The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2081  
Old 02-12-2021, 09:45 AM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,918
Tatiana Maria, your strict and selective citing of certain legal passages, along with how you are choosing to interpret the legal language..., is certainly one approach to take. However, the bottom line is that Meghan won on the claims she and her attorneys put forth. And it is a huge win that is still being digested worldwide. This bottom line has been noted by a number of legal experts whether they are neutral, biased against or favorable in their personal views about Meghan.

The judge often used dismissive language in reference to the defendant's lines of defense, and in particular on the copyright issue. The Fail's flimsy defense in this regard, to be honest, ultimately isn't even helpful to the Fail. In my opinion, the Fail brought forward this last minute defense as a way of further muddying the waters to see if they could make something stick and further complicate and drag out the case, or at least rattle Meghan and her attorneys. In fact, it appears that Meghan and her attorneys were 'rattle-proof' throughout.

One legal expert specifically noted on Twitter that it doesn't make much sense for the Fail to continue paying legal costs to drag out a determination of whether someone else also owns the copyright, because the Fail will still have to pay the same amount in damages, only it would not all go to Meghan should copyright ownership by other parties be proven.

And in regard to that flimsy possibility, the judge in his ruling was very dismissive, almost in a belittling fashion. The question becomes, 'Why was the court's time taken up with such nefarious reaching in the first place?'

Justice Warby concluded that Meghan's attorney(s) argued:
"... that I should not be deterred from entering summary judgment. If I am against him on that submission, he argues that there is still no compelling reason for a trial, because it is fanciful to suppose that this is a case of successive creation, such as would yield separate copyrights. At worst, therefore, the claimant is a co-author of a work of joint authorship, and entitled to relief for infringement of her share in the copyright." (165)

"The defendant’s factual and legal case on this issue both seem to me to occupy the shadowland between improbability and unreality. The case is contingent, inferential and imprecise. It cannot be described as convincing, and seems improbable. It lacks any direct evidence to support it, and it is far from clear that any such evidence will become available. It is not possible to envisage a Court concluding that Mr Knauf’s contribution to the work as a whole was more than modest. The suggestion that his contribution generated a separate copyright, as opposed to a joint one is, in my judgment at the very outer margins of what is realistic." (166)

In my view, there isn't any doubt from the very beginning that the Fail's main objective was to delay, obfuscate, pile-on, tear down, make excessive demands, and attempt to make as much money as possible with whatever clickbait they could continue to generate surrounding the case. Or failing that, to continue making up overly negative and misleading stories about both Sussexes, i.e., profiting from misinformation and egregious tactics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenMathilde View Post
Meghan and Harry are now in the position of not being able to promote their ventures. They are too thin skinned to go on social media and they sued the papers so the papers now hate them and won't post positive things about them. It will be interesting to see if this will affect their future money making ventures. They might not have won after all.
Meghan and Harry are doing just fine with promoting and further establishing their charitable ventures... I don't see a scenario in which current or future moneymaking ventures for the Sussexes will be adversely affected as a result of this ruling. Quite the contrary.

The fact that the Sussexes have drawn a line in the sand against abusive, intrusive and misleading tabloid journalism does not impact their ability to work with established, responsible journalists and media outlets, as we have seen, e.g., with Meghan's November op-ed in The New York Times. Their work with Forbes, The 19th*, Time magazine, The Evening Standard, and Fast Company, etc., back up the fact that reasonable, responsible, and substantive media outlets are eager to interview and/or collaborate with the Sussexes on worthy endeavors. The Sussexes have no need to worry about irresponsible tabloids not wanting to be associated with them.

As we know, the Sussexes stated some time ago that they will no longer respond to or interact with four of the U.K.'s tabloids who have been bent on writing negative things about them and their every move regardless.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2082  
Old 02-12-2021, 11:13 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,310
Well said MM.

Great news for The Sussexes, will be interesting to see how things go from here.


