Chapter 57
STOP PRESS: BRÜCKNER HAS SOME MATES ROUND FOR A BIRTHDAY PARTY
From the plethora of nonsense news items emanating from the cloaca maxima of the British gutter press in recent weeks I singled out one which bore the hallmark of the desperate attempt to find anything to help secure the conviction of Christian Brückner for a crime which not only may he not have committed, but which may itself not have been committed in the first place.
As always it stems from the pen of Jon Clarke, owner, editor, publisher and journalist of and for the Olive Press.
It involves an ‘allegation’ that Brückner had a few mates round for a beer and a bite on his birthday 10 years ago. This is said to be in some way of note, not to say reprehensible because his birthday was only a few weeks after his having been spoken to by the German Police about his movements and activities between 1/3/7 and 31/3/7. Of which more later.
Why is this a strange story ? Well. . . it involves photographs of the alleged party. And photos for which Clarke claims Copyright [sic] in the written ‘photo byline’ or caption along the bottom of each of them
Let that sink in.
And if it doesn’t do so immediately, let us remind ourselves of the law of copyright in a photograph.
UK
In the UK, the law on copyright provides that the author of the work (the photographer) is the owner of a picture they have taken (s11 Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988), unless they are an employee or there is some other agreement in place which affects ownership. For example, if the photographer has signed an agreement which transfers the ownership of the photo to a third party. The fact that a celebrity is the focus of the photograph is irrelevant.
REF 1
USA
US law is the same, as it is incidentally across most of the civilised world
When it comes to photography, United States law says that the photographer automatically receives the copyright of each an every photo he/she takes.
If you want legal ownership of a photo or other creation which is not yours originally, you can make arrangements. If the creator/photographer is willing, you can can purchase the copyright. This exchange will involve signing a contract for legal proof of the transfer
REF 2
As a Spanish resident and professional publisher and experienced journalist Clarke, and/or of course his “amazing British law specialist REDACTED REDACTED in REDACTED who has got [him] out of plenty of scrapes”. [Book p. 8 Kindle edition; p. iii print edition paperback] - will also be fully aware of The Royal Decree covering this exact point.
Real Decreto Legislativo 1/1996, de 12 de abril, (in case they want to refresh their memories)
REF 3, 3A
So unless Clarke himself took the Photo, or the other named person, one Rainer Burkhard [full name Rainer-Josef Burkhard - a fellow journalist and therefore unlikely to have been at Brückner’s birthday party in 2013] took it and has signed a contract handing to or sharing the copyright with Clarke, that statement is simply untrue. It is wrong. And Clarke as a professional journalist of many years standing KNOWS or should know, that it is wrong and untrue. In plain Anglo-Saxon English it is a LIE.
In Clarke’s case of course - yet another lie.
But of course Clarke clearly wants to be paid extra for the photo, as he did for the ludicrous and hilarious photo of the “Secret compound”, which turned out to be a screenshot from Google Earth Street view, carefully cropped to exclude the large white print road name overlay, and the house and restaurant directly opposite, but marked very clearly “Image: Olive Press Spain”, and not “Image Google Earth” as it in fact was.
See chapter 40, “Anatomy of a Revelation” for details, and Appendix A for a précis of what he did last time we caught him at it.
REF 4, APP A
Clarke has ‘form’ for this. And no doubt claimed copyright in the stolen photo of Kidman and Law when he sold it for a Country House Ransom to the tabloids in the UK - though that photo can no longer be found for obvious reasons.
What it means in simple terms is that we can cheerfully ignore all such nonsense and print the photos here.
But then we come to the photos themselves.
One is in the Olive Press, where Clarke reinforces his statement that this is Brückner with the text
“The images give a rare glimpse into the 47-year-old paedophile’s private life and inner circle.
They were taken at his own 37th birthday party at a rented kiosk he called home for four years – and just weeks after he was first questioned over his links to Maddie in November 2013.
One photo shows him dressed in a striped tie and white shirt as he stands next to a spread of Iberian-inspired food – including Spanish tortilla.”
The photo shows Brückner (IF it is he) in a neatly ironed White shirt and a tie, standing next to a Black table with formal high-back black dining chairs, two tortillas españolas and an assortment of neatly presented and appetising finger foods on three oval platters. A “rare glimpse” indeed into his private life.
Assuming this indeed is the occasion of his birthday then “Just weeks after” is correct. It is actually a month. 4 weeks. He was invited for interview on 6/11/2013, and his date of birth is 7/12/76
REF 5
[As the world knows the McCanns were celebrating just DAYS after they reported Madeleine missing, and were interviewed about it by the police, but so far as I know that photo has never been published in the Olive Press. If I am wrong on that point I apologise in advance ]
The second photo is in the Mirror - and probably other syndicated tabloids who churn ordure.
I lose the will to live after reading just one !
REF 6
It shows Brückner in a Black shirt, possibly polo style, wearing no visible tie, with friends sitting on different chairs round a White table, drinking from different beer bottles
Again Clarke unlawfully claims Copyright
And so on it goes.
But there is another remarkable thing about these photos.
They are all ripped off - screen shots - from a YouTube video published THREE YEARS AGO
This explains their grainy nature
The video was published by Der Spiegel TV to YouTube in June 2022
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yifTRpSfz-g is the link
REF 7
The photos are to be found at 1:33-1:42, and 7:17 onwards
Here is a screen shot, a few seconds before the more tightly focused one captured by Clarke, showing the time stamp, and the fact that it was uploaded by DER SPIEGEL TV three and three-quarter years ago.
