66 GS vs 66 Paxton Shelby

[Dan K]

It has been a long time, but I remember that Hot Rod did a road test of a 66 GS a month or so before a Paxton Shelby test, and the GS ran a faster 1/4 mile. The next month later some guy wrote a letter to the editor about it, but they didn't say much other than "yeah, so what." Does anyone else remember this? I'd like to pick up the issues if anyone knows which months they were. Thanks, Dan

[riv65]

The 66 GS was part of a feature on blueprinting the 401/425 in the April 1966 issue. The Mustang with the Paxton was in the October 1966 issue. I could not find any letter to the editor which referenced the two articles. Jerome

[BuickStreet]

I'm pretty sure that I have the article that you are referring to. Does it include a picture where a fifth wheel is being used to measure track performance? I also have the article about Blueprinting the Nailhead (as well as some others) I was going to put them up on www.buickstreet.com as I believe that they would be of great interest to my visitors but was denied permission by Hot Rod Magazine. Now I'm trying to think of a way to 'paraphrase the article to death' as I believe that you can refer to an article but you can not publish it.

Bill
66 Electra

[Truzi]

There are ways you can put the information up there. Its not as good as access to the full article, though. Technically, if something is reproduced verbatum for educational purposes, you are only allowed to reproduce a certain percentage. I forget the exact copyright laws. Whatever you do, be sure to give proper credit to the source.

You could basically do a "review" of the article. In your own words you could cover it point for point (conceptually). You could even quote the text in places. Do a sort of "book report."

If the article has any exact qoutes, they cannot be copyrighted. Theoretically you could include those, but considering how old the article is, I think the source of the quotes would be obvious. I doubt the publication would go after you for using a direct quote that they used. If there were any problem I'd think they'd first just demand it be removed.

If you want to get interesting, you could do one review that includes many articles. Compare and contrast them. Its a bit of work, but would give the reader a feel for what was published at the time as well as illustrate consistencies (or lack thereof) between the articles.

[riv65]

Neither article shows any car with an attached fifth wheel.
Jerome

[BuickStreet]

Truzy, thanks for the info. I'll have to type most of it out anyway as the background they used was too busy to reproduce in a readable way. I might just do it and wait for them to object. Surely they wont mind that much.

Riv65, I must have been thinking of another article.

Bill

[Dan K]

Thanks for the info,
I bought the missing magazines on ebay, and there is no letter to the editor in 1966, which makes me believe it must have been in an early 67 issue. Man, how the memory fades.....I know I saw that letter, because up to that point, I had just figured the blown stang was unbeatable.The Buick was clearly a Kenne-Bell prepped car, but I wonder if it was a "Police Special."

[Dan K]

I am really disappointed in HotRod for refusing a request to share information that is 36 years old. Not only would it help those who possibly weren't born yet, but it would generate interest in the magazine, which has been somewhat boring in recent years, with their decidedly unBuick appeal. Besides, most of the technical information in the article was provided free of charge by Pop and Jim, so HotRod has no claim of copyright to the facts or to the diagrams. Paraphrase away on that stuff, but credit it to Jim Bell and Pop Kennedy and Buick, and tell HotRod to either jump in the lake, or just ignore the Buick guys, as usual. Just my .02

[BuickStreet]

It took me a little by surprise as well. Here is there answer...


Unfortunately, we have to refuse permission on purely legal grounds. The
material in question may contain freelance-generated material, and the
Supreme Court handed down a decision last year prohibiting the use of such
material over the Internet unless specific copyright permission had been
obtained to do so from the original authors/photographers/illustrators, etc.

While we understand the historical significance of the material, we are
legally prohibited from publishing it even on our own sites unless we can
meet the above criteria.

Thanks for your interest, and good luck with your site!



Maybe they have a point but I think we have a bigger one - public interest.

Bill