Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media

[evolvingdoors]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

I question this situation because

A; if these papers were lodged in a U.K. court nearly 3 months ago why are we just hearing of it now? Not a single British paper has reported on this.

B; Isn’t Meghan’s title wrong in “court documents”?

C; How can they sue in an English court when at the time they weren’t here and they’re also not here now?

Published in the DM today. Which i’m Guessing if the original from where the Irish website for it.

Originally Posted by Denville

IIRC there were pictures of Archie with her, out walking, soon after they moved to Canada...I agree that they haven't given a clear message.
. I've often said that they claim Archie is a private person and yet they put out pics on Social media, they did that video on his birthday which I coudl not see the point of.
I agree that they keep giving mixed messages, but all the same, Archie IS a baby and should not be photographed except by his parents consent. Its possible that they have to put the suit in his name.. I dont know abot the law but that is a possibility...

Those are the pictures being sued for. The ones where she was walking on, reported, public property with the dogs, happily smiling to the cameras while Archie was in a carrier looking like he was about to fall off.

The thing is how privacy was not intruded upon because: a) theybwere in public, b) we already knew what he looks like (this isn’t like with Pippa son where his face is always blurred) because his parents shared pictures and him in the flash with the public - similar to the Cambridge and other royal family member kids faces being shown. C) his face wasn’t even shown in the published pictures, so in what way was his privacy breached?

And since then they have shown his face and body publicly using him for PR.
It’s now way past “mixed messages” it’s pure hypocrisy.

One more comment: they are suing in the UK because it was published by a British paper.
As mentioned though, Archie would have had far more privacy in the UK than in the US! Where celebrity babies and kids are constantly being pictured and published.

[Eskimo]

This just seems like them trying to keep their names in the news. You cannot claim any expectation of privacy on public property. They seem to be more upset that a BRITISH paper published them than the pictures being taken.

[Hallo girl]

It is their behaviour and court cases that is keeping them in the headlines, the British public are not that bothered about them. They want privacy let them have total privacy. They need to keep themselves out of the press.

[QueenMathilde]

Originally Posted by evolvingdoors

He has privacy, he will have even more if his parents will cease to use him for PR purposes.
In the year since he has been born the majority of times we have seen this kid was by pictures and videos his own parents published.
No one forced them to do a video with him for his birthday!

You do not scream you want your kid to have privacy but than use him for publicity sake.
This lawsuit is no exception.
Any celebrity will tell you the only way to disappear from public radar is to totally disappear from public radar, drop off completely. You don’t tweet, you don’t leak information to your mouthpieces and use PR companies, you don’t do PR videos at all.
And most of all: you don’t file so many lawsuits!

Can they sue on behalf of the child? Sure.
Should they in this case? No.

This lawsuit is foolish, most of all because there is no evidence any privacy was breached.

And if Meghan felt so compelled to sue, she could have done so solo without adding her one year old innocent child name to the lawsuit.
This is what seeking attention looks like.

A while back on another board they took pictures of Angelina Jolie's children and Gweneth Paltrow's children but blurred Gweneth's children's faces and not Angelina's. I asked why and was told that Angelina sold her baby's pictures at birth and since she herself put them out there under UK law any reporter could. Gweneth hadn't put Apple's face out there (she has since) so they had to blur it. I don't know if this is really the legal standard or not but Harry and Meghan did put Archie's picture out there themselves so going by that they wouldn't have a leg to stand on to sue to keep his picture private when they're out walking on public property.

[evolvingdoors]

Originally Posted by QueenMathilde

A while back on another board they took pictures of Angelina Jolie's children and Gweneth Paltrow's children but blurred Gweneth's children's faces and not Angelina's. I asked why and was told that Angelina sold her baby's pictures at birth and since she herself put them out there under UK law any reporter could. Gweneth hadn't put Apple's face out there (she has since) so they had to blur it. I don't know if this is really the legal standard or not but Harry and Meghan did put Archie's picture out there themselves so going by that they wouldn't have a leg to stand on to sue to keep his picture private when they're out walking on public property.

Bingo.

Also, I could have read it wrong, but they seem to be suing the paper and not the agency who took the pictures.

