RTS Cuda

[torredcuda]

Again just a rumor but I heard it went for $2-2 1/2 million.

[TheAutoArchaeologist]

Again just a rumor but I heard it went for $2-2 1/2 million.

I can tell you with absolute certainty that if you didn't hear it from me, it is completely BS.

[anlauto]

I would like to think that number is no where near correct...

[TheAutoArchaeologist]

I would like to think that number is no where near correct...

If the other three went for way less, why would this one be 4x the price?

[anlauto]

I would like to think that number is no where near correct...

If the other three went for way less, why would this one be 4x the price?

My thoughts exactly.... I would guess $250K -$500K maybe, after it's restored and detailed, running etc....maybe a Million 

[RUNCHARGER]

This is hilarious! A person couldn't make this stuff up if he tried.

[Spikedog08]

Well here we go!  More leaked pictures . . How the car was found . . Wow!    Not many words . . Unbelievable

[TheAutoArchaeologist]

Yup, someone straight up just leaked the pics.  I don't know who or why.  But they were obviously shared illegally.

[MoparCarGuy]

The pictures themselves are not at issue here.     The person or persons who may have signed an NDA are the only ones who are culpable for "disclosing" photos or information specifically called out in the NDA. The owner of the car is the claimant and he has legal recourse to pursue said claim. Proving who leaked the photos will be impossible without knowing exactly who had specific photographs the others did not have. What purpose does it serve to pursue any of this other than to hype up the big reveal at a later date?

Once the pictures hit the Internet, the Fair Use laws take effect. Any claim of copyright infringement requires the claimant to have actually copyrighted the photos and prove their was some commercial harm in their unauthorized use. I bet an actual copyright registration did not happen so good luck with that. The federal courts have ruled on Fair Use countless times to the benefit of us all.

Moral of the story: If you want to keep a secret, do not tell anyone.

[TheAutoArchaeologist]

The pictures themselves are not at issue here.     The person or persons who may have signed an NDA are the only ones who are culpable for "disclosing" photos or information specifically called out in the NDA. The owner of the car is the claimant and he has legal recourse to pursue said claim. Proving who leaked the photos will be impossible without knowing exactly who had specific photographs the others did not have. What purpose does it serve to pursue any of this other than to hype up the big reveal at a later date?

Once the pictures hit the Internet, the Fair Use laws take effect. Any claim of copyright infringement requires the claimant to have actually copyrighted the photos and prove their was some commercial harm in their unauthorized use. I bet an actual copyright registration did not happen so good luck with that. The federal courts have ruled on Fair Use countless times to the benefit of us all.

Moral of the story: If you want to keep a secret, do not tell anyone.

You are incorrect... on just about everything.

Fair use does not come into effect when dealing with stolen copyrighted pictures.  The photographer and those that own the copyright always have right to that copyright and the ability to enforce what ever will upon them they see fit.  They do not need to register it anywhere, it is automatically applied at creation.

You are correct that the person that had his phone stolen, and whom ever leaked these last two pics can be held culpable for the leaks. 

We do know who had the photographs and when.  So it is just a matter of tracking down where the leak is.

There is no hype, as I said before.  The owner wants to control the info, not have the info control them.  So far everything posted has been complete BS just to get attention because of the situation.  None of the six other individuals with information on this car have released anything.

https://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/copyright-fair-use-and-how-it-works-for-online-images/

[Spikedog08]

The pictures themselves are not at issue here.     The person or persons who may have signed an NDA are the only ones who are culpable for "disclosing" photos or information specifically called out in the NDA. The owner of the car is the claimant and he has legal recourse to pursue said claim. Proving who leaked the photos will be impossible without knowing exactly who had specific photographs the others did not have. What purpose does it serve to pursue any of this other than to hype up the big reveal at a later date?

Once the pictures hit the Internet, the Fair Use laws take effect. Any claim of copyright infringement requires the claimant to have actually copyrighted the photos and prove their was some commercial harm in their unauthorized use. I bet an actual copyright registration did not happen so good luck with that. The federal courts have ruled on Fair Use countless times to the benefit of us all.

Moral of the story: If you want to keep a secret, do not tell anyone.

You are incorrect... on just about everything.

Fair use does not come into effect when dealing with stolen copyrighted pictures.  The photographer and those that own the copyright always have right to that copyright and the ability to enforce what ever will upon them they see fit.  They do not need to register it anywhere, it is automatically applied at creation.

You are correct that the person that had his phone stolen, and whom ever leaked these last two pics can be held culpable for the leaks. 

We do know who had the photographs and when.  So it is just a matter of tracking down where the leak is.

There is no hype, as I said before.  The owner wants to control the info, not have the info control them.  So far everything posted has been complete BS just to get attention because of the situation.  None of the six other individuals with information on this car have released anything.

https://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/copyright-fair-use-and-how-it-works-for-online-images/

Not to be blunt . . WHO CARES?  Too much drama for me . . They are just pictures!!  Could of been taken 20 years ago . . No one really knows at this point! 



It’s just a car . .

[cuda hunter]

So, the rubber bumper on the rear is painted half tail panel color and half body panel color. 
No tail wing but it does appear to have a double pin striping on the rear of the deck lid.
What are those tail lights? Were they originally clear?  Or were they always foggy like that?
What are the struts on the back window?  There are two of them and I have no idea what they are for.

Any talk about the car?  Instead of the drama.  I can't wait to see this car in person!!!

[71vert340]

 You are right Spikedog - too much drama. It would have been a better story if the pig pen of a mess the owner stored the car in caught fire and destroyed the car. Then it would be all his fault and he could cry about it but he couldn't blame anyone for the release of any information because it would be all over the 5 o'clock news. A week later, no one would care. Would I like to see the car? Sure. Is it a life long dream? Nope. It's just a car that someone stored as if he didn't care. To each his own. Now, it sounds as if someone wants to make some $ for storing it like a piece of garbage and bringing it out so people will pay money to see it or the photos. Just my opinion and we all know that people have opinions just like armpits and ...
Terry W.

[torredcuda]

Ya way too much silly drama over a pic of an old car. I think  the pics of the car in storage were where/how the car was found in the previous owners possesion, I would have thought it would have been better taken care of but looks more like a hoarders place. I still hope this "drama" blows over quickly and some real information comes out to dispell the rumors and we can all hear the story and se the car.

[dodj]

My garage is certainly not one of those 'eat off the floor' kind of garages, but, how does a garage get that ridiculously cluttered? Except for the cars, it looks like you are peering into a dumpster.