Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media

[Alison H]

Originally Posted by poppy7

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.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Alison H

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.

[ACO]

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.

[Denville]

So.. didn't tehy complan when Meg was photographed in Canada on a public pathway, takng the baby for a walk?

[HighGoalHighDreams]

Originally Posted by ACO

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.

[ACO]

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.

[Jacknch]

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.

[kalnel]

"No one has been talking about us for a few weeks. We'd better start a new lawsuit!"

The New York Times reported that they've retained Kim Kardashian's attorney. *Perfect.* https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/u...paparazzi.html

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Leopoldine

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

[Lee-Z]

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)

[ACO]

According to Buzzfeed they confirmed that paparazzi agency X17 was shopping around 26 pictures of Doria and Archie. They were claiming they were from a family outing in Malibu but it’s obvious it’s from their home.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...suit-paparazzi

[poppy7]

Originally Posted by Alison H

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.

France have huge privacy laws. The tightest in the world. The paps are global.

Yeah well, lots of kids get their pictures taken and published especially in LA. Famous people's children have pictures in the press all the time and turn out fine. Not in UK I should add as it's rarer than hens teeth.

To take it on their land is a breach of the law but Archie will grow up plastered all over the Internet. That is the way it is in LA.

[Roderick]

The more they hide their child away, the more determined the press will be to photograph him and the more valuable those photos will be. Catherine and William are very shrewd in releasing one or two photos of each of their children on their birthdays but not much otherwise. That both satisfies the public appetite and keeps the paps away somewhat. I realise that Harry and Meghan have no obligation now to show their son to the world, but they are either not well advised or are not taking that advice in my opinion.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Roderick

The more they hide their child away, the more determined the press will be to photograph him and the more valuable those photos will be. Catherine and William are very shrewd in releasing one or two photos of each of their children on their birthdays but not much otherwise. That both satisfies the public appetite and keeps the paps away somewhat. I realise that Harry and Meghan have no obligation now to show their son to the world, but they are either not well advised or are not taking that advice in my opinion.

The difference is that the UK has stricter privacy laws, compared with the USA. It is based on various rulings by the European Court which sets the jurisprudence which all EU member states have to implement.

The Withdrawal Agreement has a transition period, during which time EU law.and jurisprudence, unless otherwise provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement, continues to apply in the UK.

In some EU countries one does not see pictures of children in private situations at all. In other EU countries at least children are blurred in pictures, but only when the picture is taken at a public outing. A sneaky shot from pictures made in a garden, at the school playground, etc. is a serious affair in the EU, even when blurred. Reason: the picture may have been blurred, the making of it was an infringement on the right on an undisturbed private life.

[poppy7]

Originally Posted by Roderick

The more they hide their child away, the more determined the press will be to photograph him and the more valuable those photos will be. Catherine and William are very shrewd in releasing one or two photos of each of their children on their birthdays but not much otherwise. That both satisfies the public appetite and keeps the paps away somewhat. I realise that Harry and Meghan have no obligation now to show their son to the world, but they are either not well advised or are not taking that advice in my opinion.

William and Kate, and the royals in general, have a deal with the media. Quid per quo. They get a little something and in return they will never publish pictures.

At public events it is different but they will not publish pictures of the kids in their own time.

[Duke of Marmalade]

Why would the media care about illegal or not illegal from their point of view? The pictures are out there, if they want to bring on a lawsuit every time keep them coming. Best advertisement ever. If they have to pay a fee, peanuts in comparison to the headlines. I think the interest in such pictures still stems from the UK, is there anyone in the US who cares about Prince Harry or his son? There are much bigger fish around in LA that people are interested in.

[poppy7]

Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade

Why would the media care about illegal or not illegal from their point of view? The pictures are out there, if they want to bring on a lawsuit every time keep them coming. Best advertisement ever. If they have to pay a fee, peanuts in comparison to the headlines. I think the interest in such pictures still stems from the UK, is there anyone in the US who cares about Prince Harry or his son? There are much bigger fish around in LA that people are interested in.

Of course they care. It is illegal to publish pictures. I have not seen the face of a well known persons child in the paper for over ten years.

Unless the media want a repeat of Leavenson or want to be put in jail, they won't do it. They may however publish pictures of him without his face but they don't do it with other royals but at some point the gloves will come off.

There has never been, since Diana, anot appetite for paparazzi pictures of the royals. Peoples own pictures of them out and about do exist and you will see the odd: Kate visits a book store.

[Queen Claude]

A video was released of Archie on his birthday two months ago.

[poppy7]

Originally Posted by Queen Claude

A video was released of Archie on his birthday two months ago.

Because they were doing what they know how to do. That is part of what the Cambridges do with their children to sustain that accord with the media.

But it doesn't apply to them anymore and Harry doesnt really understand that you do not play with the media. He is falling into the same trap as Diana.

It's a tough one. He is going from having this dealt with to try and controlling the baying mob himself. And you can't. And he needs to have publicity for making money. It's tricky.

I have decided I am done with these two but I am afraid the upcoming case is too good to not wait until the end of.

[ACO]

Originally Posted by Roderick

The more they hide their child away, the more determined the press will be to photograph him and the more valuable those photos will be. Catherine and William are very shrewd in releasing one or two photos of each of their children on their birthdays but not much otherwise. That both satisfies the public appetite and keeps the paps away somewhat. I realise that Harry and Meghan have no obligation now to show their son to the world, but they are either not well advised or are not taking that advice in my opinion.

Harry and Meghan did show him on his birthday. Remember? People were all up in arms about it. “Why are they showing him?!! They acting like royals!! Blah blah” —— I mean really.

Also the Cambridges being generous with images of their kids is actually fairly new. For a long time we barely saw the kids except for milestones. That was a big thing the media and some of the public groaned about.

I had zero issue with it. They are older now so having them more visible make sense but how much we saw them their first year? Not much at all.