Carter Ruck letter to Bob Parsons CEO GoDaddy.com

I've had permission to post this here....


Book News

The first few days after the Faked Abduction website (http://fakedabduction.com/) was launched has produced a phenomenal response from around the globe. Thank you for the numerous kind comments and emails sent to the website. Many people are asking to see a chapter listing or some excerpts. Please keep an eye out for updates on the website or by way of these newsletters for publication news etc. As soon as we know dates, prices, and shipping information, we will update the site accordingly.

There are of course many forces in England trying to prevent publication of Faked Abduction and many of you are familiar with the McCanns’ lawyers in London – Carter Ruck.
The Copyright Deception

In this newsletter we thought we’d share some of their underhand tactics with you so you can see at first hand how the McCanns and their lawyers set out to gag people as well as deceive.

On September 22, 2009, Carter Ruck wrote a letter to the website hosts for the Madeleine Foundation’s website (here) claiming that the use of an image of Madeleine McCann was in violation of the McCanns’ copyright.

The exact wording used in the letter was “The material which infringes our clients copyright…” and they then go on to describe three instances where that image was used on the website.

On the final page of the letter they state “We are further instructed that the information in this notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury our clients have confirmed they are the owners of exclusive rights to the material in question, that is being infringed.”

Now on the face of it, this seems like a reasonable point. The McCanns are claiming to own the exclusive rights in an image that they didn’t license for use on that website.

But hang on a moment…

Do the McCanns own this photo and an exclusive right to the use of the image?

Not according to Getty Images they don’t.

This particular image of Madeleine is available to license from their website at http://gettyimages.com/

You can find the photo of Madeleine (number 74137789) on this page: http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/Search.aspx?contractUrl=2&language=en-US&p=madeleine%20mccann&assetType=image#15

To license the photo for use on a website is typically about $108 for 3 months and $286 for a year.

Now who has deceived who? The McCanns are stating under penalty of perjury that they are the owners of exclusive rights to that image. Is Getty Images in violation of this copyright? Surely Getty Images are licensing that image unlawfully if Carter Ruck and the McCanns are to be believed. Are Getty Images deceiving us? Are the McCanns deceiving their lawyers or are Carter Ruck just trying it on?

You will also notice that Isobel Hudson wrote “NOT FOR PUBLICATION” on their letter to GoDaddy. Well, good old Bob Parsons was about as interested in that statement as we are so we thought you’d like to see the correspondence for yourself.

Enjoy!

Iv"e just replied to the e-mail I received and mentioned a possible problem with regard to the copyright.

Within two weeks of Madeleine going missing Gerry trademarked her Colombara. Since any photograph of her
would show this, unless it was published with her wearing an eyepatch could this be an infringement of the
copyright if her photo was published without permission??????

Just a thought.

http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/Search.aspx?contractUrl=2&language=en-US&p=madeleine%20mccann&assetType=image#15

gettyimages have had it on their site since 13th May 2007.....for arguments sake, if the McCanns gave them permission to use it then just how many people have uploaded it? Are they all going to receive letters from CR?

This is actually quite encouraging. It suggests that that's all the ammo they have got. In other words, next to NOTHING.

I wonder what will happen when they realise that people are not actually scared of them anyore.

I'm really surprised that the recipients of that letter didn't receive it in electronic form as well. Many organisations these days use electronic letterhead templates (and electronic signatures). Isobel does seem to have a problem with her printer (but only with the first page). And forgetting to include the "Strictly"....... standards are slipping

Ambersuz

I"m sure the McCanns had no objection to Gettyimages and every Newspaper printing a photo of Madeleine
because it was good publicity keeping her in the public eye.
However, in the case of 60 reasons, the booklet was being sold, not given away, distributed to MP"s which was
unsolicited, and detrimental to the McCanns. I"m thinking like a Carter Ruck Lawyer now and would pick up on
the Colombara copyright .

Beattie, As the letter says *not for publication* they think the Americans are stupid and wont question them.

Isabel Hudson thought by using the CR letterhead she is powwerful enough not to have to prove her allegations.

To me its bully tactics and lies!

justagrannynow wrote:

Photon wrote:I'm really surprised that the recipients of that letter didn't receive it in electronic form as well. Many organisations these days use electronic letterhead templates (and electronic signatures). Isobel does seem to have a problem with her printer (but only with the first page). And forgetting to include the "Strictly"....... standards are slipping

I noticed that.

Tony Bennetts letter was "Strictly Private and Confidential"

Also, JAGN, the signature



Isobel Hudson was identified in the direct e-mail address at the top of the letter - but did not sign the letter in her own name.

Since Carter-Ruck are reportedly charging £600 an hour for their services you"d think the letter would have a
gold plated Letterhead , it really is quite scruffy.