OK, Now You Sue Me! 89


With grateful thanks to ANode – and to the others who submitted designs.

I repeat, that the producers of The Ambassadors, Big Tal, contacted me about acquiring the rights to Murder in Samarkand and hled a meeting with me in their office to discuss it at length.  They did not get the rights.  The concept of The Ambassadors, the series Big Talk subsequently produced, is very plainly based on Murder in Samarkand.  Big Talk are copyright thieves.

That is without the issue of making a state-sponsored satire with FCO approval and participation designed to justify and make light of our disgraceful collusion with the vicious Karimov regime.

This is the last correspondence I had from my solicitor on the subject – it would cost me £10,000 just to apply to see the scripts:

(a)    Application for pre-action disclosure

This is the next step highlighted in our letter of 6 March 2013.  This is an application to the court to order Big Talk to disclose certain information to you, namely, the treatment and the scripts.  This information would then enable us to understand if their show will infringe your book (or defame you).


The likely costs of proceeding with the application will depend somewhat on how the other side approach it, but at a minimum we will need to prepare a witness statement setting out the evidence to support your application, pay the court fee to issue the application, correspond with the other side and prepare for documents for the application and to appear at court to represent you.   Estimated costs for this application are likely to be in the region of £10,000 (plus VAT).

I don’t have money.  There is no access to justice for ordinary people against companies in this country.  So the copyright thieves of Big Talk can now sue me.  I would welcome any solidarity postings of the above image from other bloggers and media!

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

89 thoughts on “OK, Now You Sue Me!

1 2 3
  • kedem forever

    @Giles “Oh, when will it all end?”

    Ask our mad occupiers in the West Bank,enticed with free housing, why they are planting Gharkad trees? They seem to know something we dont.

  • haemoglobin

    What a great picture.

    It would be so much more pleasant to read the comment threads here, and it would be much more inviting to actually post, if so many of the existing posts and posters weren’t sniping at other posts and posters, and sometimes indulging in deliberate provocation. While it may be in part the nature of the topics under discussion, I doubt I’m the only one put off participation by the general air of antagonism that hangs over here sometimes. Well done to those who can ignore it and get on with what they have to say.

  • TO

    Maybe I am thick, or just too ignorant of how TV is made, or maybe copyright law is far far stricter than I thought it was, I still don’t really get it. It seems like the argument is that it’s an uncommon topic rather than a common one? OK, but what does that change one way or another regarding plagiarism? It’s not as if one can copyright a topic, or a country, or a job title, can they? So I still am not sure how you can know they plagiarized you without seeing the script?

    And while it’s plausible that someone could try to buy the rights to something, be refused, and then plagiarize it, I’m not sure how one would know that was the case rather than that they tried to buy the rights, were refused, and went ahead and wrote their own script about the subject instead. Could be either, so without specific evidence how would one know? I tend to favour the second explanation, just because plagiarizing seems really stupid when you could instead write your own script, but I don’t actually know, that’s just my personal impression.

    So it’s all possible, and for all I know it was plagiarized, it’s just that I think if you presented this story to the public as is, they’d want more than a ‘possible’ story, they’d want some specific evidence.

    In any case if it is, it’ll all come out in a few weeks when it’s broadcast and people can compare for themselves the show and the book. And if it isn’t, no reason you can’t use the show to draw attention to your book anyway.

  • A Node

    Glad you like the poster, Craig. I’ts nice to be able to give a little back.
    It might be useful to re-name it to something more descriptive than the working title I gave it.

  • Daniel Rich

    @ Craig Murray,

    This is a bit of a sidestep, but as a proper and fair solution is needed [one in which justice prevails for once], have you considered to contact either Assange or Wikileaks, explain your situation and see if if they have someone in their lawyer pool whose willing to step up to the plate without lining his pockets first?

  • Mary

    The holders of 70% of the Royal Mail share issue, that is hedge funds, sovereign wealth funds of Kuwait and Qatar and financial institutions, have made an initial killing. The shares have opened in the conditional market at a premium of £1 on issue price of £3.30.

    Royal Mail Shares Soar In First Trades
    The value of the Royal Mail has jumped more than £1.2bn as conditional trading begins on the London Stock Exchange.

    Joe Public is left holding the baby, ie the pension fund liabilities.

    ‘The Royal Mail is to be privatised and self-evidently no buyer would wish to assume sponsor responsibility for its £40 billion of liabilities.’

    There is also a £500m RM property windfall awaiting the vultures.

  • Mary

    The attack on Edward Snowden continues. Worse than the Cambridge spy ring according to the Times. They are quoting B.Liar’s mate Onand.