LaRae
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2083  
Old 02-12-2021, 11:14 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53 View Post
Tatiana Maria, your strict and selective citing of certain legal passages, along with how you are choosing to interpret the legal language, is certainly one approach to take. However, the bottom line is that Meghan won on the claims she and her attorneys put forth. [...]
The fact that Meghan won her case is not in dispute. It is the bottom line of the judgment, but it is irrelevant to the discussion we were having, which was not about the bottom line of the judgment, but about

1. the claim that the judge had the right to prohibit the Mail from writing about public aspects of the case,
2. the claim that the publication of any portion of the letter (no matter how limited) would have been illegal,
3. the claim that the judge ruled the Mail articles to be misinformation.

On my part, I have no intention of taking a selective approach. In my preceding posts I have invited you to cite any legal passages I may have overlooked, and I have limited myself to disputing claims of fact, not your interpretations.

Again, if the claims I reviewed in the second paragraph are based on any law or legal passage, please communicate it. Having read the full judgment, I did not see any basis for them.
Reply With Quote
  #2084  
Old 02-12-2021, 12:40 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Peterborough, Canada
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53 View Post
The fact that the Sussexes have drawn a line in the sand against abusive, intrusive and misleading tabloid journalism does not impact their ability to work with established, responsible journalists and media outlets, as we have seen, e.g., with Meghan's November op-ed in The New York Times. Their work with Forbes, The 19th*, Time magazine, The Evening Standard, and Fast Company, etc., back up the fact that reasonable, responsible, and substantive media outlets are eager to interview and/or collaborate with the Sussexes on worthy endeavors. The Sussexes have no need to worry about irresponsible tabloids not wanting to be associated with them.

I have no opinion on the decision, it is a decision that was thoughtfully rendered according to law, but I would like to point out that publishing an op-ed, or a soft interview with M and H's final approval of the text, is a very different kind of collaboration/interview than a journalistic or investigative interview where the subjects have no control or final say. Of course, journalism has to be responsible and fact-based (not a standard that the tabloids always uphold). Celebrities reply on the press to enhance their profile, and at some point, the softball interviews or op-ed opportunities won't be as available. The problem with covering M and H, and many others, is that reporting is either sycophantic or destructive and cruel. Right now, M and H want to control the narrative. I would like to see some real journalism if and when it is warranted.
Reply With Quote
  #2085  
Old 02-12-2021, 03:21 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Oakland, United States
Posts: 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
By my understanding, the reason the Court held to account Associated Newspapers Limited rather than Thomas Markle for the publication of the letter is simply that the claimant sued ANL rather than Mr. Markle.

Given that under English law, even sharing part of one's own life story is legally actionable insofar as it contains information about another individual, I have the impression that it would not have made a difference to the outcome if Mr. Markle had been the defendant:

(3) Nor can it be said that Mr Markle’s undoubted right to tell his own life story is unqualified, [...] More pertinent is McKennitt v Ash, where the Court had to address a defence that the offending disclosures relating to the claimant were not actionable because they were part of the defendant’s own life story. The Court of Appeal was unimpressed by the notion that “the … claimant’s article 8 rights, if any, were to be subordinated to the article 10 rights of the … defendant”: [2006] EWCA Civ 1714 [2008] QB 73 [50] (Buxton LJ). The legal principle was explained by Eady J at first instance [2005] EWHC 3003 (QB) [2006] EMLR 10 [77]:

“… in broad terms, … if a person wishes to reveal publicly information about aspects of his or her relations with other people, which would attract the prima facie protection of privacy rights, any such revelation should be crafted, so far as possible, to protect the other person’s privacy…. It does not follow, because one can reveal one’s own private life, that one can also expose confidential matters in respect of which others are entitled to protection if their consent is not forthcoming”.

It was not strictly Thomas whom I was alluding to, there's an 's' missing after "one" in my post.
Reply With Quote
  #2086  
Old 02-12-2021, 05:30 PM
soapstar's Avatar
Super Moderator
Picture of the Week Coordinator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hermosa Beach, United States
Posts: 5,745
A few posts have been deleted. Let’s keep the discussion about the actual lawsuit and the media outlets involved and not use the thread to rehash Meghan and Harry's dating history, their relationship with the British tabloids as a whole, or Samantha Markle.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2087  
Old 02-13-2021, 09:45 PM
Madame Verseau's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Louisville, United States
Posts: 1,784
I found the site where the judgment was printed in full

www.judiciary.UK

(Meghan still has HRH; it's referenced in the legal document)

