Re: Photographs and memories

by jd 08.01.12 18:37

I am trying to get my head around it. I understand about copyright, this is obvious. But for instance, when they make an appeal to the public in the media with new photos and a video..The paper or whoever have to "PAY THEM" to be able to show the pics and video in the appeal. Is this right? or have I misunderstood?

by **tigger** 08.01.12 19:02

jd wrote:I am trying to get my head around it. I understand about copyright, this is obvious. But for instance, when they make an appeal to the public in the media with new photos and a video..The paper or whoever have to "PAY THEM" to be able to show the pics and video in the appeal. Is this right? or have I misunderstood?

I absolutely did read that quite some time ago. In any case, any photograph printed in a paper has to get copyright to print it, otherwise they can get sued. That's why you also see in books a disclaimer that any photographs printed where they've been unable to trace the owner of the copyright etc.
The copyright may be the reason a lot of the same ones are recycled all the time, it's cheaper.

It may be that they waive the copyright payment with their appeals, I don't know. But I do know, as do they, that Maddie's face sells papers.

by juliet 08.01.12 20:46

These people sell posters and "holiday packs" and good quality wristbands, don't they? And they've sold them since the earliest days of their so-called Fund.

It beats me why anyone ever thought to give them money. I suppose it is done in a rush of concern or something....but it wasn't needed, except to save the McCanns skins.

by jd 08.01.12 23:56

tigger wrote:
jd wrote:I am trying to get my head around it. I understand about copyright, this is obvious. But for instance, when they make an appeal to the public in the media with new photos and a video..The paper or whoever have to "PAY THEM" to be able to show the pics and video in the appeal. Is this right? or have I misunderstood?

I absolutely did read that quite some time ago. In any case, any photograph printed in a paper has to get copyright to print it, otherwise they can get sued. That's why you also see in books a disclaimer that any photographs printed where they've been unable to trace the owner of the copyright etc.
The copyright may be the reason a lot of the same ones are recycled all the time, it's cheaper.

It may be that they waive the copyright payment with their appeals, I don't know. But I do know, as do they, that Maddie's face sells papers.

When you copyright something say, a song, a poem, a film etc this is to protect the creator from someone else stealing the idea/works and profiting from it. In the case of a missing child, a picture released is not for profit nor is it a creative idea that needs protecting, it is a cry for help to the public in helping finding her. This is not a profit making or protecting creative workings. To make money from this is just purely sick. The mccanns have literally sold their daughters name to make themselves money

by Gillyspot 09.01.12 6:22

Had a quick look on the internet and the age progression image certainly does appear to be copyrighted.

"This is a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit.
The copyright for it is most likely owned by the company who created the promotional item or the artist who produced the item in question; you must provide evidence of such ownership. Lack of such evidence is grounds for deletion.
It is believed that the use of some images of promotional material to illustrate:
the person(s), product, event, or subject in question;
where the image is unrepeatable, i.e. a free image could not be created to replace it;
on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation;"

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Guest 09.01.12 7:47

First I believe the Doengal pictures are not fake. They all have the same cloths on all photos, and if they where fake that means theyr young cousins would know, and I don't think that is very likely.

But there are other suspect photos, and the icecream photo is one of them.

First look at the Donegal eating ice pictures

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

In both pictures madeleine holds and eats the ice with her right hand. Even when they sits down, and she has a napkin in her hand, she still eats and holds the ice mainly with her right hand.

On this however on this suspect ice cream photo she is eating and holding it with her left. She do have a lollipop it looks like in that hand, and eating it. But why give a kid a icecream and a lollipop at the same time? And why is the icecream in her left hand when she usually uses her right? the ice cream is heavier to hold than a lollipop so it would be natural for her to have the icecream in her right hand then ? And the ice is already melting and has been eaten of so that strengthens my believe that if this was a real situation the ice should be in her right hand. This looks either like a set up picture, that means the ice and lollipop is props used and if thats the case its a disturping picture. or it is photoshopped for some reason..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
I also notice on the Donegal pictures, the attitude of Madeleine looks so shy and in a way uncomfortable, mostly shy and stiff..