[carlota]

which pictures are these based on? those with meghan smiling, with archie in a carrier and with her dog? she didn't seem to mind back then and seemed fairly happy.

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by carlota

which pictures are these based on? those with meghan smiling, with archie in a carrier and with her dog? she didn't seem to mind back then and seemed fairly happy.

Those are the ones yes.

Can anyone explain why Henry is not listed and why Meghan is a litigation friend and not parent/guardian?

[Denville]

Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams

If the Sussexes share your sentiment, they are going to be deeply disappointed by this aspect of their move to the United States. (I realize this particular alleged dispute is about pictures taken in Canada.) One major trade-off they have made with their move is that Archie is far less protected in terms of media exposure. They will find that pictures of him taken in public in the US are fair game in our media. They will face a simple, if not an easy, choice: hide him away as he grows up, or accept that he will be photographed and those pictures will be published freely here.

I thought that children had protection under US law from being photographed in public...

[HighGoalHighDreams]

Originally Posted by Denville

I thought that children had protection under US law from being photographed in public...

Denville, I won't pretend to be an expert on our privacy laws, which vary state to state and potentially at the federal level, and don't want to play Google lawyer and mislead you. However, generally, our media privacy laws are far more liberal here in the US. The children of celebrities are photographed often and, unlike in the UK, their faces are not pixelated. Although certainly laws have evolved since then, think of Michael Jackson covering his children's faces whenever they were in public. Our press will be able to take and publish photos of Archie.

This is true for many aspects of our press, not just photographs of children. We do not pixelate on nearly the same scale, have much more leeway in printing information about ongoing court cases, and online outlets can keep open comment sections about issues where UK publications cannot. Each of these things will potentially affect the Sussex couple moving forward, although of course will not be a cultural shock for Meghan in the way they will be for Harry.

[QueenMathilde]

Originally Posted by Denville

I thought that children had protection under US law from being photographed in public...

The only law in the US that I know of that protects them all is the Jennifer Aniston law (that's not what it's called) where they took pictures of her topless sunbathing in her own yard. She sued and won and they said the paps couldn't shoot you without your knowledge in your own back yard. The blurry face of the children laws are in the UK. In the US they don't blur the faces of the children that I've ever seen. I think if avoiding the paps was their goal they would have done better to stay in the UK. LA is paparazzi central.

[Elenath]

I don't really get this discussion here. The Cambridges have put their children on social media, aren't they allowed some privacy in their private lives? Charles and Diana put William and Harry, well not on social media, but their faces were in the papers and on tv. They were given privacy. We've seen more of George, Charlotte and Louis in the last three months than of Archie, yet the Sussexes are the only ones criticized for using him for publicity. Double standard much.

It seems like this is one more case of, everyone's allowed to do it, but not the Sussexes.

[Denville]

Its not at all the same. Meghan and Harry made a point of saying that they didn't want Archie's birth to be done in the same way that was usually done with royal babies.. they were not going to show him off when she came out of hospitial etc. Then they go and put pix of hm on social meida. Other royals have accepted that tehir children are going to be shown off to the press and public to a certain extent.. and have not made a point of saying that their children are private people..
Moreover meg and Harry left their role as working royals 3 months ago and are now leading a different life.. so why show off the child? He is no longer the son of a working prince.. but of a businessman...

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by Elenath

I don't really get this discussion here. The Cambridges have put their children on social media, aren't they allowed some privacy in their private lives? Charles and Diana put William and Harry, well not on social media, but their faces were in the papers and on tv. They were given privacy. We've seen more of George, Charlotte and Louis in the last three months than of Archie, yet the Sussexes are the only ones criticized for using him for publicity. Double standard much.

It seems like this is one more case of, everyone's allowed to do it, but not the Sussexes.

The issue here is the fact Megan and Archie were in public when the photos were taken. If they’d photographed them in their own backyard then I would agree there was an issue.

It’s on a similar scale of the polo photos that were taken in the U.K. last year. In public, all the children “on display” and pictures weren’t an issue.

