1930 Dodge - Factory Photos & Proven/Known Correct Factory Info

[1936 D2]

This upcoming series of threads is for the express purpose of collecting Factory Photos and Printed Copies of known correct or provable Factory Information concerning the early models of Dodge Automobiles and Trucks. This thread is in an effort to provide searchable, clear, and easily found information on this year of Dodge products.

This particular thread concerns the 1930 Dodge.

Please keep to the topic and only post KNOWN CORRECT INFORMATION. If you feel a correction is necessary to prior information, that would be considered a post pertinent to the thread and should be posted. Off topic questions or subjects can be asked to be removed.

Please post your contributions below!

[1936 D2]

SOMEONE out there MUST be able to help!

[1936 D2]

"35cz8" - Perfect! Good size for posting too!

Edited July 26, 2012 by 1936 D2 (see edit history)

[stooy]

G'day Guys,

These are some I have collected over the years.

Enjoy.

Factory Roadster Interior

Mileage Marathon Photos.

Edited July 26, 2012 by stooy (see edit history)

[Guest 1930]

All of these photos ( on this post and others ) that have the registration number at the bottom of the page are from Chrysler Historical archives.

Just because you purchased them maybe or your long lost uncle used to work for Chrysler and he gave them to you does not make things right.

John posted some pictures that ( sorry my memory is not so good ) were given to him???? Nice of him to post them but post them as thumbnails, entice people to purchase the originals from the archives, if you send them any photo they WILL find the original larger version and will sell them to you for a small charge.

I enjoy looking at them, do not get me wrong but that still does not make it right. I also enjoy looking at females that I am not married too but that too does not make it right.

Some of these photos are stolen from the Internet from Autolit apparently, they were not paid for by the poster therefore they are stolen, steal them if you like, ( yes I have done it myself ) but at least edit the bottom portion so that its not so obvious because no-matter who does it, it is not right and to steal them and then post them here for the entire hobby to see is waay beyond copying them off of e-bay for a private collection for research material.

Anyone that posts these are not helping but hurting this hobby because without places such as the archives we would not have the re-search material that we do now.

In my opinion there is not as much wrong as posting advertisements, they were printed to be seen by the public at no cost if a guy were to thumb thru a mag in 1930 and not end up paying for it.

If you look at my current avatar it is a photo from Chrysler archives but in my opinion it is too small to make out any specific details so in my opinion it is not hurting the archives but is hopefully making some people think that they they would like to have the well detailed 8 by 10 version and hopefully they will support the archives and purchase some photos thru them.

I myself have no issue with posting a page from a POSSIBLY copyrighted book here and there but it is a single page or spuratic pages from a book that again in my opinion will give a taste of what else can be found and will hopefully entice someone to purchase the entire book ( support our vendors.....except for the guys gouging the hobby ) because it is available, nothing that I have nor anyone else is un-available, if you say it is than you just have not worked hard enough to find it.

No-one has permission to post these photos and I hope this is stopped. If it is not stopped than I will myself contact the archives, first I will contact a moderator and ask them to be removed if that gets me no-where I will contact the archives.

These are not thumbnails. these are not poorly detailed photos, these pictures alleviate the consumer from purchasing the COPIES that the archives sells and again although maybe the affects will be minimal when compared to the big picture they are still damaging.

I will assume some of you will assume I am just trying to be a dick, this is not the case. I am all for spreading the word and getting information out to people so these cars can get restored properly and authentically and I applaud D-2 for his attempt but in my opinion he is going about it the wrong way.

I have books/photos that I have collected that may be under some dumb copy write from the thirties and I may decide ( if I like you ) to make a copy of the entire deal and send it to you, in my opinion that is different because A I wouldn't send it to someone that I felt was gonna turn around and re-sell the material and B I would be sending it to that person with their acknowledgment that it is not to be re-produced ( I would have to take their word obviously ) and is to be used for re-search purposes only.

I would not post the entire contents on the Internet though unless I was perfectly clear that the original publisher did not have a problem with it because that is just wrong, I would make every attempt to make sure the original publisher who busted his nuts collecting the info was in agreement and if I could not track down the ORIGINAL owner of the material than at least I would sleep at night knowing I have tried my best.

I have contacts within the archives, I am a nobody, don't get me wrong but I do know people within the archives and do have contact information for them outside of some generic e-mail address so I am pretty sure they are gonna get removed one way or another so maybe it might be best to try and see my point and remove/edit these posts so they do not infringe on what is right.

Might be I am wrong, might be archives nor AACA does not care where or how these photos are posted, if I am wrong than I am wrong but if this is not removed/stopped than I guess we can all find out. Maybe you guys will get lucky and we can all find out out no-one cares, if that is the case than I myself will maybe start posting photos.

P.S you will see each and every one of these photos post on e-bay in a short period of time by someone here that will remain anonomus. He will sell them there because he has no backbone and would not know right from wrong if it him in the jaw and knocked his teeth out.

He will be making money instead of the archives, is that what you want you all want??????????