And compere those with the makeup picture..
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by tumbleweed 09.01.12 8:07

Tinkerbell81 wrote:Im going to ~~(waste my time?)~~ look around if the colour is maybe commonly used in Portugal? If its for example a colour regularly used there we could safely say 'its taken in Portugal' but not necessarily there in Burgau. Im keeping options open, and just trying to avoid tunnel vision... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

You mean this color blue on those lounge chairs(of the Ocean Club)? Wink

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by tumbleweed 09.01.12 8:12

finch wrote:This picture could be of a very young Kate. There is another one somewhere of her with a black hat on. I'll see if I can find it.

That is actually what I thought when I brought it up in the other thread. The teeth are so very different and the area around the bridge of her nose is just bizarre and unlike any other picture I've seen of her. I'd see the page that this was on on the Pamalam site 100 times before and never noticed this one, somehow. I guess it just didn't register with me that it was her...

I'd be very interested in any pictures of young Kate that anyone has.

by **tigger** 09.01.12 8:32

[quote="Moa"]First I believe the Doengal pictures are not fake. They all have the same cloths on all photos, and if they where fake that means theyr young cousins would know, and I don't think that is very likely.

But there are other suspect photos, and the icecream photo is one of them.

First look at the Donegal eating ice pictures

In both pictures madeleine holds and eats the ice with her right hand. Even when they sits down, and she has a napkin in her hand, she still eats and holds the ice mainly with her right hand.
unquote

Moa, first: I don't think your avatar is Maddie, wrong smile, wrong teeth, way too much confidence.
There's a discussion on the ice cream photo on the Burgau thread, it's photoshopped, on the uncropped picture and even the one you posted above, you can see that the left arm cannot possibly connect with the elbow. There is even a gap above the elbow and at the end of the added lower arm.

I do think both the Donegal photos are photoshopped, easy enough to past the head on.
The rocks photo - when you blow it up - shows once again the head wrongly positioned on the neck. That is on the Donegal thread.
The ice-cream photo there: never mind which hand she is holding it - the ice cream is top-heavy, it is impossible to hold it like that even for a second. You try holding an ice-cream like that, the brittle point would break and the ice-cream would fall, either in your face or on your lap.

As for the cousins being 'in' on a deception, a) they're the children of Uncle John (enough said as Uncle John/Jack gives me the creeps)
b) any excuse will do: we needed photographs of them and Maddie together (now they are famous too) , Maddie would/should have been there so we put her in, etc. It's a clannish family, they've proved that time and time again - they're not interested in the truth, they're only keeping a united front.
One of the biggest problems with this affair is the assumption that everybody who has in some way cooperated in the scam is privy to the whole and true story. Imo that is limited to a select few.

by aiyoyo 09.01.12 8:39

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:
Moa wrote:But im very sure the blue is a tshirt on makeup picture not a chair.I do feel that it is not taken in England.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I thought it was a tshirt too....Gerry does wear a lot of blue tshirts.

He looks high on something in this photo.

Geez that a frightful photo of gerry. He looks like a rat in that pic.

by juliet 09.01.12 13:26

It's been asked before but I've never seen an answer - why does Madeleine seem to have a brown blurry hand in the pic (above) where she's coming out of the ice-cream shop?

by Guest 09.01.12 13:52

juliet wrote:It's been asked before but I've never seen an answer - why does Madeleine seem to have a brown blurry hand in the pic (above) where she's coming out of the ice-cream shop?

here is a blown up phot of that, looks normal. Taken from the mccannfiles.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 09.01.12 13:59

I've asked about that photo before Juliet. It looks to me like a joke rubber hand. What is odd though is that there's a clearer image of the same photo and whatever it is is not there. The blurred one has presumably been tampered with.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by juliet 09.01.12 14:20

What is very noticeable is that Madeleine has a very long second finger. Is that evident on the handprints-on-plate that Grandma Healy has been pictured holding? Or on other pictures of Madeleine's hands?

by Guest 09.01.12 18:35

tumbleweed wrote:
finch wrote:This picture could be of a very young Kate. There is another one somewhere of her with a black hat on. I'll see if I can find it.