[Hallo girl]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

The issue here is the fact Megan and Archie were in public when the photos were taken. If they’d photographed them in their own backyard then I would agree there was an issue.

It’s on a similar scale of the polo photos that were taken in the U.K. last year. In public, all the children “on display” and pictures weren’t an issue.

That is a good point with regards the polo, why didnt they sue then, we couldnt really see his face then either , the truth be told you cannot even tell if it is Archie in the Canadian photograph. Meghan is walking her dogs wearing a baby carrier with a baby in it but you couldnt identify the baby as Archie. You can assume it is him but you couldn't identify him.

[HighGoalHighDreams]

Without knowing the law, I am *guessing* that there is a distinction in the UK between public events and people (children) in public going about their daily business. This would seem to account for why we see pictures of the royal children at, for example, polo matches, but not being dropped off at school or on a shopping trip.

[Elenath]

Originally Posted by Denville

Its not at all the same. Meghan and Harry made a point of saying that they didn't want Archie's birth to be done in the same way that was usually done with royal babies.. they were not going to show him off when she came out of hospitial etc. Then they go and put pix of hm on social meida. Other royals have accepted that tehir children are going to be shown off to the press and public to a certain extent.. and have not made a point of saying that their children are private people..
Moreover meg and Harry left their role as working royals 3 months ago and are now leading a different life.. so why show off the child? He is no longer the son of a working prince.. but of a businessman...

William and Kate still want privacy for their children. I doubt they'd agree with having photographs taken of them when they're all shopping. Point is, private or otherwise, parents decide how much they want to show of their children. Everyone has different limits. It's not for anyone else to decide how they let us see him (or not). I'd be different for me if they had some type of social media account where they post photo's of each other every day.

Another things that bugs me is that I've seen other people criticize them for not showing him. Meaning they are hiding him and Meghan supposedly shipped him off with a nanny (or surrogate depending on you believe in conspiracies).

And it still eaves me with the feeling they can't really do anything right.

[QueenMathilde]

Originally Posted by Elenath

I don't really get this discussion here. The Cambridges have put their children on social media, aren't they allowed some privacy in their private lives? Charles and Diana put William and Harry, well not on social media, but their faces were in the papers and on tv. They were given privacy. We've seen more of George, Charlotte and Louis in the last three months than of Archie, yet the Sussexes are the only ones criticized for using him for publicity. Double standard much.

It seems like this is one more case of, everyone's allowed to do it, but not the Sussexes.

I think we're talking more about what legally the media can do not whether or not the should. The media SHOULDN'T stalk children but if they can they will. And the situation might be worse for them in LA than if they'd stayed in England.


Now that I think about it there is a law called "John's Law" that was enacted after a reporter broke JFK Jr's arm trying to grab him to take his picture. But I'm not sure what it covers. I think this also covered president's children getting more secret service protection.


Oh and I'm going to add on there was some deal with Reece Witherspoon and her children where a man who had been accused of sex crimes had turned paparazzi and was stalking her then 10 year old daughter trying to get pictures. She was taking him to court saying that he shouldn't be allowed near her daughter. But I don't know how that turned out either.

[Lumutqueen]

We all have to remember that the pictures in question were taken in Canada and published by, apparently, a British newspaper.

US Law has nothing to do with it?

[poppy7]

Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDrea2ms

Without knowing the law, I am *guessing* that there is a distinction in the UK between public events and people (children) in public going about their daily business. This would seem to account for why we see pictures of the royal children at, for example, polo matches, but not being dropped off at school or on a shopping trip.

There is. A huge difference.

[Hallo girl]

I am not sure how much is ' by law' and how much is by agreement, but we do not see any real photographs of the Cambridge children other than those released by the palace or as somebody said earlier the polo or an event i.e trooping the colour.

I think I am right in saying that William put out a statement some time ago warning the paps that it was becoming dangerous the lengths that some were going to in the pursuit of a photograph of the children.

They were hiding and jumping out etc, undercover tactics that could in effect have been a kidnapper or worse and there was a risk that somebody could be seriously hurt in the process.
What I read in to that was that the security could not be sure if it was a photographer or somebody with more sinister intent and there could be repercussions.