Edited July 25, 2012 by 1930 (see edit history)

[1936 D2]

Maybe what you should do, instead of curtailing the free flow of information here on the Forum, is send a PM to each member you feel has "wronged" any particular "source", and ask that member to repost the photos in a bit lower resolution here on the Forum. That way the free flow of this needed information can continue, and because of your post, people will know the locations of PROBABLE "owners" of the posted photo info. That way they will know who to contact to make purchases of the particular "full resolution photos" if they find that to be important.

As an example I saw a photo posted by John that was on the Forum here at a moderate resolution (unable to make any bigger than the first presented image). He was talking about the screw heads on a particular item in the photo being straight slot head screws. Now there was NO WAY to be able to see that in his posted photo but did address the fact, gave people direction to find the "original" photo, and leave members an idea as to what more they can see on the original photo.

That way people may be MORE interested in finding AND BUYING the photo so as to be able to see the extended detail.

So much about this hobby has been "hidden" information - stuff that was either too obscure to find or too hard to find - and caused people to either get frustrated with their "new car" restoration or to do things ALL WRONG just to do something to get the job done.

If info was more readily available to the first time restorer these costly AND HISTORICALLY INCORRECT mistakes would be less prominent.

On the subject of "someone" taking the photos here and using them for personal profit, that theory would be greatly curtailed IF the photos posted here would be of an obvious lower resolution than the the 8x10 glossy film prints as sold by the Archives.

So, in conclusion, my suggestion to you Jason is to contact these members you feel are doing wrong by email or PM and encourage them to post lower resolution photos here on the post. I AM NOT talking thumbnails - those are useless for the free flow of information here on the Forum - but something that doesn't "show the screw slot" as mentioned earlier. You have personal knowledge as to how scanners and scanning software works, so you should be easily able to describe how to scan at lower resolutions (and what that means) to people so they can comply with your ideas. To scan at FULL resolution and post which WOULD infringe on copyright - as I mentioned before - would cause the scanned files to be TOO LARGE for this Forum to accept and post anyway. The Forum software prevents this itself. But if you want them even smaller - pick out those that you feel "infringe", PM the poster, and get them to lower the resolution and post again.

Thanks for your full understanding of the project here.

[1936 D2]

G'day Guys, These are some I have collected over the years. Enjoy.

stooy,

You may want to consider re-posting these photos (2-3-4-5-6-7) in a "cropped fashion" as described in "1930"s above post.

Thanks!

[1936 D2]

1930 Dodge DC8 factory photo front./QUOTE]

35cz8,

In my opinion, your posts should be good here because the images are a percent of the original 8x10 film image. I dare say that, on the film print, you would be able to read the words on the grille shell emblem! Those originals are some pretty fantastic photos! They are probably from 8x10 fine grain negatives (judging by the size of the fingerprints above the Dodge negative registration number translated off the negative to the print) and then printed in the usual 8x10 finished size.

The way you have the photos posted here would be on the order of 1/8th of the original resolution or so. These originals are some pretty fantastic things compared to today's digital images!

[Guest 1930]

Maybe what you should do, instead of curtailing the free flow of information here on the Forum, is send a PM to each member you feel has "wronged" any particular "source", and ask that member to repost the photos in a bit lower resolution here on the Forum. That way the free flow of this needed information can continue, and because of your post, people will know the locations of PROBABLE "owners" of the posted photo info. That way they will know who to contact to make purchases of the particular "full resolution photos" if they find that to be important.

As an example I saw a photo posted by John that was on the Forum here at a moderate resolution (unable to make any bigger than the first presented image). He was talking about the screw heads on a particular item in the photo being straight slot head screws. Now there was NO WAY to be able to see that in his posted photo but did address the fact, gave people direction to find the "original" photo, and leave members an idea as to what more they can see on the original photo.

That way people may be MORE interested in finding AND BUYING the photo so as to be able to see the extended detail.

So much about this hobby has been "hidden" information - stuff that was either too obscure to find or too hard to find - and caused people to either get frustrated with their "new car" restoration or to do things ALL WRONG just to do something to get the job done.

If info was more readily available to the first time restorer these costly AND HISTORICALLY INCORRECT mistakes would be less prominent.

On the subject of "someone" taking the photos here and using them for personal profit, that theory would be greatly curtailed IF the photos posted here would be of an obvious lower resolution than the the 8x10 glossy film prints as sold by the Archives.

So, in conclusion, my suggestion to you Jason is to contact these members you feel are doing wrong by email or PM and encourage them to post lower resolution photos here on the post. I AM NOT talking thumbnails - those are useless for the free flow of information here on the Forum - but something that doesn't "show the screw slot" as mentioned earlier. You have personal knowledge as to how scanners and scanning software works, so you should be easily able to describe how to scan at lower resolutions (and what that means) to people so they can comply with your ideas. To scan at FULL resolution and post which WOULD infringe on copyright - as I mentioned before - would cause the scanned files to be TOO LARGE for this Forum to accept and post anyway. The Forum software prevents this itself. But if you want them even smaller - pick out those that you feel "infringe", PM the poster, and get them to lower the resolution and post again.

Thanks for your full understanding of the project here.

