Art guys using your cars to make money

then again a 32 Ford is a 32 Ford, a Holley 94 is still a 94. whether they are red or blue, have lakes pipes or blockhuggers, is really up for the builders/ar***st eye.

Yes, compiling a bunch of old parts to build a functional and beautiful cars is art.

 

Well I can see you don't know your head from your ***, if you honestly think there were no traditional cars with blowers you are truly mistaken, I guess that dumb company called Italmechanica and S.C.O.T never really existed, and i guess Beatty never ran a GMC blower either well hell why were at it let's pull 50% of the cars right out of 50's hot rod magazines and discard them as non traditional as well. Now if the the guy was such a great artist let him draw his own cars rather then ****ing up someone else's.

 

see, this is where you guys get all screwed up.

Did I say there were no blowers on traditional cars? Nope, you ***ummed I said that. and you ***ummed wrong. You know what they say about ***umptions dont you?

Did 50% of the hotrods in the little mags have blowers? Nope, I got a stack in my studio up to my waist and another 3 boxes in the closet. I can tell you without a doubt that less then 50% of the cars in the little mags had blowers.
Once again, you ***ummed, and look where it got you.

Discard traditional cars with blowers....nope, I re-read what I wrote and I never said that. I gotta a guy down the street that has a red 36 ford that he bought in 1947 that they chopped in 1953 after he rolled it that still has the 8BA in it that he put in 1951 with a supercharger. Beautiful car as well. But I dont think he would get his banana hamock in a tizzy if I drew a blue 36 ford.

 

ok, I'm gettin ticked at this thread... mostly cuz I think we are all saying the same thing.. yet arguing about it.

I think this sounds a lil like who's on first.

Basically it sounds like a photo was stolen and changed. Not that a photo was taken, but the artist took another artist's work, and edited it. Is it right? No... but can you do anything about it? NO. Look at any old photos of Marylin Monroe, or Bettie Page. Half of em didn't start out color, or the colors are edited, or the backgrounds are changed. Does that mean the original photographer can sue? Nope.. because the image was altered. Now.. if another artist is selling a direct copy of the original, with no changes, and calling it his own. That is illegal.

But if I'm hearing this correctly. A photo of a car was not shot by another artist, it was directly copied off of another photo, and then edited. Basically.. it's legal. If it had been posted as his own work, and NOT edited.. it would be a copyright infringement. But.. since it was edited.. and from what it sounds like.. pretty well *******ized... there are no laws broken.