Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media

[Marengo]

Sad that it had to come to this but a sensible step. The abominable state of the UK tabloid press in is well known but it always stays shocking to outsiders at least. I still remember the News of the World scandal, which was not so long ago.

I am not familiar with English law so I do not know how likely it is that they will succeed, but good luck to them.

I suppose the statement must have been approved by BP, but to me it seems strange that the palace has not made a statement about it. Of course in the UK they are used to members having their own communications with the press while elsewhere these things tend to be more centralised.

Dragging your father(-in-law) in front of a court may be the last thing they want to do. It must be a very painful matter for the Duchess. Perhaps they prefer to view him as a victim of the tactics of the press and the antics of the other sister. Somewhat like Queen Máxima who continued to believe her father's version of events while there was an government report that stated the opposite.

As for the timing: it is never a good time for such a matter as there will always be something going on, so this is as good as any.

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by Osipi

I think that the main point is that as Meghan was the author of the letter, its contents are deemed her intellectual property. The face that the statement from the Mail on Sunday states that the letter wasn't edited in any way to change it meaning, tells me that it *was* edited. As Meghan's intellectual property, they had no right to edit it *at all* if I'm not mistaken.

I know in the U.S., limited parts of a copyrighted work can be used under "fair use"--

"In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner.
"https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/


So while the publishing of a small portion of the letter from Meghan to her father may well have been legal (but not ethical) the lawsuit is about cherry picking portions to support a false narrative.

[Osipi]

A good example to look at is our own rules here on TRF. We cannot quote more than 20% of an article and then also must link to the original article.

I do wish the Sussexes a victory in this matter. I don't think their lawyers would be going ahead with this lawsuit unless they were pretty sure that they have a case against the Mail on Sunday.

[Rudolph]

“The Queen and the Prince of Wales are understood to have been “informed” about the statement, which was circulated last night. The Duke has spoken with his grandmother, a source said.”

Via The Telegraph

Falls short of saying it was approved by the higher ups. Sounds like they were told about it after the fact.

[Humbugged]

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

I know in the U.S., limited parts of a copyrighted work can be used under "fair use"--

"In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner.
"https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/


So while the publishing of a small portion of the letter from Meghan to her father may well have been legal (but not ethical) the lawsuit is about cherry picking portions to support a false narrative.

You seem to be quoting US statutes and trying to imply a fair use defense under English law because of US law .But as already stated courts in England have already adjudicated that publishing of private letters without consent of the author is a breach of the author's implied copyright .

[ACO]

There quite a few lawyers in twitter right now giving their POV.

Here is an interesting thread discussing copyright law.

https://twitter.com/DBanksy/status/1179112430217154562

[Empress Merel]

Go get 'em. Their vindictive, agressive and dangerous attitude towards anything to do with Meghan is absolutely disgusting. I personally do not give them my views anymore and so should we all. They're an absolute horrid publication.

[Pranter]

Originally Posted by Humbugged

You seem to be quoting US statutes and trying to imply a fair use defense under English law because of US law .But as already stated courts in England have already adjudicated that publishing of private letters without consent of the author is a breach of the author's implied copyright .

I'm trying to recall...but didn't one of Diana's butlers and Hewitt get into hot water over releasing her letters?


LaRae

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by Humbugged

You seem to be quoting US statutes and trying to imply a fair use defense under English law because of US law .But as already stated courts in England have already adjudicated that publishing of private letters without consent of the author is a breach of the author's implied copyright .

No, I was explaining what US law is-I don't know if it is exactly the same in the UK. And in the US, publishing the entire letter would also need permission of the original writer or estate. It is using a small portion of a copyrighted work for discussion, etc that is fair use.

I did say " the publishing of a small portion of the letter from Meghan to her father may well have been legal." Please note the word "may" in my sentence.

[Dman]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

“The Queen and the Prince of Wales are understood to have been “informed” about the statement, which was circulated last night. The Duke has spoken with his grandmother, a source said.”

Via The Telegraph

Falls short of saying it was approved by the higher ups. Sounds like they were told about it after the fact.

I still say, The Queen and Prince Charles don’t know how to deal with the smear campaign against Meghan. The woman was abused by the outside forces like hell for months on end. Something had to be done about it and I’m glad Harry and Meghan aren’t taking the abuse lying down.

[Ista]

This is a very interesting move on the part of the Sussexes, and if they win the case, it will hopefully have implications for how all the royals are covered in the future. This is going to be fascinating to watch.

[Humbugged]

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

No, I was explaining what US law is-I don't know if it is exactly the same in the UK. And in the US, publishing the entire letter would also need permission of the original writer or estate. It is using a small portion of a copyrighted work for discussion, etc that is fair use.

And I was explaining there is no such thing as fair use under this statute in England



And once again US law matters not a jot in England .



It matters as much as me trying to extrapolate the chances of winning a case of slander or libel in the US by suggesting that someone could sue because of the law in England

[CrownPrincessJava]

Originally Posted by Dman

I still say, The Queen and Prince Charles don’t know how to deal with the smear campaign against Meghan. The woman was abused by the outside forces like hell for months on end. Something had to be done about it and I’m glad Harry and Meghan aren’t taking the abuse lying down.

Absolutely agreed here. The Queen and Prince Charles should have tried to set precedence whilst Diana was alive - they should have gone after the press. Prince William did when nude photos of Kate were published.

I applaud Prince Harry and Meghan for taking the Press to task. The abuse they have faced is beyond disgusting.

I wonder - can Meghan, as an American citizen, take legal action in the US?

[Dman]

I should say - it’s probably Harry and Meghan, their officials and legal team that told the family they will handle this much early on. This legal action didn’t come up over night. This was long in the making. So this could be why The Queen and Prince Charles didn’t step in. They’re backing the legal move though.

[Rudolph]

“Not for the first time, the Queen will be questioning (privately) the actions of one of her relatives. In this case, the timing - the couple are still on tour - and the wisdom of taking on the British tabloids”

- Former BBC royal correspondent Peter Hunt

[Pranter]

Like he knows what the Queen will be questioning...he has no way to know when the Queen was consulted prior to, during or after.



LaRae

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

No, I was explaining what US law is-I don't know if it is exactly the same in the UK. And in the US, publishing the entire letter would also need permission of the original writer or estate. It is using a small portion of a copyrighted work for discussion, etc that is fair use.

I did say " the publishing of a small portion of the letter from Meghan to her father may well have been legal." Please note the word "may" in my sentence.

Just wondering: Would it have been legal for her father to read from her letter on camera?

It seems they considered suing for a long time and figured this specific case would be their best chance of winning. So, I wonder how her father providing the letter to the press impacts the case.

[Dman]

Originally Posted by Pranter

Like he knows what the Queen will be questioning...he has no way to know when the Queen was consulted prior to, during or after.



LaRae

The Queen knows what’s going on. She’s not in the dark. It’s the outside forces that didn’t expect Harry and Meghan to not take everything lying down. They don’t like the royals fighting back.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

“Not for the first time, the Queen will be questioning (privately) the actions of one of her relatives. In this case, the timing - the couple are still on tour - and the wisdom of taking on the British tabloids”

- Former BBC royal correspondent Peter Hunt

I am quite sure the timing was deliberate. Had they released this 2 weeks ago press coverage would probably have been worse. Now they had a successful tour, so the public will more easily stand with them.

In general, the tour may have been official but was mostly focused on personal interest of the couple and not so much on state-related business, so it didn't seem that much about representing the queen. Only a few occasions were clearly in that vein.

[rominet09]

I quite approve Harry's move…. even if it is rarely done in the Royal Family, I really think the press has gone too far. And this for months now….