I dont have the time to contact members on an individual basis and try and get them to put the pictures in a different resolution and BTW I have zero knowledge of how scanners work other than lay it on the glass and press scan, know nothing about changing resolution but I do believe at this point I can say that I do understand what the word resolution means.

It would take less than 5 fingers to count the number of people I know that give any thought to getting the correct screw even for their cars, people in the majority simply do not care about details such as this which is unfortunate but a fact.

With saying that would lead me to add that the pictures that are being posted no matter the resolution will curtail most people from going any further with a purchase from the original source, people will take these photos, print them out on glossy paper and frame them as is.

I have contacted a forum moderator and asked them to review what is going on here, maybe as I said it is no problem for them but either way I am convinced that it is stealing no matter how you try and justify it but of course the world will go on either way.

[R.White]

I don't know much about photography it must be said but perhaps someone who does could say if when a negative is made from an original positive photo, does it have an identical resolution (assuming it is the exact same size if that is possible) as the original 1930 shots?

Manufacturers often had quality albums made of their production methods and the detail can be superb. If these original and possibly unique photos are used to create new negatives which are then used to reproduce the images in large quantities,for profit, as I have seen done, the owner of the original album feels cheated as the collection no longer has the mistique it once had. Whether the original photos are owned by a corporate or a private archive, the dishonesty is the same.

I have in my posession negatives taken from an original albums (not Dodge Brothers, I hasten to add) done by a professional photographer, which could earn me some cash should I wish to flood Ebay with copies but I refrain from doing so because the originals are owned by an historian friend of mine. As I no longer hold the original album (which I restored) I cannot compare the images with the original and I would not wish to inconvenience my friend again but I could do with knowing if greater resolution on some things is available on the original photos or should they be the same?.

Ray

Edited July 26, 2012 by R.White (see edit history)

[stooy]

I have removed the sellers tag from the photos as requested.

I must say I am very surprised at the reaction.

My question for you Jason, is do you have a strong enough knowledge of copyright law to make such large accusations? (I know I don't). You seem to have lots of thoughts based on your own views, but very few based on documented legal information.

I own almost all the photos posted here, and let me tell you, in person they are way better than the copies I have uploaded.

You have asked me to remove the sellers details which I have done, I wonder if you are actually doing them a disservice, because now people don't know where they can go to buy better quality copies...

If also would wonder how worried the seller is about the use of these images, many others watermark the images to reduce the quality, this seller has not.

Your point about another member ripping the photos off this forum and selling them on e bay is invalid, he could just go to ebay and download them himself, why would he get them from here...

Finally, - I will take my direction from the site moderators.

Cheers

Stewart

[1936 D2]

Original photos done by the factory would have been done on film with a large negative size. Large meaning 8"x10" or 4"x5" negative film. Earlier photos, like in the teens, may even have been done on glass plate. If the photographer wanted to preserve all the detail possible, the negative would have matched the final print size - a "contact print". I am being told here by Jason that the prints held by the archives are 8"x10".

If a person wanted to copy the photo in the same detailed resolution they would also have to use a full film negative of the 8"x10" print.

What I am saying here is that it is impossible to fully copy the prints here, from this forum, because they cannot be put on here at the original resolution. Detail is LOST on ANY lowering of the resolution. A full density scan of an 8x10 B&W print would be HUGE digitally speaking if the person doing the scan is attempting to copy the full resolution package. They also would not be able to use a "lossy" style of compression to try and shrink the file size of a scan. This Forum, as far as I know since the format change, does not accept uncompressed image types and if they do those uncompressed images are restricted to a very small image size indeed.

Bottom line of this - any image that was copied from this Forum and was attempted to be passed off as an original OR as a full copy of an original, is impossible. It would be easy to see they were lower resolution copies.

Now, there are some digital cameras out there that can take raw image sizes of maybe near 4x6 but those cameras are hugely expensive - in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. My point, even those cameras cannot fully digitize a print to the same resolution that the original negative/print was done. This can only be done with a fine grained negative film of a 1:1 size. (4x5 neg for 4x5 print - 8x10 neg for 8x10 print, etc. This process is also very expensive and beyond the average viewer of these Forums).

I am really splitting hairs here because as Jason said, people will take these photos from this lower resolution and print them for their own use or not even print them but just discuss them in places like this Forum. I do not find this to be a problem.

On the other obvious hand, if they take them, reproduce them, and try to pawn them off as original, or try to profit from them either by publishing or direct sales, then the onus is on their head for the obvious wrongdoing! They KNOW they are doing wrong and still decide to do it. THOSE are the people that should be curtailed.

By posting a factory photo here on the Forum in lower resolution than those officially sold by the current owner, is known to be for the use of discussion on this Forum and other scholarly discourse related to an issue that is only visible or adequately described by said photo. (Ever try to totally and accurately describe a detail of one of these cars without showing a photo? Really tough isn't it. And ever later find out that a reader totally missed the point of what you were attempting to describe ? Happens all the time! Just look at some of the questions asked after one of these lengthy descriptions has gone out there - but without a photo.

BUT - if a photo was added to the discussion it makes the subject matter abundantly clear and the discussion progresses intelligently.