That is actually what I thought when I brought it up in the other thread. The teeth are so very different and the area around the bridge of her nose is just bizarre and unlike any other picture I've seen of her. I'd see the page that this was on on the Pamalam site 100 times before and never noticed this one, somehow. I guess it just didn't register with me that it was her...

I'd be very interested in any pictures of young Kate that anyone has.

There's this one on Pamalam's site. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

P.S. Another one. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Advocatus 12.01.12 3:15

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Haven't figured out how to post an image yet, but a very interesting comment at Viv's site, well spotted by Viv

viv said...

The picture of Kate and Gerry above, recent, she is holding the Maddie book in pretty pink floral dress and cardy.

Her arm goes across the back of Gerry as though in an embrace, but notice the open hand sticking out? I do not think she can bear to touch him. She even looks as though she is trying to flinch away from him.

I wonder how long it will take London Met? It could be weeks or years, we just do not know but I am sure they intend to get a result now.

by **tigger** 12.01.12 9:11

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The top one is my favourite photo - the way Gerry looks at Kate is - well see for yourself.

The second link is an excellent example of what their married life must be like.

by Guest 12.01.12 10:46

Advocatus wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Haven't figured out how to post an image yet, but a very interesting comment at Viv's site, well spotted by Viv

viv said...

The picture of Kate and Gerry above, recent, she is holding the Maddie book in pretty pink floral dress and cardy.

Her arm goes across the back of Gerry as though in an embrace, but notice the open hand sticking out? I do not think she can bear to touch him. She even looks as though she is trying to flinch away from him.

I wonder how long it will take London Met? It could be weeks or years, we just do not know but I am sure they intend to get a result now.

But that can also be due to the picture beein taken at the time she is about to hold around him and the hand is on its way, but the picture captured it right before it lands on his hips..

I believe they are very into each other, espacially Kate I think is blindly in love with her husband..I also believe her to be a bit jealouse and would jump any time Gerry ask her to do so...

by Advocatus 12.01.12 16:28

Moa wrote:
Advocatus wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Haven't figured out how to post an image yet, but a very interesting comment at Viv's site, well spotted by Viv

viv said...

The picture of Kate and Gerry above, recent, she is holding the Maddie book in pretty pink floral dress and cardy.

Her arm goes across the back of Gerry as though in an embrace, but notice the open hand sticking out? I do not think she can bear to touch him. She even looks as though she is trying to flinch away from him.

I wonder how long it will take London Met? It could be weeks or years, we just do not know but I am sure they intend to get a result now.

But that can also be due to the picture beein taken at the time she is about to hold around him and the hand is on its way, but the picture captured it right before it lands on his hips..

I believe they are very into each other, espacially Kate I think is blindly in love with her husband..I also believe her to be a bit jealouse and would jump any time Gerry ask her to do so...

This is a possibility, a video would be better, but as someone else remarked, she usually hovers her hand around his crotch when sitting down. I am still reserving judgement, but Gerry clearly is the Alpha Dog in the relationship, and his body language in particular reveals volumes.
I think I am going to go back to page 1 and answer some questions, this is a fascinating thread!

by **tigger** 12.01.12 19:13

ROSA wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Damn, was starting from scratch and on page one another weird photo.
Why - if they are lying down, isn't the material around their heads and bodies showing they are lying on a soft surface? There should be a pattern of creases radiating out from the bodies.
All three bodies seem to float, but that looks impossible if they are supine. The baby on her left is also not in a logical position. I don't know what to make of this shot, but it looks an impossible one. The nearest I'd get is if they were all slightly in the air as if bounced on a trampoline.

by **tigger** 12.01.12 19:19

ROSA wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

This one - the second one - is one of the ones where I think her head seems too big at the back, almost a sort of hydrocephalus? Imo it really is too large - I've seen this in a few photographs. We're so used to actresses with hair pieces or extensions on (which makes them look slimmer) - there aren't many photographs from this angle.
I can be totally wrong of course, but for me, doesn't look right proportions. Even allowing for the shape of children's heads,.

by Liz Eagles 12.01.12 19:43

tigger wrote:
ROSA wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

This one - the second one - is one of the ones where I think her head seems too big at the back, almost a sort of hydrocephalus? Imo it really is too large - I've seen this in a few photographs. We're so used to actresses with hair pieces or extensions on (which makes them look slimmer) - there aren't many photographs from this angle.
I can be totally wrong of course, but for me, doesn't look right proportions. Even allowing for the shape of children's heads,.

Oh my...I see what you mean.

by Advocatus 12.01.12 21:45

aquila wrote:
tigger wrote:
ROSA wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

This one - the second one - is one of the ones where I think her head seems too big at the back, almost a sort of hydrocephalus? Imo it really is too large - I've seen this in a few photographs. We're so used to actresses with hair pieces or extensions on (which makes them look slimmer) - there aren't many photographs from this angle.
I can be totally wrong of course, but for me, doesn't look right proportions. Even allowing for the shape of children's heads,.

Oh my...I see what you mean.

Me too, very very weird.

As regards the lying down pictures, i photod my then 18 month old daughter in an almost identical pose, she had her two little cousins on either side of her, one maybe a year old, the other maybe 2 or so - i had them on a rug, and kinda stood above and took fifty snaps, the effect IS weird, but on the bed/duvet cover, I think you have to take into account how firm the mattress is, and how thin the duvet-type cover.

For sure a great many of these phtos have been tampered with by somebdy - but the point is many of th Em are *official* team mccann approved press releae photos.

So, in court this will be exposed by experts..

deleted

You could NOT make this up!!!

As we all know, the fitst crappy amateur official site went live almost immediately, but curiously if you look ar the source code it was compiled in 2006!!!!!!!

Further, the siye quickly evolved into a paypal donation machine, but All the while site is totally amateursville..

This whippersnapper chancer deleted was paid

Wait for it

37,000 spondoolas for putting up a shoddy site that anyone from the yellow pages would probably charge you a few hindred quid, certianly no way more than a thousand pounds to set up and put online.

Even more telling is that the accounts show that 37,000 was bunged to CSE-boy for just 9-10 months work, so the real per annum charge to the duped donators is cira 50,000 uk pounds, give or take

A quickie before i go, my guess is KM got a 500,000 poinds advance from her book, where is that money? Do they think people are THAT stupid?

by Guest 12.01.12 21:53

Advocatus I have deleted a couple of your words. IIRC the person who started the website was a pupil or ex pupil of Phil McCann - and not a relative.

by Advocatus 12.01.12 21:57

candyfloss wrote:Advocatus I have deleted a couple of your words. IIRC the person who started the website was a pupil or ex pupil of Phil McCann - and not a relative.

Fine cf, i stand corrected, i think i have some more info on this rather crucial aspect of the fund scam so when i get home i will update. Sorry for smartphone spellings etc, i turned off spellchk and it is just as bad as before, lol.one quick reflectionit is very very VERY clear than in this whole wicked travesty of a production, ALL the players, all the actors, seem to know each other

They are like an octopus, sucking grasping tentacles everwhere, and when they are CAUGHT, red handed i might add!!!, dense impenetrable black ink is released, not a whitewash, but an evil BLACKwash, they are all seemingly interlinked via family genes lodges jobs party affilations sexuall proclivities drug choices ivf choices holidays ethics morals pacts agendas nationalities (overwhelming amount of elite scottish rite freemasons inviolved) and on and on and on....