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.
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.
Queen Mathilde- Would this be the article that you are referring to in your post? 