THAT is the importance of photos. So my hope is that the ability to put these photos out there so the discourse can continue and newcomers to the hobby and to Dodge vehicles themselves, can find a place to easily discover what these cars looked like, how and why they were engineered the way they were and not have to learn a whole scheme of ways to find this information and become discouraged along the way.

Let's help 'em out!

[1936 D2]

Thanks "stooy"!

[35cz8]

Ok, I have deleted all my posts with info or pics and will no longer share my collection. I have found that there are several pictures that CHS no longer has but those too will remain locked away. I have found this forum to be of great help to me in learning about my cars and was only trying to give a little back. Sorry.

[Guest 1930]

Original photos done by the factory would have been done on film with a large negative size. Large meaning 8"x10" or 4"x5" negative film. Earlier photos, like in the teens, may even have been done on glass plate. If the photographer wanted to preserve all the detail possible, the negative would have matched the final print size - a "contact print". I am being told here by Jason that the prints held by the archives are 8"x10".

If a person wanted to copy the photo in the same detailed resolution they would also have to use a full film negative of the 8"x10" print.

What I am saying here is that it is impossible to fully copy the prints here, from this forum, because they cannot be put on here at the original resolution. Detail is LOST on ANY lowering of the resolution. A full density scan of an 8x10 B&W print would be HUGE digitally speaking if the person doing the scan is attempting to copy the full resolution package. They also would not be able to use a "lossy" style of compression to try and shrink the file size of a scan. This Forum, as far as I know since the format change, does not accept uncompressed image types and if they do those uncompressed images are restricted to a very small image size indeed.

Bottom line of this - any image that was copied from this Forum and was attempted to be passed off as an original OR as a full copy of an original, is impossible. It would be easy to see they were lower resolution copies.

Now, there are some digital cameras out there that can take raw image sizes of maybe near 4x6 but those cameras are hugely expensive - in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. My point, even those cameras cannot fully digitize a print to the same resolution that the original negative/print was done. This can only be done with a fine grained negative film of a 1:1 size. (4x5 neg for 4x5 print - 8x10 neg for 8x10 print, etc. This process is also very expensive and beyond the average viewer of these Forums).

I am really splitting hairs here because as Jason said, people will take these photos from this lower resolution and print them for their own use or not even print them but just discuss them in places like this Forum. I do not find this to be a problem.

On the other obvious hand, if they take them, reproduce them, and try to pawn them off as original, or try to profit from them either by publishing or direct sales, then the onus is on their head for the obvious wrongdoing! They KNOW they are doing wrong and still decide to do it. THOSE are the people that should be curtailed.

By posting a factory photo here on the Forum in lower resolution than those officially sold by the current owner, is known to be for the use of discussion on this Forum and other scholarly discourse related to an issue that is only visible or adequately described by said photo. (Ever try to totally and accurately describe a detail of one of these cars without showing a photo? Really tough isn't it. And ever later find out that a reader totally missed the point of what you were attempting to describe ? Happens all the time! Just look at some of the questions asked after one of these lengthy descriptions has gone out there - but without a photo.

BUT - if a photo was added to the discussion it makes the subject matter abundantly clear and the discussion progresses intelligently.

THAT is the importance of photos. So my hope is that the ability to put these photos out there so the discourse can continue and newcomers to the hobby and to Dodge vehicles themselves, can find a place to easily discover what these cars looked like, how and why they were engineered the way they were and not have to learn a whole scheme of ways to find this information and become discouraged along the way.

Let's help 'em out!

I am very clear on what you are trying to do and again I applaud you for that. I have spent a bit of time on this forum myself trying to get to the same end result. I only discourage posting high resolution /large photographs that were purchased ( I know they would not have been found on the Internet, ( or weren't ) I know this because I have spent years on the Internet searching for clues and have a pretty good idea what is out there thru various search engines ) in good faith from a historical center that is funded in large part from these purchases and asks for your acknowledgment when you make the purchase that you will not copy re-produce or disperse its images without their written permission.

If everyone were to re-produce these ( which I am sure will in the future be just OK since we are in times when anything goes and screw the pooch before he screws you ) than these establishments would have to look for alternative funding.

Quote...........So my hope is that the ability to put these photos out there so the discourse can continue and newcomers to the hobby and to Dodge vehicles themselves, can find a place to easily discover what these cars looked like,.................They can easily easily discover what these vehicles looked like by picking up many of the Dodge books that have been printed over the years and thumb thru the photos, they can then get on forums like this and sniff around for better photos and more info, we can post photos of our own cars ( our own property ) and we can suggest they contact Chrysler Historical for even better photos of their cars as they appeared originally, they can collect old mags and publications originally printed should they choose, this has given me a great deal of pleasure over the years, when I contact the historical center I am eager with anticipation of my photos, enjoying that anticipation so much I do hope they don't arrive too quickly.

Look at my new LARGE avatar, as mentioned this is a picture available thru the archives, go ahead and try and blow it up though and print it, you will end up with mush, in my opinion this is a good photo size you should be requesting and in my opinion would be ok to post here. If someone wants the details then purchase the photo thru the archives, support our archives, make it clear where the larger version is available and they will buy if they truly are in it for the historical significance and not jut trying to make a quick buck.

