was kind to respond to my inquiry.

I agree with Bill Noon, and Wax, on not contacting Marcel, to the point of "Bugging Him". He made it clear that he is a busy man and will be back in due course. He may be back before then, as he wishes, I hope so, as many others seem to be hoping for.

His absence is a loss, no doubt, but let's all be patient and respect his wishes.

Ciao...Paolo

 

hi, juist the fact that he has said "will be back in due course" gives us hope. i agree we should not bug him. in general people like to be missed. let's hope he knows this. tongascrew george

 

shot this at the Cav. Classic... thought it spoke volumes...
since Mr. Massini is the topic of the thread, i thought it was appropriate...

GT
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

rob no dont you remember when mr massini judges you have to duct tape the book 1" below the engine interno number for proper councours points. (vintage tape date coded of course )