Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media

[LadyGlendower]

The letter itself was not published until after five anonymous friends statements were published in the People article and the existence of the letter referred to. That didn't change the fact that neither Mr Markle nor MoS sought copyright permission from Meghan but---the reference to it in the People article does make it newsworthy.

People's sources were anonymous. Were they real? Who are they? If they are real did Meghan give any of them permission to refer to the letter? If I were on defense for the MoS I would be pursuing those questions in court.

And that is why this is so interesting from a legal perspective.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Dman

Oh, they’re cool and calm when they’re in public. They’re just fighting for some justice behind the scenes. Folks don’t have to worry about their public appearances. They’re professional and have duties to attend to.

Harry's statement was rather public. That was what Xenia was referring to if I'm not mistaken.

I fully understand them taking action but if this second lawsuit is truly about something that happened years and years ago that seems more like revenge than anything else. And that in itself doesn't look good (even if fully justified; in that case they are mainly on a hunt to find anything to hurt those who hurt them).

The other thing that concerns me is that Harry's statement was released on their private website that hadn't been used before (if I understand it correctly); that - in combination with it being their own money that is being used - raises the question whether the rest of the family agrees with this course of action (or at least statement); because if so, why wasn't it released via the normal channels? Of course, they are their own people and can do as they see fit but at the same time they play a part in a bigger whole (the position they have and the life they want to lead completely depends on it) and if the key players in that 'bigger picture' don't agree with either the statement or the lawsuit itself, it could get complicated.

[Madame Verseau]

Here is an interesting opinion piece. Thrashing the Sussexes may not be that profitable

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.blo...-money-spinner

I wonder if that is part of the big fight from DM . if it takes a big hit in court the financial damages could be huge.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by LadyGlendower

The letter itself was not published until after five anonymous friends statements were published in the People article and the existence of the letter referred to. That didn't change the fact that neither Mr Markle nor MoS sought copyright permission from Meghan but---the reference to it in the People article does make it newsworthy.

People's sources were anonymous. Were they real? Who are they? If they are real did Meghan give any of them permission to refer to the letter? If I were on defense for the MoS I would be pursuing those questions in court.

And that is why this is so interesting from a legal perspective.

I would even say that because of their friends talking to People Magazine, her relationship with her father became front and center again. It had been all over the media last summer but by fall the focus had shifted to H&M's relationship with W&C. So, yes, it seems that whole interview backfired. But as I said before, it seems they are fed up in general but were advised that this was the best chance to win a lawsuit. However, the implication will be that the whole Markle debacle (that in itself was painful enough) will take center stage again.

[ACO]

Originally Posted by LadyGlendower

The letter itself was not published until after five anonymous friends statements were published in the People article and the existence of the letter referred to. That didn't change the fact that neither Mr Markle nor MoS sought copyright permission from Meghan but---the reference to it in the People article does make it newsworthy.

People's sources were anonymous. Were they real? Who are they? If they are real did Meghan give any of them permission to refer to the letter? If I were on defense for the MoS I would be pursuing those questions in court.

And that is why this is so interesting from a legal perspective.

Referencing something is not the same as copyrighting infringement. I can talk about Harry Potter until I am blue in the face but I can't publish pages of it on the internet.

Is the letter newsworthy? Of public interest and interesting to the public are very different things. That will be the only real angle for MoS.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

Here is an interesting opinion piece. Thrashing the Sussexes may not be that profitable

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.blo...-money-spinner

I wonder if that is part of the big fight from DM . if it takes a big hit in court the financial damages could be huge.

I am afraid there are many legal ways in which they can continue trashing the Sussexes; publishing private communication (letters/phone calls/voice mails) might not be profitable (although I wonder, if they had just asked her father after her friends talked about the letter and he had shared about his correspondence to Meghan without literal citations would that have been ok from a legal perspective?) if these charges stand but I don't think they depend on those for the large majority of their stories.

Originally Posted by ACO

Referencing something is not the same as copyrighting infringement. I can talk about Harry Potter until I am blue in the face but I can't publish pages of it on the internet.

Is the letter newsworthy? Of public interest and interesting to the public are very different things. That will be the only real angle for MoS.

The difference being that the whole world already knows about Harry Potter and until her friends released this information nobody knew that Meghan wrote to her father and received a letter from him in return. The newsworthy part could be that it shed a light on why Thomas Markle bailed out from his very public role in this very public royal wedding - that was commented upon by the BRF and even led to a change at the wedding day itself with the very unusual move of the prince of Wales taking up her father's part.

So, while it seems most likely that they will win (as I assume their lawyers wouldn't have started this if they didn't think they would win), I wouldn't take it as a given. If the lawyers of the tabloid would have thought it a given, I would imagine they would have settled.