I understand we are living in a world where everyone wants things right now and I am quite sure there isn't a darn thing I can do about it nor should I feel that I have the right to do anything about it maybe

Quote.........My question for you Jason, is do you have a strong enough knowledge of copyright law to make such large accusations? (I know I don't). You seem to have lots of thoughts based on your own views, but very few based on documented legal information. ............I know little to nothing about any of this, I do however know ( why would you be any different from me ) that when you purchased these thru the archives that you were asked not to re-produce these or disperse these.

Even if you were given the photos or purchased them in the sale of your car though I am still attempting to make people aware that the archives needs your support to stay alive and by giving them away here in excellent resolution ( I love that photo of the roadster interior above by the way and am quite sure that if I were to print it out on my photo paper I would not have any urge to purchase the original ) hurts the vendors that has only asked us in good faith not to disperse the material that they have kept intact and preserved for 80 plus years.

Quote.........You have asked me to remove the sellers details which I have done, I wonder if you are actually doing them a disservice, because now people don't know where they can go to buy better quality copies... .............Again as mentioned above I did say in my opinion for what its worth I see no issue with advertisements that were and still ARE available in period publications.

If anyone were to wish to see who sells old car advertisements just google old car advertisements for sale, Autolit, Johnsons, E-bay the list goes on.

Quote...........Your point about another member ripping the photos off this forum and selling them on e bay is invalid, he could just go to ebay and download them himself, why would he get them from here............Ebay adds run for a few days and then in alot of cases the item is no longer available and in some cases will take years to pop up again, as mentioned I don't think these old car advertisements are an issue if they are purchased but to blatantly post photos that clearly were not purchased but copied and then disperse them here so that no-one has a need to purchase that add will only eventually put that seller out of business. Considering Autolits prices and staffing issues ( in my experience and opinion ) maybe this wouldn't be a bad thing.

Quote..........Finally, - I will take my direction from the site moderators....................I have asked forum moderator to view these posts, at this point they have informed me that they see no issues with them.

I have made some contact at Chrysler Historical ( since as I have exhaustively mentioned above are truly where my issues lie ) and I will post here what they have to say once I hear back from them.

Chances are in my opinion they will not have the time nor the legal proof to do a darn thing about it so I will just end this by asking does that now make it OK to continue to post these specific photos?

Edited July 26, 2012 by 1930 (see edit history)

[Guest 1930]

I have had a response from a contact within the archives and it is as such...............

Hello Jason,

I had forwarded your email to my manager, xxxxxxxxxxxx. He would like to speak with you when you have a chance. However, today and tomorrow, he is out of the office at an event. He asked if I pass a long his contact information. His email is:xxxxxxxxxx His office number is: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Thank you for looking out for our best interest. This is illegal and we do stamp the back of photographs stating they are copyrighted by Chrysler.

If you need anything else, please let me know.

I have omitted the contact info as this is a private message and I would not think it best to place that on the net.

I see that some of the pictures have been removed and that was in my opinion the right thing to do. I guess I am breaking the rules with my own small avatar and so I will remove that also.

You will notice he says in his e-mail nothing about picture resolution or size. It is pretty clear that as he stated this is illegal, he also states that they stamp the back of the pictures, I have many many pictures, some are stamped some are not and I will mention this to him, either way we all have to acknowledge that we agree not to re-produce upon their purchase.

I dont believe they have much in the way of photos prior to 27 or let me re-phrase and say there are not as many available I do not believe. This problem will mostly come into play on vehicles 1928/29 and up.

Maybe when it comes right down to it there isnt a darn thing they can do about it but I just hope now that we all know the rules we can hopefully agree that we should be supporting these archives as they have supported our hobby.

Dont know how many of you realize that the staff made up within the archives are majority volunteers.

[35cz8]

Jason, If it is wrong or illegal to post a picture here on the sight (not sell) then I would think that what auto lit and other sellers, on E-Bay,are doing must be wrong and illegal as well since the original for any pictures they sell had to come from Chrysler. Perhaps you should contact them as well and notify them of their wrong doing. Just a thought. Also, you mentioned that you have many pictures that are not stamped, these could be bootleg copies that someone made and sold, as many of the E-Bay sellers are doing. Now I am curious as to if it would be legal or ok for me to use these pictures by placing a small print on an envelope to personalize it or perhaps a business card sized contact card?

[Guest 1930]

Jason, If it is wrong or illegal to post a picture here on the sight (not sell) then I would think that what auto lit and other sellers, on E-Bay,are doing must be wrong and illegal as well since the original for any pictures they sell had to come from Chrysler. Perhaps you should contact them as well and notify them of their wrong doing. Just a thought. Also, you mentioned that you have many pictures that are not stamped, these could be bootleg copies that someone made and sold, as many of the E-Bay sellers are doing. Now I am curious as to if it would be legal or ok for me to use these pictures by placing a small print on an envelope to personalize it or perhaps a business card sized contact card?

Hi Bob, I don't see where it was ever implied that it was wrong or illegal to post pictures here. I don't think Chrysler Corp has authoritative control over every piece of literature ever printed just maybe the ones we agreed to not re-produce when we purchased directly thru them.