    Snowden leak ‘worst blow to British spies’
    Sean O’Neill Security Editor
    Last updated at 12:01AM, October 11 2013

    The theft and leak of tens of thousands of “top secret” files by the former CIA employee Edward Snowden eclipses the Cambridge spy ring as the most catastrophic loss suffered by British intelligence, one of Whitehall’s senior security experts said yesterday. Sir David Omand, the former head of GCHQ……. paywall


    ‘After working for the Ministry of Defence for a number of years, Oman was appointed director of GCHQ from 1996 to 1997. His next post was Permanent Secretary at the Home Office…..
    In 2002 he became the first Permanent Secretary and Security and Intelligence Co-ordinator in the Cabinet Office. Omand was among those who decided that David Kelly should be pursued for talking to the media about the Government’s dossier on Iraq’s alleged WMD.[4] Omand and Sir Kevin Tebbit, then permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence, recommended to Jack Straw and Tony Blair that John Scarlett head MI6.[4]


    Aaronovitch is on Any Questions tonight at 8pm. Await more of the same from him.

  • Mary

    Congratulations to all the previous Sam Adams Award winners including Craig who is in good company. Edward Snowden is the latest recipient and received his award on Wednesday.

    2002: Coleen Rowley
    2003: Katharine Gun
    2004: Sibel Edmonds
    2005: Craig Murray
    2006: Samuel Provance
    2007: Andrew Wilkie
    2008: Frank Grevil[1]
    2009: Larry Wilkerson
    2010: Wikileaks and Julian Assange[2]
    2011: Thomas Andrews Drake and Jesselyn Radack
    2012: Thomas Fingar
    2013: Edward Snowden

    ‘US unchained itself from constitution’: Whistleblowers on RT after secret Snowden meeting
    October 10, 2013 12:45
    Edward Snowden (3rd R) alongside UK WikiLeaks journalist Sarah Harrison (2nd R) and the US whistleblowers (L to R) Coleen Rowley (FBI), Thomas Drake (NSA), Jesselyn Raddack (DoJ) and Ray McGovern (CIA).


  • Daniel Rich

    @ Rouge [previous thread],

    As in Craig’s case, where to turn to when justice has become a lopsided vehicle that can be abused and twisted at will by those who remain outside confined spaces [aka as Joliet]? I’m not really familiar with the exact legal shenanigans in the UK [although I do know libel is on par with what I do know], but here’s some more food for thought as to where we ‘ordinary folks’ stand within the legal framework sold to us as ‘democracy’ and ‘democratic values.’

  • Komodo

    “Defamation”….think I picked that up from a much earlier post (February?) of yours which prefigured this. Sorry if I got the wrong end of the stick.

    I agree with TO that we’re missing something here. Which is I think related to the content of the series, and the information you have on it which leads you to believe your rights have been infringed. All I’m seeing from here is: “I wrote a factual account of my time in Uzbekistan and later: these people decided not to buy the rights in order to produce a fictional account of someone else’s time in ‘Tazbekistan'”.

    If it’s lifted material wholesale from your book without acknowledgement, you’ve perhaps got a case. A better case, when it’s released. If it merely takes a sideways dig at a (fictional) previous incumbent of the (fictional) Tazbek Embassy, I wouldn’t think you had. You won’t be identifiable, and let’s face it, apart from your loyal followers and trolls here, the viewing public won’t even recognise the allusion. To you, or your book.

    And as I said, those images of smirking comedians probably belong to someone. Be careful.


  • Jemand

    Come to think of it, I’m not sure if there is any legally actionable grievance in all of this – except for possible defamation.

    As I posted on previous thread prior to reading this one :

    Craig’s book tells a story which is supposed to be true, not a creative work of fiction. Any inspiration based on purported facts that do not exactly copy Craig’s choice of words cannot be considered copyright infringements. In this case, Craig’s work is that of a reporter of sorts, not an artist so the ideas that are presented in his book are free for people to re-report and rework as fiction.

    I can understand Craig’s objection to the comedic fictionalisation of his and other’s terrible experiences, but my position now is that Craig should exploit the opportunity to re-tell the real story to the public to maintain awareness of the brutality of the Karimov regime.

  • Komodo

    Big Talk probably a spook front anyway.

    Hand in glove with the FCO and BBC.

    How cosy.

    It’s cosier than that. Big Talk’s now wholly owned by ITV.

  • Komodo

    Erm….if posting photoshopped images on blogs could get you nicked then half the web could be shut down.

    Using copyright images to make a point against someone with access to expensive lawyers is probably not the best way of suggesting your own copyright has been infringed by that someone, though, is it?

  • Jives

    Im beginning to think this whole Snowden/NSA/Guardian scene is a charade,a fix,a psyop- call it what you will.

    Its just too smooth and linear,like a well rehearsed play.

    Are the Guardian et al revealing any great truths that most of us surmised years ago or are they and other agencies merely throwing us this story to confirm to us all just how scrutinsed- and thus subjugated- we all are now?

  • Rouge

    Daniel Rich
    11 Oct, 2013 – 8:45 am

    Yes, we are all potential terrorists now, and therefore to be treated as such.