[Rudolph]

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

Here is an interesting opinion piece. Thrashing the Sussexes may not be that profitable

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.blo...-money-spinner

I wonder if that is part of the big fight from DM . if it takes a big hit in court the financial damages could be huge.

I agree the titles aren’t nearly as profitable as they once were but the owners still have deep pockets. Viscount Rothermere is worth somewhere around £1.5 billion.

[Ista]

I have maintained from the very beginning that the People interview from 5 of Meghan's friends, apparently done with her permission (otherwise how would those 5 friends have known the details of such an intimate letter?) was an absolutely terrible idea, and this is why. The public didn't need to know about Meghan's contact with her father, and the DM certainly didn't need to be tipped off to the existence of the letter. By portraying him in a negative light, Meghan's father had incentive to turn the letter over to the DM to, in his eyes possibly, set the record straight. It's one of several serious lapses in judgment from the Sussexes as has been discussed endlessly on these threads.

I'm not excusing the DM, and I personally hope Meghan prevails in the lawsuit, but there wouldn't have been a lawsuit at all if Meghan's friends had been discreet, and if she had not given them the go-ahead to share the details.

[LadyGlendower]

Originally Posted by ACO

Referencing something is not the same as copyrighting infringement. I can talk about Harry Potter until I am blue in the face but I can't publish pages of it on the internet.

Is the letter newsworthy? Of public interest and interesting to the public are very different things. That will be the only real angle for MoS.

I was not arguing that People had infringed copyright. Civil litigation is decided on a preponderance of evidence and that drives discovery which would probably be allowed re People's sources.

If By "of public interest" you mean for the public good or benefit? Which we don't legally require of the press but we do desire of the press.

Prevailing on the legal points of copyright law is great because that leads to the penalty/payday but the defense has an opportunity in open court to take some significant hide off the plaintiff.

[ACO]

Her friends mentioned her letter to rebuttal her father's constant lies saying she never got in contact with him. No one went into great details about it said. Thomas mentioned the other letters and gave the tabloid hers. Again it is interesting to the public but is it truly of public interest? That is the argument the MoS has to prove vs copyright from what I have gathered listening to the experts.

Also wasn't there an attempt to settle according to the reports? They just couldn't come to terms which is why it is pushing forward. Each side will defend themselves and the courts will decide.

Originally Posted by Ista

I have maintained from the very beginning that the People interview from 5 of Meghan's friends, apparently done with her permission (otherwise how would those 5 friends have known the details of such an intimate letter?) was an absolutely terrible idea, and this is why. The public didn't need to know about Meghan's contact with her father, and the DM certainly didn't need to be tipped off to the existence of the letter. By portraying him in a negative light, Meghan's father had incentive to turn the letter over to the DM to, in his eyes possibly, set the record straight. It's one of several serious lapses in judgment from the Sussexes as has been discussed endlessly on these threads.

I'm not excusing the DM, and I personally hope Meghan prevails in the lawsuit, but there wouldn't have been a lawsuit at all if Meghan's friends had been discreet, and if she had not given them the go-ahead to share the details.

You might be right but at the same time Thomas was spreading lies about Meghan while also attacking her family, including her mother. People were believing him. We don't know that dynamic and while it is easy to say stay quiet it would seem it was not easy for her. So while this lawsuit seems extreme it could bring closure in a lot of ways for Meghan. I mean at least after he gave the letter away people stopped going to him because he has exposed himself as a liar. No doubt her legal team weighed all their options before pushing forward.

Either way Thomas and that paper still had a choice and they too made it.

[alvinking]

Originally Posted by Ista

I have maintained from the very beginning that the People interview from 5 of Meghan's friends, apparently done with her permission (otherwise how would those 5 friends have known the details of such an intimate letter?) was an absolutely terrible idea, and this is why. The public didn't need to know about Meghan's contact with her father, and the DM certainly didn't need to be tipped off to the existence of the letter. By portraying him in a negative light, Meghan's father had incentive to turn the letter over to the DM to, in his eyes possibly, set the record straight. It's one of several serious lapses in judgment as has been discussed endlessly on these threads.

I'm not excusing the DM, and I personally hope Meghan prevails in the lawsuit, but there wouldn't have been lawsuit at all if Meghan's friends had been discreet, and if she had not given them the go-ahead to share the details.

I am afraid you are rewriting history. Mr Markle was all over TV, specifically GMB with Piers Morgan, saying he had no contact with her since the wedding, that the phone number he had was disconnected, and that she was ghosting him (incidentally Piers Morgan's talking point). That narrative was being repeated in UK media (print and TV) a lie even internationally even though it was lie. They 5 people who talked to People magazine were rebutting that false narrative and it is in this context that they alluded to the existence of that correspondance.