The pictures I am referencing to were purchased directly from the archives so no chance they are bootleg copies.

This discussion is strictly ( on my part ) to discuss posting these pictures on the net for all the world to see and so to discourage sales from their original owners. ( archives and only the archives!! )

I have had a few people in the past send me copies of their photos that they purchased from the archives thru e-mail. I use these photos for re-search purposes only and the story ends there except to say once again thank-you anyone that has sent me photos.

I dont own a DD-6 or a DC-8 and my funds are not un-limited so I would not see myself going thru the archives to purchases these specific photos of these specific cars of which I do not own.

Technically I guess I should have turned away these photos, I should have said whoa...thats illegal or wrong, I wont do it though because realistically again I do not have un-limited funds to purchase every photo in the archives but I do very much enjoy my hobby of re-searching these early cars and I would never forward them to someone else nor sell copies nor post them on the net for the entire world to see and discourage any point of purchasing originals.

Would the archives agree with this.....Almost surely not and I get it.

The literature that Autolit sells and you see on e-bay are no longer the property of Chrysler ( I assume ) and I would guess that any copy-write issues would be tough to defend and I personally don't have any inclination to look into any of that any further.

I post photos, I post pages, I post information ( and will continue to do ) that was at one time the original property of Chrysler Corp. does this mean that technically it will never be my property since it is stamped as such, ( in some cases ) ( see photo ) ......Good/Interesting question I guess but again one that I just don't enough time to dig toooo hard to find out.

Quote......Now I am curious as to if it would be legal or ok for me to use these pictures by placing a small print on an envelope to personalize it or perhaps a business card sized contact card?..........Good question, you can ask the archives that and let us know what they tell you.

I can ask but I am pretty sure that the answer is going to be that its a big no no. In my opinion I would not see a problem with posting a smaller less clear photo that would do nothing more than just barely entice people to go after the original such as the size of the avatar that I was using.

In my opinion this would only help the archives to sell more photos if people only knew what was available.

For me it comes down to my own common sense, my personal feelings on the matter. If I purchase an item from E-bay and I have not promised anyone that I would not re-produce than I will do what I want with it until someone tells me I can no longer.

Edited July 26, 2012 by 1930 (see edit history)

[1936 D2]

If "35cz8" PURCHASED the photos that he posted from Chrysler Historical, and was clear on the "no release" policy, AND the purchased images were stamped BY Chrysler Historical, then he did right by removing them from these posts.

If they WERE NOT STAMPED or there was no specific understanding concerning unapproved reproduction, then reproduction IN A LOWER RESOLUTION THAN PURCHASED, here on this educational Forum, active for the purposes of discussion and education, should not be curtailed.

[1936 D2]

Jason, If it is wrong or illegal to post a picture here on the sight (not sell) then I would think that what auto lit and other sellers, on E-Bay,are doing must be wrong and illegal as well since the original for any pictures they sell had to come from Chrysler. Perhaps you should contact them as well and notify them of their wrong doing. ...

Jason, since you took this on yourself to look out for the interests of "Chrysler Historical" here on the Forum, I feel it is incumbent on you that you follow up with the vendors on eBay as suggested here by "35cz8".

[1936 D2]

Ok, I have deleted all my posts with info or pics and will no longer share my collection. I have found that there are several pictures that CHS no longer has but those too will remain locked away. I have found this forum to be of great help to me in learning about my cars and was only trying to give a little back. Sorry.

"Great"! A sad day! Very counterproductive to the educational discourse here!

[Guest 1930]

"Great"! A sad day! Very counterproductive to the educational discourse here!

Dont worry, in another few days you will see the very same pictures pop up for sale on e-bay and you or someone here can copy and paste ( there always a way to get around those pesky purchase fees ) them right back onto this forum no bubbles no troubles

[Guest 1930]

Jason, since you took this on yourself to look out for the interests of "Chrysler Historical" here on the Forum, I feel it is incumbent on you that you follow up with the vendors on eBay as suggested here by "35cz8".

The only thing incumbent on me is too eat, sleep, eat and use the restroom every now and then, I have explained my thoughts/opinions clearly on the matter and now its time for the courts to decide. I am done with attempting to explain the ethics of the situation.

[1936 D2]

...I am done with attempting to explain the ethics of the situation.

Whew!

[Jim Anselmo]

FYI, I ran across this on Wikipedia

"In the United States, all books and other works published before 1923 have expired copyrights and are in the public domain.^[40] In addition, works published before 1964 that did not have their copyrights renewed 28 years after first publication year also are in the public domain"

I don't know if this also pertains to photographs owned by corporations.

Here is a link to assigned copywrites and renewals that has a lot of information. The Catalog of Copyright Entries

Edited July 31, 2012 by Jim Anselmo (see edit history)

[Guest 1930]

Not that I am attempting to argue the point any further, just want to throw this into the mix and at the very least its good for a chuckle,

Wikipedia Cited as Lacking Legitimacy Today's world is capable of sharing vast amounts of information at a rapid pace via the Internet. However, the accuracy of this information can be a serious question. Websites posing as genuine sources of knowledge or news are often serving their own hidden agenda under the guise of legitimacy. Nowhere is this more problematic than with the questionable process and ethics of Wikipedia.