Translation of the header from the video
906,181 views Jun 17, 2020
For the past two weeks, SPIEGEL TV reporters Claas Meyer-Heuer and Thomas Heise have been researching the immediate environment of Christian Brückner, the alleged murderer of Maddeleine [sic] McCann. Now they have managed to meet one of his closest friends. They learnt from Björn R. that the missing Maddie had long been a topic of conversation among his friends. They also found out that there had been a blatant breakdown in the investigation. Exclusive information about the criminal life of Christian Brückner.
(The question immediately arises – Was Björn R. the photographer and owner of the copyright ? And if so did he relinquish it to Der Spiegel TV ?)
It also shows more clearly the White table, black shirt and the white chairs with the blue coloured plastic or fabric back, of the low-back, bent metal and stacking design, totally different from the more formal black high-back dining chairs in the first photo.
It is fairly clear to all sensible and reasonable persons that the two photos are NOT of the same event, highly unlikely even to be in the same house or on the same day
What can we conclude ?
That Clarke has YET AGAIN taken screen shots of COPYRIGHT images, and illegally passed them off as his own, probably - almost certainly - for pecuniary advantage = financial gain, and in order to do so has appended his name and his unlawful and wrongful claim to ownership of the copyright ?
Or something else, which for the moment escapes me ?
What are the consequences of this ?
1 Most obviously we discover that Clarke loves to publish untruths, which by now is hardly a revelation.
Does he commit an offence by claiming Copyright which in law he does not possess ?
Indeed he might.
Infringement is usually treated as civil claim leading potentially to an award of damages against the infringer.
However, in certain circumstances, it can be prosecuted as a criminal offence, with fines, damages and even imprisonment awarded by a criminal court.
If found guilty of copyright infringement in a magistrate’s court, your business could be fined up to £50,000 and you could face a jail term of up to six months.
If the case reaches a Crown Court, fines can be unlimited and the maximum sentence up to ten years’ imprisonment.
REF 8
It is submitted however that it is unlikely that a tabloid journalist in a foreign country is likely to be sued by whoever DID take the photos in question, since he, whoever it was, has clearly breached trust by putting them into the public domain and letting Der Spiegel TV publish them.
2 We reinforce our view with this further evidence that Clarke is an arrogant bully who sprinkles “copyright” and “Image: Olive Press Spain” at random on plagiarised and “stolen” material to intimidate some and to acquire money from others. This is wholly in line with his ridiculous threats to sue for libel anyone who avers that he WAS at the scene in PdL at 1045hrs on 4/5/7 - as he himself has said he was . . . [ Yes – I know it makes no sense but I shall cover it again in the next chapter and try to see if any of us can fathom what he is talking about…], and his ludicrous threats to me to face legal proceedings if I did not immediately remove details of his house and his children from something I had - allegedly - written. With copies to his solicitors.
I could not, because I had not.
It is clear that Clarke had not bothered to read the article in question, and even more clear that neither had either of his solicitors, or they would have prevented his being humiliated by my reply. As a matter of fact neither solicitor was professional enough to acknowledge receipt of my reply, which may indicate that they do not actually act for him in an official capacity at all, and their names may have been taken in vain and been sprinkled into the text of the threat in a vain attempt to intimidate.
It failed.
Nor in fact did his - then - wife reply. She had, possibly unwillingly, been copied into the correspondence, but amendments to his personal Facebook Page to the effect that there is “No relationship info to show”, and the permanent closing of their lucrative luxury rental property some years ago may help to explain this.
REF 9
3 Newspapers and Magazines pay extra for photographs to go with editorial copy. A LOT extra. It is therefore far more remunerative to send a photo or two, however they have been acquired. But if that photo is not properly accredited, or, as in this case FALSELY accredited to the person sending it, using the specific words ‘Copyright’ or “Image: Olive Press Spain”, it is arguable that an offence of Fraud, under s.2 Fraud Act 2006, (previously known as “Obtaining money by Deception”, s 15 Theft Act 1968) has been committed against those publishers, and that they in turn have been exposed to suit for breach of the original and real copyright.
How this helps the case against Brückner, which Clarke seems to have made his most recent life’s ambition, is unclear.
FOOTNOTE:
The publications in question have been or are being made aware of the possibility that they may have been deceived and falsely charged for the publication of the photos, and that they in turn may therefore inadvertently have been guilty of publishing without proper and accurate accreditation.
REFERENCES
1 https://www.ipcareers.co.uk/profession-overview/who-owns-the-copyright-of-your-image
2 https://cramerimaging.com/copyright-ownership-vs-use-license
3 MADELEINE: One Reporter’s 14-Year Hunt To Solve Europe’s Most Harrowing Crime" (Available world-wide on Amazon, in Print and Kindle editions, price £10.99.)
3A Real Decreto Legislativo 1/1996, de 12 de abril,
https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-1996-8930
6 https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/christian-b-partied-after-being-32107897
7 www.youtube.com/watch?v=yifTRpSfz-g
8 https://www.startuploans.co.uk/business-guidance/what-is-copyright-law
APPENDIX A
From Chapter 50
Olive Press Secret compound photo, with accreditation claim
Google earth Street view
Google earth street view of the road demolishing the “Secret Compound” absurdity
Overlay of Olive Press claimed photo and Google earth screen shot.
Note the fruiting head of grass in the centre to confirm this is the original source, and was NOT taken by Clarke or the Olive Press