It's quite a read (53 pgs.) I skimmed through it; not only did the Mail get called out Meghan's father took some lumps too. I wonder if he would factor into the March 2 hearing.
Reply With Quote
  #2088  
Old 02-13-2021, 09:59 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Verseau View Post
I found the site where the judgment was printed in full

www.judiciary.UK

(Meghan still has HRH; it's referenced in the legal document)

It's quite a read (53 pgs.) I skimmed through it; not only did the Mail get called out Meghan's father took some lumps too. I wonder if he would factor into the March 2 hearing.

Why would ppl think she isn't HRH? They just don't use it for commercial ventures.

Will be interesting to see what happens at the March hearing. Wonder who all might get called up.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #2089  
Old 02-13-2021, 10:07 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 4,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Why would ppl think she isn't HRH? They just don't use it for commercial ventures.

Will be interesting to see what happens at the March hearing. Wonder who all might get called up.


LaRae
Yes I am surprised that people would believe that it had been removed.
Reply With Quote
  #2090  
Old 02-13-2021, 10:17 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,007
Thanks for posting this, Madame Verseau. It is indeed a very interesting document, especially in setting out specifically the many times Meghan and Harry tried to contact her father, and his minimalist responses to their calls.

IMO it's not likely that any witnesses will be called in the March 2 hearing, unless Jason Knauf wants to join the copyright case! Nor do I believe that the Fail will appeal, considering that they've been told there's not much chance of success, on the privacy issue at least. I think the hearing will just consist of the rival lawyers arguing over costs and Meghan's amount of damages.
Reply With Quote
  #2091  
Old 02-13-2021, 11:42 PM
QueenMathilde's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 828
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLLK View Post
Yes I am surprised that people would believe that it had been removed.

I think it's because Diana and Fergie had their HRH removed. But they got divorced.
Reply With Quote
  #2092  
Old 02-14-2021, 01:26 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 4,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenMathilde View Post
I think it's because Diana and Fergie had their HRH removed. But they got divorced.
Yes they were divorced from Charles and Andrew but Meghan and Harry are still married.

The Sussexes still retain the style HRH but don't currently use it.
Reply With Quote
  #2093  
Old 02-14-2021, 06:19 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,157
Apparently, according to Roya Nikkhah, the senior royal circles were shocked by the decision of granting summary judgement and how the staffs/aides were prevented from appearing in court.

Meghan’s victory against Mail on Sunday: witnesses shocked at being denied their day in court
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/m...ourt-tk9qhd0l7

Roya Nikkhah has also tweeted this revelation and attached the above article to her tweet. There is also a picture of the front page of The Sunday Times with the news on Meghan's court case located near the bottom right corner. Unfortunately, it does not show the full article and the words are very blurry.
Roya Nikkhah @RoyaNikkhah
“Shock” in royal circles at the ruling in the Duchess of Sussex’s privacy case preventing courtiers testifying with their “recollection of events”. A senior royal source said “it’s like the judge decided the evidence was irrelevant”
@thesundaytimes
https://thetimes.co.uk/article/megha...ourt-tk9qhd0l7
7:43 PM · Feb 14, 2021·Twitter for iPhone
https://twitter.com/RoyaNikkhah/stat...72155521638401

Picture of the Sunday Times' front page: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EuLKAtBX...g&name=900x900

Screenshot of the article at the Sunday Times' front page with clearer resolution (picture from Richard Eden's twitter account): https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EuJFMhtX...pg&name=medium

Edit: I have included the links to the last picture on Richard Eden's tweet
Reply With Quote
  #2094  
Old 02-14-2021, 06:55 AM
rominet09's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: LIEGE, Belgium
Posts: 4,771
Were the witnesses disappointed not to be in court ? I think there are much more funny things to do in life.
Reply With Quote
  #2095  
Old 02-14-2021, 06:57 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLLK View Post
Yes they were divorced from Charles and Andrew but Meghan and Harry are still married.