At first glance, Wikipedia appears above board. Its clever name is a play on the word encyclopedia, implying an unimpeachable and unbiased compilation of information. But like other salacious websites, Wikipedia is a haphazard collection of opinions subjectively presented as fact. It uses mostly unidentified people to submit ideas on any topic of their choosing, and rather than utilize professional fact checking, Wikipedia posts information and relies on corroboration from other random Internet posters.

In fact, in its quest to make a profit and gain notoriety, Wikipedia appeases special interest influences by selectively presenting information that corresponds with their motivations. Wikipedia 'editors' spin these ideas to create a skewed version of reality that drastically varies on a day to day basis. To maintain this monopoly on misinformation, Wikipedia unilaterally determines when it has 'enough' content and "locks" it so that no other additional information - even powerful alternatives that prove inaccuracy - is considered to contest the fallacious version.

Wikipedia's lack of reliability is widely reported. Empirical facts as irrefutable as the life or death status of well known celebrities has been falsely reported on this site, subsequently corrected only through intense media exposure. Unfortunately, most victims of this carelessness and inaccuracy do not have the backing of major media outlets to force Wikipedia into presenting completely truthful information. Although instances of its gross inaccuracy have been recently well documented by legitimate journalistic sources like USA Today and Sports Illustrated, Wikipedia continues to pontificate wildly about whatever subject it chooses. One thing is certain: the views expressed by the biased editing of Wikepdia do not necessarily include accurate information about the world in general. For additional evidence of Wikipedia's lack of validity as a legitimate source of information, see discussion of an ABC News expose at ConservativeEdge » ABC News: Wikipedia not credible source- CE again on the edge.

Edited July 31, 2012 by 1930 (see edit history)

[Jim Anselmo]

True, but here is a second source - Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States

[TABLE=width: 100%]

<TBODY>[TR]

[TD=colspan: 3]Works Registered or First Published in the </SPAN>U.S.</SPAN>

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Date of Publication^{6</SPAN></SPAN>} </SPAN>

[/TD]

[TD]Conditions^{7</SPAN></SPAN>}</SPAN>

[/TD]

[TD]Copyright Term^{3</SPAN></SPAN>} </SPAN>

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Before 1923 </SPAN>

[/TD]

[TD]None </SPAN>

[/TD]

[TD]None. In the public domain due to copyright expiration</SPAN>

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]1923 through 1977 </SPAN>

[/TD]

[TD]Published without a copyright notice </SPAN>

[/TD]

[TD]None. In the public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities</SPAN>

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]1978 to </SPAN>1 March 1989</SPAN>

[/TD]

[TD]Published without notice, and without subsequent registration within 5 years</SPAN>

[/TD]

[TD]None. In the public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities</SPAN>

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]1978 to </SPAN>1 March 1989</SPAN>

[/TD]

[TD]Published without notice, but with subsequent registration within 5 years</SPAN>

[/TD]

[TD]70 years after the death of author. If a work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first</SPAN>

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]1923 through 1963 </SPAN>

[/TD]

[TD]Published with notice but copyright was not renewed^8</SPAN></SPAN>

[/TD]

[TD]None. In the public domain due to copyright expiration</SPAN>

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]1923 through 1963 </SPAN>

[/TD]

[TD]Published with notice and the copyright was renewed^8</SPAN></SPAN>

[/TD]

[TD]95 years after publication date </SPAN>

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]1964 through 1977 </SPAN>

[/TD]

[TD]Published with notice </SPAN>

[/TD]

[TD]95 years after publication date</SPAN>

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]1978 to </SPAN>1 March 1989</SPAN>

[/TD]

[TD]Created after 1977 and published with notice </SPAN>

[/TD]

[TD]70 years after the death of author. If a work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first </SPAN>

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]1978 to </SPAN>1 March 1989</SPAN>

[/TD]

[TD]Created before 1978 and first published with notice in the specified period</SPAN>

[/TD]

[TD]The greater of the term specified in the previous entry or </SPAN>31 December 2047</SPAN>

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]From </SPAN>1 March 1989</SPAN> through 2002</SPAN>

[/TD]

[TD]Created after 1977</SPAN>

[/TD]

[TD]70 years after the death of author. If a work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first </SPAN>

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]From </SPAN>1 March 1989</SPAN> through 2002</SPAN>

[/TD]

[TD]Created before 1978 and first published in this period</SPAN>

[/TD]

[TD]The greater of the term specified in the previous entry or </SPAN>31 December 2047</SPAN>

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]After 2002</SPAN>[/TD]

[TD]None </SPAN></SPAN>[/TD]

[TD]70 years after the death of author. If a work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first </SPAN></SPAN>[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Anytime </SPAN>

[/TD]

[TD]Works prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties. ^21</SPAN> </SPAN>

[/TD]

[TD]None. In the public domain in the United States (17 U.S.C. § 105</SPAN>) </SPAN>

[/TD]

[/TR]

</TBODY>[/TABLE]

[1936 D2]

Quote: "Wikipedia posts information and relies on corroboration from other random Internet posters."