    I have no problem in understanding why all this has come about and its ultimate purpose, particularly after listening to Aaron Russo’s recounting of a discussion with Nicholas Rockefeller –


    I believe the prime aim is chaos, and out of that oppression of the populace (ie serfdom).

  • nevermind

    So what were the reasons for big Talk to invite Craig to talk about copyrights? Were they ever going to buy them? for a penny or a million pounds? or were they just going through the motions?

    Why, if they were going to go ahead with their script anyway, did they approach Craig and wasted his time? to shake his clean hands and compare them to Jack Straws wet and rather weak handshake? To tease out morsels of genuine facts, which they then will discard and rewrite to make them sound funny? or did they just wanted to have a coffee morning with Craig.

    Fact is that these two comedians are part of a successfull BBC possee that can steer and direct humour on our screens, king pins indeed.

    I do not think that David Mitchell is funny, he’s just trying to be clever and get away with sunning himself in the afterglow of blooted bodies, oh what a laugh we all had…

    The PR value of this hyst has the capacity to overshadow the one hand clapping from the FCO, batboy Hague and those gullible TV execs who think they can run roughshot over anyone they like.

    Big Talk are the producers of highly successfull ‘Shaun of the dead’ and ‘Hot Fuzz’, they are not short of cash and could have purchased the rights, nt only would they have been able to make it into a proper film, not a caricature of reality, but they also would have been able to stop Craig doing anything else with his experience and book.

  • pete

    Nice artwork, what about producing some kind of wrap-around for the cover highlighting the ‘celebrity’ endorsement.

  • chris2

    “The Nobel peace prize goes to ‘global chemical watchdog OPCW’.”

    The truth is that the committee couldn’t decide whether to give this year’s Peace prize to Prince Bandar or Netanyahu so they had to fall back on this rather wishy washy compromise

  • A Node

    pete 11 Oct, 2013 – 12:23 pm

    ” ….. what about producing some kind of wrap-around for the cover highlighting the ‘celebrity’ endorsement.”

    I could add this if you want, Craig. Could put the ‘Ambassadors’ logo on it. Up to you.

  • BrianFujisan


    Here’s more on Roger Waters and his position of support for peoples of Palestine and apartheid In the occupied territories,

    “But the fact is that there are different rules of law for Arabs and Jews. Completely different. In the occupied territories, Jews are governed under a civil law and have completely different rules in terms of their movement and so on and so forth … and the occupied people, the Palestinians and the Arabs, are under martial law. And it’s a completely different set of laws. They also have completely different sets of documents.

    It’s just like the old pass laws in South Africa. It is apartheid. Clear and simple. If you go and look at the definition of what the crime of apartheid is, then it describes perfectly what’s going on in the West Bank. And not quite so perfectly, but also, Gaza, which is under siege, it’s completely surrounded. They have no freedom. When one race or ethnic group subjugates another race or ethnic group, to its power and control, that is the crime of apartheid”.

    Waters does not limit his criticism to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, noting that “It’s also going on in Israel itself. There are different laws depending on if you’re Jewish or if you’re Arab.”


  • TO

    Presumably they were at some point considering using his book, but then changed their minds, either because they realised they preferred to write something themselves anyway and make their own story, or because the two parties couldn’t come to a mutual agreement on the terms so they found they had to write something themselves if they wanted to proceed with their show. Either way, to me (and I suspect to most people who hear this story knowing nothing about it previously? I got here after reading an article about the TV show and googling to learn more ) the most likely explanation that comes to my mind is that that’s exactly what they went ahead and did – wrote their own script. I can’t really think of any reason convincing to myself personally for why they would then choose in that situation to plagiarise when they could just write their own story instead.

    Doesn’t mean it’s impossible, it just seems to me rather unlikely. Business deals and collaborations fall through all the time and most people don’t then turn around and commit a crime or try to steal whatever they wanted to buy (let alone steal something that couldn’t be hidden).

  • Mary

    You beat me to it Brian! A decent human being there who is not intimidated and who speaks out.

    The Palestinians should have had their own Sugar Man.

    Sixto Rodriguez: the Sugar Man returns
    The hero of Searching for Sugar Man made his return to the New York stage this weekend. Joy was unconfined

    Rodriguez’s was a career that, for some reason, never really took off. His songs have a Dylanesque edge: folky and occasionally psychedelic tunes underpinned by an astute lyrical acuity, protest songs that combine social commentary and critique with emotive tales of loss and love, as well as colourful depictions of the characters treading Detroit’s cracked streets. Unlike Dylan’s, however, they didn’t sell. In 1975, Rodriguez was dropped by his label, and subsequently disappeared from the radar. He spent the ensuing decades just getting on with life, working odd jobs as a manual labourer and construction worker in his hometown. He even ran, unsuccessfully, for mayor.

    Unbeknownst to him, however, through a smuggled bootleg cassette of Cold Fact, he had become a star in South Africa, his socially conscientious songs providing relief and optimism to a youth oppressed by apartheid.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in–_OWfTd4 Many other videos

1 2 3

Comments are closed.