Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
It will not go away. "From the spirits that I called, Sir, deliver me!"
Good luck spending the rest of their lives fighting some paparazzi outlet publishing some pictures, illegal or not. It will especially make Harry even more bitter and passive-aggressive as he already is. This whole story won't end well.
 
I don't see how they're going to avoid the paps. They left the protection of the royal family and moved to pap central. They probably would have done better to stay in Canada.

errmmm... yes! how did they think this would work? if you say you want to cease being 'royal' and you become 'private' and move to 'pap central', what did they expect?

i don't blame them for wanting to protect their privacy if these pictures were taken in their property, but they can hardly complain if they were taken out and about.

in any case, i think it was unwise to bring up yet another lawsuit right now when they are already battling the DM over meghan's letter to her father whilst also being reported to the charities commision over how the funds were reallocated following their decision to leave the royal foundation (among just in general the general stir up that surrounds these two such as the rift between harry and william, meghan's relationship with her father, their buzzword salad interventions over videomeetings, etc). they just keep digging a grave for themselves. perhaps they think this will make the media sympathise with them after their disastrous performance so far over the battle with the DM.
 
Sometimes amidst all the suing and fro'ing the Sussexes are doing on a "legal" basis makes me think that perhaps Archie should sit down with them and read them the book called "The Boy Who Cried Wolf".

Litigation after litigation popping up all over the place isn't doing them any good. In fact, I'd wager that the most popular consensus within all different areas whether it be the media, the public or even their own lawyers is "here we go again".
 
I'm starting to think that as far as this case goes, Markle is very much being played like a pawn in the game. His actions in the past haven't been stellar at all and through it all, I got the feeling that the man isn't the brightest crayon in the box. Both sides are bringing him into this mess and I wouldn't be surprised if the man is seriously conflicted about it all. Kind of in a Mr. Magoo way. Its kind of sad.

I agree it is very sad, there are no winners here, ok one side or another may win the court case but the long-term damage to individuals will last for a very long time.
I accept Mr Markle made mistakes, but can you imagine how his life changed, he was living a quiet retired life when the flood gates opened.

His whole life has been turned upside down. There was obviously love and affection between him and Meghan at some point then unfortunately it all went wrong, for whatever reason, we will never know if that was before or after Harry came on the scene. I know some of you will say he let her down etc etc, but it must be great to be perfect and never make a mistake,
I just wish father and daughter could come together, before it is too late.
I would love to have the opportunity to sit with my dad right now but he is no longer with us.
It happens to us all.
 
Last edited:
Yes it does feel that way, but flying drones over people's houses, cutting holes in fences and taking photo's of people in their homes is illegal in California. So I really hope they win. Sometimes paparazzi really need to be shown how far they can go, not all of them seem capable if figuring it out on their own.




Well this predates the existence of drones but as far as drones are concerned Jennifer Aniston had a famous law suit against the paps. She was sunbathing topless in her backyard and someone with a long lens took her picture. She sued and won - they said the paps can't take your picture in your own backyard without your permission. So if they are flying drones it can't be legal.
 
Harry and Meghan had drone issues in the UK as well. Besides it’s very much illegal to take drone images on private property in California and especially of a minor.
 
Last edited:
I am so over these two! I get that she felt harrassed and unprotected in England. OK -- you left. But, you left and ended up in Papparazzi-heaven -- Los Angeles!

Really?

This is going so badly for them. I wonder if Harry has any regrets now that he understands what it really means to be "own his own".

Sorry ... I just don't understand them anymore. JMHO.
 
Dont care if he has regrets. If he has a good time in LA fine. If he misses England and feels lost, that's his decision that he made.
 
The Sussexes are litigious and are probably hemorraging money in legal fees but I don't have an issue with this particular action.

Here is an article (link) about the legal action. The allegation is that a paparazzi tried to sell a photo of Archie, stating that the photo was taken at a store in Malibu, but the picture was clearly taken in the backyard of their current home.
 