Exactly. We all know how Wiki works. It is imperative that the reader check out the source material for entries of data made on Wiki. But it sounds to me like the writer of the "Wiki Bash" felt he got wronged at some point in time in the past by Wiki and wrote a "slam" of the Wiki concept. "1930" - you show no reference to the source material for the "Wiki Bash" you just posted (rather quickly I may add - must have that in your back pocket just in case) so that info has as much "suspect" as what you purport Wiki to have.

Check the quote from Wiki that "Jim Anselmo" was siting and you will see it has reference to source material. Anyone can follow the flow. Check the Wiki for this info, check out the referenced source, and go read the source material. THAT'S how Wiki works. Looks like maybe "Jim Anselmo" did just that. His next post shows a second source - Cornell University - for the same (and more) info on copyright.

This is getting to be so much fun to watch! We are all learning A LOT! And THAT'S what this Forum is all about, exchange of "accurate" info and expansion of knowledge.

[R.White]

"All men by nature desire knowledge."............Aristotle (384 - 322 B.C.)

[Guest 1930]

Quote........1930" - you show no reference to the source material for the "Wiki Bash" you just posted (rather quickly I may add - must have that in your back pocket just in case)...........Yeah, good one, I was able to predict that someone would make a post referencing info from Wiki.

That snippet of info took about 7 seconds with a google search to inquire where Wiki gathers its info from.

Maybe one of you guys that supports taking info from the archives that you have already agreed not to re-produce ( in my opinion it really dosent even matter so much about wether it copywrighted or not ) and yet not only want to re-produce it but place it on-line should contact the archives and ask them what leg they have to stand.

Bottom line for me is if I am given some material and the person giving me that material has asked me not to re-produce it than the right thing to do ( all laws aside ) is not to re-produce it but thats just me I guess.

You right this is getting entertaining.

[1936 D2]

The only person I am aware of that posted material that had been purchased from the CHS, ALREADY has removed the material from this Forum. He was either not aware - or didn't remember any agreements made at the time of the purchase but took immediate action here on the Forum once reminded. (Thank you Jason). Also, as far as I am aware, the other postings on any of these "Factory Info" request threads have come from sources OTHER THAN the CHS. Those people who made the postings will have to review in their own minds whatever agreements they have made with their sources to republish or not and then take appropriate action.

All of the things that I have posted were freely available on the web or from very old magazine advertising.

From ALL I have read here now it is my understanding that, with at least 85% assurance from a 1961 study -

(See: Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States A 1961 Copyright Office study found that fewer than 15% of all registered copyrights were renewed. For books, the figure was even lower: 7%. See Barbara Ringer, "Study No. 31: Renewal of Copyright" (1960), reprinted in Library of Congress Copyright Office.Copyright law revision: Studies prepared for the Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Eighty-sixth Congress, first [-second] session. (<st1:state><st1:place>Washingtonlace></st1</st1:state>: <st1:country-region><st1:place>U. S.lace></st1</st1:country-region> Govt. Print. Off, 1961), p. 220. A good guide to investigating the copyright and renewal status of published work is Samuel Demas and Jennie L. Brogdon, "Determining Copyright Status for Preservation and Access: Defining Reasonable Effort," Library Resources and Technical Services 41:4 (October, 1997): 323-334. See also Library of Congress Copyright Office, How to investigate the copyright status of a work. Circular 22. [<st1:place style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; line-height: 25px; text-indent: -24px; "><st1:city>Washington</st1:city>, <st1:state>D.C.</st1:state>lace>: Library of Congress, Copyright Office, 2004]. The Online Books Page FAQ, especially "How Can I Tell Whether a Book Can Go Online?" and "How Can I Tell Whether a Copyright Was Renewed?", is also very helpful.),

NONE of the original Dodge Factory Photos requested on these threads have any copyright left to them. If they were in the possession of the "Chrysler Historical Collection" they were not there under copyright, they were there as a purchased or donated item for a Library. If the "CHS" sells copies of them and REQUEST that they not be copied (again, to my understanding that is all they can do, to make a request, because these photos are in the Public Domain at this time), that then is between the "CHS" and each buyer that makes a purchase from them.

With all this said, I hope that we can put this discussion of copyright and current "purchased photo release agreements" to rest, and allow the informational and discussion processes to resume on this Forum.

Let the education continue.</st1

[Dodgy6]

"All men by nature desire knowledge."............Aristotle (384 - 322 B.C.)

Gee Ray, I hope you don't get into trouble quoting original material like that. Aristotle may just sue your ass!

[Mudgy]

...

Edited August 13, 2012 by Mudgy (see edit history)

[R.White]

Gee Ray, I hope you don't get into trouble quoting original material like that. Aristotle may just sue your ass!

No worries, mate.....Old 'stotti and I go way back !

[1936 D2]

Not to beat a dead horse but:

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. All copyrighted materials contained herein belong to their respective copyright holders, I do not claim ownership over any of these materials. In no way do I benefit either financially or otherwise from this material.