if you followed the list back several years you'd read
that most european builders don't/didn't understand
this nostalgia thing we yanks were going through re
their bicycles. in most cases, those firms never archived
their own art screens, or much else for that matter.
as far as the legality of it all, the issues never got
answered onlist - but there were lively debates about
painters only supplying correct decals on repaints, versus
their selling of these on the open market.
i know that in my case, no decals were available - if someone
knows differently, please say so now - so i undertook the
repro project during the mid 90s. alas, since i completed
that project, i am told that the builder himself now taps
into that stash for his own repaints, since he didn't have
the decals from 35 years ago.
e-RICHIE
chester, ct
I in no way mean to stir up controversy nor 'j'accuse'! - however ...
I was curious as to the legal point of view CR listers take to decal, logo, trademark repro's. I've seen everything from Campy stickers from Asia to Paramount, Pogliaghi, and of course Masi reproductions. Ive read about refusal from California restorers to provide any repro decals to anyone not restoring frames at their shop, and I've seen all kinds of complaints and debate about sticky v. water v. varnish repros ... But not once has anyone mentioned trademark laws or the propriety of permission to reproduce and control a manufacturers image and logo ... I haven't checked the archives so perhaps this has been debated over and over... Just a friendly inquiry from someone who has suffered copyright infringement in the music business over and over ...
Greg arnold nyc