Last edited:
I would just like to make a point here, I only saw the photograph of Doria and Archie because I clicked on a link on this forum. From my knowledge that photograph has not appeared in a UK newspaper I also had never seen a photograph of Pippas son because the UK media pixilate his face. I only went looking when a poster commented on the resemblance between Arthur and the Cambridge children.
IMO we need to be very careful about bad mouthing the press when social media is a source of a great deal of both photography and written word, some of which would not appear in a newspaper.
Just my opinion of course.
 
It is illegal to take paparazzi pictures on someone's own property. They should win this but as they are not suing a publication, how on earth are they supposed to do this. The web is not regulated.

The only issue of drones was of the roof of the house itself. Bot personal pictures. The UK do not print photos of children out on private excursions if their parents have requested and all images are pixelated.

I am.sonpast caring about these two but people need to get their legal facts right.
 
My overwhelming feeling reading this filing was sadness. Harry was clearly born into a life he hates and resents bitterly. The filing was filled with grievances about incidences that have made their lives unbearable but which they have no control over and will never have any control over. Occasionally someone will slip up and do something actionable, like in this instance, but mostly their lives are apparently unlivable due to things they cannot control. They are going to have to come to terms with this.
 
Sorry to double-post, I wanted to clearly delineate between my own "commentary" and facts. Some other things in the filing:

  • The couple left Canada because the DM published their location, causing paparazzi to "descend" and cause "disruption and discomfort" for the community
  • Archie has not been in public since arriving in the US
  • The couple does "everything in their power to stay out of the limelight except in connection with their work."
  • They are both described as residents of Los Angeles county. [Note that residency is a legal term of art and implies an intention to stay in a locale.]
  • The couple's intention in January was to reside "at least part-time" in North America
 
I’m sorry to hear that their privacy has been violated in such a way. It’s a shame that they can’t even have privacy in their own home.

But I do wonder- is the same type of violation of privacy by paparazzi as common in England as it is in LA? Obviously paparazzi are everywhere but would they have drones flying over Frogmore Cottage for instance? One of the reasons they supposedly left was to get away from the constant media and press attention, but it does seem a bit ironic that they decided to settle in LA, the world capital of media and press attention. They can’t have thought they would attract less paparazzi attention there?
 
My overwhelming feeling reading this filing was sadness. Harry was clearly born into a life he hates and resents bitterly. The filing was filled with grievances about incidences that have made their lives unbearable but which they have no control over and will never have any control over. Occasionally someone will slip up and do something actionable, like in this instance, but mostly their lives are apparently unlivable due to things they cannot control. They are going to have to come to terms with this.

A lot of people would swap with Hary, so he's not going to get much sympathy, for complaining that he's born into a life that he hates...
 
I’m sorry to hear that their privacy has been violated in such a way. It’s a shame that they can’t even have privacy in their own home.

But I do wonder- is the same type of violation of privacy by paparazzi as common in England as it is in LA? Obviously paparazzi are everywhere but would they have drones flying over Frogmore Cottage for instance? One of the reasons they supposedly left was to get away from the constant media and press attention, but it does seem a bit ironic that they decided to settle in LA, the world capital of media and press attention. They can’t have thought they would attract less paparazzi attention there?

Drones reported flew over Frogmore but as in the building, not to get pictures of them.

His brother has managed immense privacy for his three young children and he and his wife still do their job. They just spend all their time in Norfolk outside term time.

If you want privacy go live in France or somewhere remote.

I am so tired of them. They just moan and do nothing to help themselves.
 
A lot of people would swap with Hary, so he's not going to get much sympathy, for complaining that he's born into a life that he hates...


On top of that, Harry has benefited from "this life that he hates" since he was born and continues to do so today. So it sounds hypocritical to say it.

While I sympathize with Harry for some of what he had to endure as a child and a teenager, I don't see any evidence that he didn't have a loving family to support him (including both his parents, grandparents, brother and even cousins). I can't help feeling that the grudge he seems to have developed against his family is unfair.


