Madeleine McCann Haunting Evidence...or no Evidence at all - updated
Maddie and esotericism: means or ends?
The news, a front-page exclusive, that the ‘Sunday Express’ published on the 19th of October: “FBI mediums present new suspect in Maddie case”. The news is reported, as anyone can verify, over two pages, where a new “photo-fit” of a new suspect appears, as well as the photographs of two supposed FBI medium-detectives and one clairvoyant.
The Latest Psychics To 'Find' Madeleine McCann
Well the latest publicity stunt is by the guys from Haunting Evidence, and specifically Carla Baron and John J Oliver, two of the shows so called psychics.It seems that these disturbed people will sink to any low to further their own careers, even at the expense of a innocent missing child.
External Links on Carla Baron:
A Preview on Carla Baron, Psychic Detective by the IIG West.
The Independent Investigations Group has been examining the public claims of Carla Baron – a self-proclaimed “psychic detective” who has solved fifty cases in the past twenty years, or has solved no cases in the past three years, depending on whether you believe her or us.
Jon Donnis In Bad Psychics - The Fraud Files
Haunting Evidence Producer Gregory Palmer has told Portuguese daily 24 Horas: "The idea is to make a documentary, speak to witnesses and put our investigators in the field." When has Haunting Evidence ever been a documentary? The show is pure fiction. These so called experts have NEVER SOLVED A SINGLE CASE.Hell their record is worse than the UK's own Psychic Private Eyes, which is widely regarding as the worst show of its kind in the country.
Update on: 27 October 2010
Last night we received the following email trough our contact form, allegedly, from the legal representative of Ms. Carla Baron, with the following message, relative to this blog post:
the deleted image as per request
Sender's name : A****** M******
Sender's Email : withhold for privacy reasons
Referrer : http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2006/10/contact-us.html
It has recently come to our attention that an image of Ms. Carla Baron is on your website.
lWXrpwC28yU/SSW6-Qk0nBI/ AAAAAAAAEXk/YTc-mgGpjMM/s400/ 45.jpg
Unfortunately, Carla Baron's photos and written material are for use by permission only and this is non-negotiable. This notification appears in gold print at the bottom of the photos page.
Posted Copyright Notice:
*All documents, webpages, photographs and images are the express property of www.carlabaron.net, except where noted. Permission is required to copy, download or use any text, photographic or image ______________________________
We insist that the image you are now using be taken down immediately. This is a violation of copyright.
I have been retained as Carla Baron's legal representative in this matter.
Dear Ms. M*****, we do not have any problems with your request, we will delete the image in question; and replace it with another illustrative image as well as with your email and ours, explaining the reasons why we had to take the previous image down.
May we ask why now, two years later, in this particular moment, when said illustrative image was re-published in a blog post which merely intended to inform and educate, albeit in a critical manner - as it is our Constitutional Right in Portugal of Freedom of Expression - about a TV show where your client appeared in 2008 regarding a case that has been the main focus of our blog for the past 3 years - the very much media hyped McCann affair.
Besides, did you do know that if you search for "Carla Baron" in google images you get about 3,030 image results? I'm fairly sure that we have used an image via searching in google; an image which was then published under our right of 'fair use'; an image that for all effects was released, as you have now explained in your email, by your client in the internet without a visible copyright symbol or watermark symbol identifying said image as belonging to your client, rendering it therefore searchable in the internet and simultaneously impossible for us to know or ascertain if said image was under any kind of copyright protection.
Actually, just by doing a quick google search I've noticed your client has a public Myspace profile, with several images similar to the one in question - images that are also available via a web search unless they were 'hidden' in private profile - [Proprietary Rights in Content on MySpace & Third Party Linked Services]. Perhaps adding a visible copyright symbol/watermark in those images would ensure that this kind of situation doesn't happen again.
- the blog authors had no knowledge of said image being copyrighted due to the lack of a visible watermark/copyright symbol indicating the provenance and therefore are not liable;
- said image does not invade your client rights to privacy since it was, as you explained, your client who has published it on the world wide web;
- the image in question was not used in a commercial way, nor envisaging any kind of profit;
- the image as stated previously was used solely in an informative manner as it is our Constitutional right as Portuguese Citizens, stated in articles 37º and article 38º;
- said image is not contemplated in the Berne Convention of 1998 as intellectual property, unless it is considered as an 'artistic work' or artwork - ref. 3.2 Are people protected by intellectual property rights?;
- the blog authors have used said image as per the "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law which allows such things as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author;
- the blog authors have used said image in accordance and abiding the Portuguese Code of Copyright and Related Rights Copyright (No. 50/2004 Harmonisation in the Information Society), Law, 2004 SECTION VIII, Photographic Works, Conditions for protection, namely as stated in:
(1) The choice of a photograph's subject and the conditions of its creation must be deemed to be a personal artistic creation by the author before a photograph may qualify for protection.
(1) Copies of a photographic work shall bear the following information:
(a)the name of the photographer;
(b) in the case of photographs of works of plastic art, the name of the author of the work photographed.
(2) Only the unlawful reproduction of photographs bearing the above-mentioned information may be punished. In the absence of such information, the author may not claim the compensation provided for in the present Code, unless the photographer can show evidence of bad faith on the part of the person making the reproduction.
Regardless of the above mentioned laws, now that we know said image to be protected by copyright, in a sign of good will, we shall remove it as we have stated previously.
best regards from Lisbon,