[LadyGlendower]

"of public interest" in copyright law refers to artistic works by and large so I can't imagine the MoS legal team pursuing that defense re easily identified and defined private correspondence...but again, that is what makes this type of litigation so interesting.

[Ista]

Originally Posted by alvinking

I am afraid you are rewriting history. Mr Markle was all over TV, specifically GMB with Piers Morgan, saying he had no contact with her since the wedding, that the phone number he had was disconnected, and that she was ghosting him (incidentally Piers Morgan's talking point). That narrative was being repeated in UK media (print and TV) a lie even internationally even though it was lie. They 5 people who talked to People magazine were rebutting that false narrative and it is in this context that they alluded to the existence of that correspondance.

No, I am not rewriting history. I didn't say anything at all about what Meghan's father was or was not saying, because it doesn't matter. Interest in him and what he was saying had significantly died down, and for those people who were still watching, it was fairly clear what was going on. The People article just dredged everything up again, and didn't do much but give some "You tell 'em" satisfaction to some. It also put information into the public domain that was truly private, and that absolutely no one needed to know about, including, apparently the DM.

[Rudolph]

“This week Harry has taken a further step along a road that could lead to him moving abroad and even abandoning being a prince #PrinceHarry”

Via Peter Hunt Twitter

Former BBC royal correspondent Peter Hunt thinks these lawsuits are part of a larger strategy

[LadyGlendower]

Thank you for being precise----"putting information in the public domain" is exactly what happened. It didn't put the contents of the letter in the public domain but it did put it's existence out there for the world to see.

[ACO]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

“This week Harry has taken a further step along a road that could lead to him moving abroad and even abandoning being a prince #PrinceHarry”

Via Peter Hunt Twitter

Former BBC royal correspondent Peter Hunt thinks these lawsuits are part of a larger strategy

I feel Hunt is being quite dramatic but that is fairly typical of him. Though the Sussexes removing themselves from the royal life would definitely be an interesting story and I am not sure a completely positive one for the royal family as a whole depending on how it happens. But honestly I wouldn't be surprised either way. There will be many changes once HMQ is no longer with us.

Originally Posted by LadyGlendower

"of public interest" in copyright law refers to artistic works by and large so I can't imagine the MoS legal team pursuing that defense re easily identified and defined private correspondence...but again, that is what makes this type of litigation so interesting.

It seems that is their strongest argument and public domain. It for sure will be interesting to see how they proceed. Though I get the feeling this will eventually be settled.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

Mike: "I'm going to sue Harry and Meghan. I want the money back for every single thing that these pair have taken off of us as taxpayers. Prince Harry and Meghan Markle - you two are an absolutely disgrace."

Listen: Talk Radio

A bit of flavour from the airwaves. Thank god free speech is part of democratic debate.

Not surprised by his words. He's a former journalist & newspaper editor so of course he'd take the media's side. He repeats negative stories about Harry and Meghan but ignores the positive stories, such as their charity work & recent successful tour.

Free speech is definitely good but it's important to spot the speaker's bias.

[alvinking]

Originally Posted by ACO

I feel Hunt is being quite dramatic but that is fairly typical of him. Though the Sussexes removing themselves from the royal life would definitely be an interesting story and I am not sure a completely positive one for the royal family as a whole depending on how it happens. But honestly I wouldn't be surprised either way. There will be many changes once HMQ is no longer with us.

I have said before that I believe Harry will stand by his father if/once he ascends the throne. When the reign of Charles is done however, I am not so sure he will stick around with his family

[LadyGlendower]

Originally Posted by ACO

It seems that is their strongest argument and public domain. It for sure will be interesting to see how they proceed. Though I get the feeling this will eventually be settled.

I agree. This looks like a plaintiff wins legal/loses PR while defense loses legal/wins PR possibility if they don't and I don't think either side really wants that.

Sincerely, Lady Glendower, Private Citizen that is so glad that her quiet little life allows her to discuss things on the The Royal Forums with congenial companions.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

“This week Harry has taken a further step along a road that could lead to him moving abroad and even abandoning being a prince #PrinceHarry”

Via Peter Hunt Twitter

Former BBC royal correspondent Peter Hunt thinks these lawsuits are part of a larger strategy

Well, it's certainly a story that will get Peter Hunt clicks. Brilliant move on his part.

Personally, I'm skeptical. Through their hard work the Sussexes have clearly demonstrated they plan to use the power & influence their positions afford them to champion the causes they care about. They're not gonna let go of that.