Is it true that the freelance journalist duarte levy

[Chinagirl]

Levy can copyright a film only if he has made it, otherwise it is false.

What do you expect from a conman

Rubbish from an ignorant, you can copyright your own work from others, if he made a video from an  original he can copyright it as  his work

That does surprise me Redblossom - as surely that would be a form of plaguarism?

Of course it's plagiarism!

[Mrs. B]

Levy can copyright a film only if he has made it, otherwise it is false.

What do you expect from a conman

Rubbish from an ignorant, you can copyright your own work from others, if he made a video from an  original he can copyright it as  his work

That does surprise me Redblossom - as surely that would be a form of plaguarism?

Of course it's plagiarism!

Or theft of intellectual property.

[Carana]

So no opinion on the OP just cut and paste hatchet jobs to suit, is the truth uncomfortable to you  and unable to face for some reason?
 

This, you mean?

Was [Duarte Levy] employed by the pt police to video the british dog searches?

I don't believe that's right, no.

It might not be right, he was employed by the pt police to video the british dog searches. But that didn't stop him selling them to the Sun, newspaper. From memory I believe it was around €100,000 not 100% sure but I seem to remember it was an awful lot of money, he got for them.

So answer me this Redblosssom! How did he get his mitts on them?

Why would the Sun pay for anything they could get themselves? And what is all this rubbish about how he got his mitts on them? Journalists were entitlled to the DVD and the dogs video

Entitled to the DVD, yes. I have my doubts about the videos as they would presumably have been covered by the UK / PT agreement concerning maintaining judicial secrecy on police techiques.

[Mo Stache]

Levy can copyright a film only if he has made it, otherwise it is false.

What do you expect from a conman

Rubbish from an ignorant, you can copyright your own work from others, if he made a video from an  original he can copyright it as  his work

That does surprise me Redblossom - as surely that would be a form of plaguarism?

Of course it's plagiarism!

Or theft of intellectual property.

I find it odd that someone would claim copyright on material and know it will be published on the internet for the world to see, if that person is not the rightful copyright owner and producer of the video footage.

[registrar]

have you a problem with comprehension dci? Any journalist had access to the police files and videos, why would anyone pay anyone for them when they could get them for free? Streuth

If any journalist had access to the videos (dog search footage) why do all roads lead to Levy when acquiring them? Or can you supply the evidence that the dog search video's were obtained from another named journalist?

I wonder if those who have an original copy of the DVD police file, could verify if the dog search video was released to the journalist as Redblossom says?

Do wonder but what a waste of time

I don't think it is a waste of time. It's a valid request to all those reading or posting here who have a copy of the DVD to verify if the dog search video was released in the original material to all journalist or not.

Write to the pj, mr levy, mr grime, th sun the mirror, and then let us know hey?

That explains it. Your soul has been removed to make room for your sarcasm.

Should that not read sauce? etc.

[Redblossom]

Levy can copyright a film only if he has made it, otherwise it is false.

What do you expect from a conman

Rubbish from an ignorant, you can copyright your own work from others, if he made a video from an  original he can copyright it as  his work

That does surprise me Redblossom - as surely that would be a form of plaguarism?

Of course it's plagiarism!

Or theft of intellectual property.

The PT authorities released the files and the video, to journalists, how can that be THEFT or plagiarism steady on, doesnt wash

[Mrs. B]

That's fairly simple, the information contained in the files are the property of the Ministerio Publico in Portimao. If you use parts of the files, re-publish the material in your own name & claim copyright, then you have stolen intellectual property belonging to the the above mentioned owner.

[DCI]

Levy can copyright a film only if he has made it, otherwise it is false.

What do you expect from a conman

Rubbish from an ignorant, you can copyright your own work from others, if he made a video from an  original he can copyright it as  his work

That does surprise me Redblossom - as surely that would be a form of plaguarism?

Of course it's plagiarism!

Or theft of intellectual property.

The PT authorities released the files and the video, to journalists, how can that be THEFT or plagiarism steady on, doesnt wash

He was off the case October 2nd 2007, files not released till August 4th 2008. He stole the files, from a Portuguese goverment body, for his own financial gain.

[Redblossom]

That's fairly simple, the information contained in the files are the property of the Ministerio Publico in Portimao. If you use parts of the files, re-publish the material in your own name & claim copyright, then you have stolen intellectual property belonging to the the above mentioned owner.

but he didnt claim copyright only on his precis of the 5 hour video, no one has sued him, no idea and not really bothered, it hardly matters

[Carana]

Levy can copyright a film only if he has made it, otherwise it is false.

What do you expect from a conman

Rubbish from an ignorant, you can copyright your own work from others, if he made a video from an  original he can copyright it as  his work

That does surprise me Redblossom - as surely that would be a form of plaguarism?

Of course it's plagiarism!

Or theft of intellectual property.

The PT authorities released the files and the video, to journalists, how can that be THEFT or plagiarism steady on, doesnt wash

The files were never meant to be splashed over the Internet.

Look at any page, you should see a light "watermark" stating: Public Ministry of Portimão, reproduction is forbidden.

Not that anyone has taken any notice.

[Redblossom]

the point was about whether d levy STOLE the dvd contents, he obviously did not, so theft does not
 come into it

[Mrs. B]

If he put his own name on it & then claimed copyright, he stole it.

[AnneGuedes]

The files were never meant to be splashed over the Internet.

Look at any page, you should see a light "watermark" stating: Public Ministry of Portimão, reproduction is forbidden.

Not that anyone has taken any notice.

The Public Ministry didn't anticipate the Internet splashing, or did they ?
Anybody would be allowed to have a DVD if justifying the motives. The restriction is not reproducing the content in an article, for example, but using the indirect style, supposing the meaning is carefully respected.

[DCI]

Wonder if Gonc is going to be told to explain this;

http://madeleinemccannthetruth.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/cuddle-cat/

Senior PJ officers were troubled by that back in 2008 -

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic1170.html

If the dog is trained to react when he detects what he is looking for, why, in most of the cases, we see the dog passing more than once by that place in an uninterested way, until he finally signals the place where he had already passed several times'

On one of the films, it's possible to see that 'Eddie' sniffs Madeleine's cuddle cat, more than once, bites it, throws it into the air and only after the toy is hidden does he 'mark' it (page 2099). Whys didn't he signal it when he sniffs it on the first time'

http://.....2.forumotion.co.uk/t3283-john-o-connor-speaking-to-marian-finucane-on-rte-on-sunday

I wonder what this means from mccannfiles.

With this amount of information (interviews, inquests, etc.), we pretended to clarify what had happened on the night of May the 3rd, 2007, in the apartment 5A, of the resort named Praia da Luz Ocean Club, and to find any element that could lead to the identification of the author of the facts.

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic1170.html

[Jean-Pierre]

In response to the OP, if Duarte Levy was employed by the PJ to video the dog searches, then why does he appear to have copyright on the video, and references to his website.

One would rather imagine that the video of such a search as part of a high profile investigation would remain as property of the PJ, and confidential until the files were released.

A further point is that at times during the video, another person videoing is noticeable.  Perhaps an official police photographer?  Who knows.