The Sussexes still retain the style HRH but don't currently use it.
tehy aren't allowed to use the HRH in their business dealings....
Reply With Quote
  #2096  
Old 02-14-2021, 07:11 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by rominet09 View Post
Were the witnesses disappointed not to be in court ? I think there are much more funny things to do in life.
By reading the headlines and first few sentences of the article, yes, the witnesses/royal staffs & aids sounds to be disappointed not to appear in court. In fact, this article actually contradict a previous story written by Roya Nikkah on The Sunday Times (the same author and same news publication)! This previous article mentioned that the Palace staffs were hoping that Meghan's case would end before she (and possibly them, as witnesses) would have to appear in Court!

I have actually posted the old article earlier in post #1946

Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
Roya Nikkhah has written an article on Meghan's privacy court case, particularly on how the courtiers and palace staff allegedly pray/hope that the trial would end without Meghan appearing in Court.

Palace prays Meghan can avoid her day in court
Courtiers hope a bid to end the Duchess of Sussex’s privacy fight before a trial will spare the royals’ blushes
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/p...ourt-7cjpwgckx
I don't even know what to believe at this point....
Reply With Quote
  #2097  
Old 02-14-2021, 08:06 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,007
As the former KP aides apparently told the newspaper group's lawyers that they were prepared to give evidence of what they knew of the letter but didn't want to take sides, it doesn't appear that any of them were exactly bursting to appear in Court, whatever the anonymous 'Royal source' now wants to project.

And why would anybody not directly impacted in a case be 'disappointed' about being a witness in a Court case, including the ordeal of being cross examined?
Reply With Quote
  #2098  
Old 02-14-2021, 10:54 AM
QueenMathilde's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 828
The Guardian has an interesting article up about this. It supports Harry and Meghan's court case. Unfortunately I saw it on my phone and it didn't have the headline so I can't find it to post it here but if you're interested you might search The Guardian. I'm sure it's still up I just can't find it on my phone now.
Reply With Quote
  #2099  
Old 02-14-2021, 12:16 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 4,972
Queen Mathilde- Would this be the article that you are referring to in your post?


https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...to-her-privacy


Quote:
Footballers, celebrities and royals clearly have a very public aspect to their lives. Does that mean they have no private zone, where they can expect a right to be left alone? Lord Justice Warby, in finding for Meghan Markle in her lawsuit against Associated Newspapers, has resoundingly asserted that even a world-famous duchess should have aspects of her life that are off-limits to journalists. In a closely-argued 53-page judgment, Warby brought the main elements of the litigation to a close by arguing that Associated had no prospect of succeeding at trial. Meghan’s anguished letter to her father was private, he ruled. What’s more, she owned the copyright. There was no overriding public interest in publishing substantial extracts from the letter. Case closed.
Reply With Quote
  #2100  
Old 02-14-2021, 12:21 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 4,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
By reading the headlines and first few sentences of the article, yes, the witnesses/royal staffs & aids sounds to be disappointed not to appear in court. In fact, this article actually contradict a previous story written by Roya Nikkah on The Sunday Times (the same author and same news publication)! This previous article mentioned that the Palace staffs were hoping that Meghan's case would end before she (and possibly them, as witnesses) would have to appear in Court!

I have actually posted the old article earlier in post #1946



I don't even know what to believe at this point....

With the two seemingly contradictory articles, I'm going to go with the true feelings of the various palace staff members lies somewhere in the middle.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Popular Tags
#royalrelatives #royalgenes american anastasia 2020 baby names biography bridal gown britain britannia british royal family buckingham palace canada china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing cpr dna duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex earl of snowdon edward vii elizabeth ii emperor family life fantasy movie fashion and style george vi hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hochberg hypothetical monarchs interesting introduction jewellery jewelry king willem-alexander list of rulers mary: crown princess of denmark mountbatten names nepal nepalese royal family plantinum jubilee pless prince charles of luxembourg prince harry princess ariane princess chulabhorn princess dita princess eugenie princess laurentien princess of orange queen louise resusci anne royal balls royal court royal events royal family royal jewels royal spouse royalty royalty of taiwan royal wedding russian court dress spain stuart thailand thai royal family united states united states of america wales wedding gown


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:28 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×