Is it true that the freelance journalist duarte levy

[Redblossom]

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.

Do you have proof it was released by DL before the files were?

[ferryman]

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.

Do you have proof it was released by DL before the files were?

If Duarte Levy wasn't employed by the PJ to make the videos, he has no right to lay claim to "copyright" of the videos.

I think that's JP's point ...

[Redblossom]

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.

Do you have proof it was released by DL before the files were?

If Duarte Levy wasn't employed by the PJ to make the videos, he has no right to lay claim to "copyright" of the videos.

I think that's JP's point ...

But thats not the point, the original debate was borne out of someone stating that DL was used by the PJ to video the dogs deployment, extremely unlikely, they had plenty of their own plods for that,whether he put his name copyrighting sections of the full video is a different matter, all been covered on this thread, JP suggests he released it before the files were released to journalists, Id like to see any proof of that, if none, then its just another myth

[ferryman]

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.

Do you have proof it was released by DL before the files were?

If Duarte Levy wasn't employed by the PJ to make the videos, he has no right to lay claim to "copyright" of the videos.

I think that's JP's point ...

But thats not the point, the original debate was borne out of someone stating that DL was used by the PJ to video the dogs deployment, extremely unlikely, they had plenty of their own plods for that,whether he put his name copyrighting sections of the full video is a different matter, all been covered on this thread, JP suggests he released it before the files were released to journalists, Id like to see any proof of that, if none, then its just another myth

 JP suggests he released it before the files were released to journalists, Id like to see any proof of that, if none, then its just another myth

You are not following chain of cause and effect.

If Levy lays (legitimate!) claim to copyright, then he must have been out there in PdL, making that video.

If Levy was not out there in PdL, making that video, then Levy's claim to "copyright" is fraudulent ...

[Redblossom]

No FM dont move the goalposts just yet

[ferryman]

No FM dont move the goalposts just yet

Whose goalposts?

Not JP's

[Redblossom]

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.

***

JPs suggestion that it was not confidential, ie released by DL, before the files were releases needs to be addressed, no one is bothered much about copyright , Im sure if the Pj were they would have done something about it

[DCI]

OOOPS!

Searches of the Ocean Club apartments, 31 July 2007

Search of Vista Mar Villa, 02 August 2007

Examination of clothes collected from the Vista Mar Villa, 02 August 2007

Examination of vehicles including the McCanns' Renault Scenic, 06 August 2007


The Eddie and Keela Extended Videos

Thanks to Duarte Levy for providing these extended video versions of Eddie and Keela in action.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id167.html

[Redblossom]

OOOPS!

Searches of the Ocean Club apartments, 31 July 2007

Search of Vista Mar Villa, 02 August 2007

Examination of clothes collected from the Vista Mar Villa, 02 August 2007

Examination of vehicles including the McCanns' Renault Scenic, 06 August 2007

???


Are you trying to say somethng if so, what is it? Do elaborate pls. It must be very important for you to put it in bold and big font.
 >@@(*&)

[ferryman]

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.

***

JPs suggestion that it was not confidential, ie released by DL, before the files were releases needs to be addressed, no one is bothered much about copyright , Im sure if the Pj were they would have done something about it

No dobut JP will clarify, but I suspect he may have inadvertently omitted the word "not" from his first sentence ...?

In response to the OP, if Duarte Levy was [not]* 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.

*Word in brackets inserted by me ...

[Redblossom]

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.

***

JPs suggestion that it was not confidential, ie released by DL, before the files were releases needs to be addressed, no one is bothered much about copyright , Im sure if the Pj were they would have done something about it

No dobut JP will clarify, but I suspect he may have inadvertently omitted the word "not" from his first sentence ...?

In response to the OP, if Duarte Levy was [not]* 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.

*Word in brackets inserted by me ...

Because he  decided he could? Thought he could? It really doesnt matter. That he did so is in no way evidence that a) he was invited by the police to film the video or b) that he released it before he was given a copy, as were other journalists, in August 2008, when they were released

[ferryman]

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.

***

JPs suggestion that it was not confidential, ie released by DL, before the files were releases needs to be addressed, no one is bothered much about copyright , Im sure if the Pj were they would have done something about it

No dobut JP will clarify, but I suspect he may have inadvertently omitted the word "not" from his first sentence ...?

In response to the OP, if Duarte Levy was [not]* 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.

*Word in brackets inserted by me ...

Because he  decided he could? Thought he could? It really doesnt matter. That he did so is in no way evidence that a) he was invited by the police to film the video or b) that he released it before he was given a copy, as were other journalists, in August 2008, when they were released

It doesn't matter (to you) that Levy might be making fraudulent claim to copyright.

Yes, I do understand ...

[Redblossom]

You  carry on making a song and dance abut copyright, its use or abuse was never the basis of the facts of this debate, so pls stop derailing it,and address the pertinent issues, thanks



Eta and for the record, no I wont lose sleep over someone putting a C mark against a compiled short video out of a 5 hour one, generally released to any journalist, it matters not a single jot in the big picture, you can fret about it though or go report them


Leave you to it seeing as you have loads of time to waste on irrelevant minutae
 

[ferryman]

facts of this debate,

You mean there are "facts" in anything you want to "debate"?

[Redblossom]

facts of this debate,

You mean there are "facts" in anything you want to "debate"?

When losing an argument its best for ones own credibility to not resort to disingenous personal jibes

Floors all yours now