I now know what happened and Reso has confirmed it's OK for me to say here. Reso sent some of his car photos to the crews concerned and it was they who submitted the photos to the papers. So presumably the papers wouldn't have queried it.
Local papers don't normally pay much (if anything) for submitted photos these days so I wouldn't think it is worth making much of a fuss over.
Given Reso has provided the means for the crews to get some free publicity, if chased perhaps they might get him a free pass to an event and a private photo shoot. Might work out well all round with a closer inside link to the sport he likes. I hope so.

reso hasn't suggested how the papers got hold of his photos. If from social media sites the exif often gets stripped so the copyright added that way gets lost. An indiscreet superimposed sig somewhere in the photo can help.

Those buildings are very close so it would normally be hard/impossible to get them fully in the frame without them leaning backwards.

All HDR'd as it was very flat lighting. The lens is fine and gives more scope for shifting than the K-1's sensor shift allows. It isn't a lens I'd normally carry unless was anticipating needing it. Nice to have in the arsenal though.

I paid less for my Pentax copy, though really purchased it as a collectible (gradually trying to get them all.) Be interesting to hear how you get on with the Samyang.

It's the other way round!
The new kids on the block are the clear lens protection filters. UV can be seen at high altitudes so a UV filter should help cut through it and reduce the blueness.
Filters aren't generally necessary with digital though the effect of a polarizer can't be simulated in camera should one wish to reduce reflections. The effect of ND grads can be reproduced from raw files. Do I use filters? Sometimes!

Well anything witth Adobe in the label! Install an Adobe product and get McAffee's Virus Scan and/or Chrome browser etc. etc. whether or not you want them unless you think to do a custom install.
Also PCs from a decade ago had less memory/storage so struggled with the bulk of their products taking over the computer. What others did in 100mb Adobe took 500.
Just try uninstalling Adobe products. It's virtually impossible; their uninstallers leave tasks running in the background even though the program has theoretically been removed. Guess you haven 't experienced it yet.

Surely on PPG you're presenting you images to a wider audience, like the PU gallery here. Neither are places to store or backup your images to, you'll keep your masters safe and sound on a separate drive. However some use the cloud for off site storage as an insurance policy should something happen to your home storage. Normally only you would have access to that cloud storage.

Haven't seen that, what did they say?
I've spent spent hours trying the clean Adobe programs off my computer but still there's traces of them left behind after their useless installers failed to do the job properly.

Bloatware? Not just my view. They've been renowned for it for as long as I can remember (a long time!)
https://forums.adobe.com/thread/428133

Did you read Peter's original post? Anyhow, Adobe = bloatware = avoid!

PS, Try Foxit rather than Adobe reader. Much better.

Adobe flash? Dangerous; a security nightmare and not really supported any more.