Sorry to double-post, I wanted to clearly delineate between my own "commentary" and facts. Some other things in the filing:

  • The couple left Canada because the DM published their location, causing paparazzi to "descend" and cause "disruption and discomfort" for the community
  • Archie has not been in public since arriving in the US
  • The couple does "everything in their power to stay out of the limelight except in connection with their work."
  • They are both described as residents of Los Angeles county. [Note that residency is a legal term of art and implies an intention to stay in a locale.]
  • The couple's intention in January was to reside "at least part-time" in North America

What is the legal definition of "residence" in California? And how does that square off with living "part-time" in North America?
 
Last edited:
That was in January that they planned on being part time in either the US or Canada. I think that Canada was always a blind.. and the US was always their ultimate goal... but they didn't expect, it seems, to be told that they could NOT be part timers..and when told that, they seem to have opted for "getting out and being business people" rather than staying to "serve". So I do wonder how Harry who was brought up a royal, and saw his uncle Edwards attempts at combining business and royal life failing, would have imagined that he'd be allowed to go part time.
I agree that Harry has benefitted from Royal life.. and even now, he is doing so, since he is getting a free house because he's royal.. and is almost certainly getting money from his wealthy father...and so I am not impressed by the idea that they want to be independent...

It was tragic that Harry had to endure the loss of his mother at such a young age..but I agree it seems that the RF did their best to hlep and look after him.. and it was a tragic accident that could not have been foreseen....
 
Please note the title to this thread has been updated: Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media
 
If you want privacy go live in France or somewhere remote.

.

William and Kate were in France when those topless photos were taken! Unfortunately, there's no escape from the paparazzi unless you go somewhere like Outer Mongolia.

This case is particularly unfortunate as a small child is involved. It's bad enough when illegal photos of adults are taken, but this is worse. But it does feel like all Harry and Meghan do these days is sue people ... they aren't going to get privacy unless they retire from the limelight completely, and that's not what they want to do. It feels like a no-win situation.
 
William and Kate were in France when those topless photos were taken! Unfortunately, there's no escape from the paparazzi unless you go somewhere like Outer Mongolia.

This case is particularly unfortunate as a small child is involved. It's bad enough when illegal photos of adults are taken, but this is worse. But it does feel like all Harry and Meghan do these days is sue people ... they aren't going to get privacy unless they retire from the limelight completely, and that's not what they want to do. It feels like a no-win situation.

Yes I dont know what's special about France, adnd it is hardly remote!
Maybe if they moved ot Alaska, the cold and isolation would keep the press away.. but other than that, a certain amount of press attention is part of any public figures' life and they should have accepted that.
 
Last edited:
Harry and Meghan aren’t complaining of being photographed when in public spaces. It has always been about their private property. A stranger photographed their child via a drone. That’s just not okay.
 
So.. didn't tehy complan when Meg was photographed in Canada on a public pathway, takng the baby for a walk?
 
Harry and Meghan aren’t complaining of being photographed when in public spaces. It has always been about their private property. A stranger photographed their child via a drone. That’s just not okay.

And yet...

"...lawyers representing the couple,... have sent a letter to some British news outlets threatening legal action over the purchase and publication of photos of Meghan walking ... in a public park ...."

The New York Times

I doubt you will find a soul on this forum who does not strongly agree with your statement that photographing Archie with a drone is unacceptable.
 
IIRC that was specific case it was also about photographers using long lens to attempt to photograph inside their home. Also clearly was about Archie being photographed. Seemed they suspected it was the same agency/photographer.

I remember at the time different attorney being asked for opinion due to the specific paparazzi laws of British Columbia. He felt they had a case. Just like laws are different in California. Besides they have been seen other times out and about and accepted it.

It just seems to me that if it involves their son they have zero tolerance.
 
Indeed, I do think Harry and Meghan accept that they will be photographed by the paparazzi, but won't accept their son being photographed either on his own or when he is with them, hence this latest legal action.
 
These are just examples, but you can all see that heightened litigation over baby pictures and befuddled fathers in Mexico will only distract from their plans and projects. They have to man up.

I'm quite sure the couple would take issue with the wording :D
 
imo this lawsuit with regards to being photographed on private property (via drone or tele-lens) has a much better chance of succeeding than the other lawsuit.
I hope that when these are settled they have a chance to start building their brand and showing what they're worth (and they can rise above various quarrels with (social) media)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom