Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media

[Queen Claude]

Originally Posted by Somebody

Most interesting to me was the following sentence: apparently, they are not willing to let the names of the 5 friends become public knowledge. Maybe they've found a way out of this lawsuit:

Source: The Times

Yep, that thought crossed my mind.




I am kinda confused about this. I thought that it was reported not too long ago that Meghan gave the names of the friends to the court.

I absolutely believe that the MoS should have the means to question these friends. However, if the MoS is trying to put the names of the friends who contributed to article in the public domain, I don't see why that is necessary. Furthermore, it seems strange for a news organization to make such a big effort to have the names of anonymous sources released. Again, maybe I am misunderstanding what the MoS is trying to accomplish and/or Meghan is trying to prevent.

[poppy7]

Originally Posted by Queen Claude

Yep, that thought crossed my mind.




I am kinda confused about this. I thought that it was reported not too long ago that Meghan gave the names of the friends to the court.

I absolutely believe that the MoS should have the means to question these friends. However, if the MoS is trying to put the names of the friends who contributed to article in the public domain, I don't see why that is necessary. Furthermore, it seems strange for a news organization to make such a big effort to have the names of anonymous sources released. Again, maybe I am misunderstanding what the MoS is trying to accomplish and/or Meghan is trying to prevent.

They are named in documents. It isn't a bit the mail, it is about the judge being willing to withhold their names. Which is on,your ever done in th3 case of minors or to protect vulnerable people. All pegs transcripts are public documents. Without the judge ruling their names willlike be made public. It isn't about the paper at all.

[ACO]

It is my understanding that unless these woman testify than there is no reason for them to be revealed. Meghan spoke of them in a classified setting which deliberately protected their identities. So until they are called to witness there really is no reason for anyone to know who they are. And MOS trying to push that info out now for obvious reasons,

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by ACO

But not all spoke of the letter. Only one. And they didn't tell MoS to print the letter. They did that. That is the violation in question.

And that is the crux of the question.

Did the friend who spoke about the letter actually end the copyright to the letter?

They clearly do want them revealed as it is MoS who is pursuing it. They making that very clear. We shall see how it plays out though.

They aren't interested in publishing the names now - but want the people identified during the case. They may even want to call them as witnesses ...

Originally Posted by ACO

It is my understanding that unless these woman testify than there is no reason for them to be revealed. Meghan spoke of them in a classified setting which deliberately protected their identities. So until they are called to witness there really is no reason for anyone to know who they are. And MOS trying to push that info out now for obvious reasons,

Their names will be revealed as the entire case rests on whether was People wrote - and thus the sources People used - was enough to remove Meghan's right to copyright over the letter.

Naming the friends, and even calling them as witnesses to give evidence to how they know what they told People, especially about the letter, I believe, will be a crucial part of the MoS's case.

[ACO]

But as Meghan’s lawyer pointed out “they” didn’t discuss the letter. One mentioned the letter. The other 4 did not. So really if they truly desire then go after the actual person who mentioned it. That’s not the true goal though.

Besides that still doesn’t change Mail on Sunday printing it. I can mention a lot of things but that doesn’t in turn give me the right to publish anything I want. That’s really the case at hand. Will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

We not even in the trial yet.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by ACO

But as Meghan’s lawyer pointed out “they” didn’t discuss the letter. One mentioned the letter. The other 4 did not. So really if they truly desire then go after the actual person who mentioned it. That’s not the true goal though.

Besides that still doesn’t change Mail on Sunday printing it. I can mention a lot of things but that doesn’t in turn give me the right to publish anything I want. That’s really the case at hand. Will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

We not even in the trial yet.

The crux of the case is whether the person who discussed the letter actually broke the copyright. If they did then the MoS didn't and so there is no issue and Meghan loses. If the copyright was broken via the People article then the question is did the friend do so with Meghan's consent or not ... so did Meghan actually break her own copyright through a third person or did the friend do so without Meghan's consent ... and so Meghan should be suing the friend and no one else.

Mentioning the content of the letter ... which was in the article ... is the crux of the matter - did that break the copyright? If not then the MoS did, if so then MoS didn't break the copyright on the letter.

Having the friends testify could be crucial in determining this matter and thus their names will be in the public domain. Only minors names are normally protected in court cases not adults.

I have read elsewhere that they can see Meghan using this 'naming of her friends' as a reason to drop the law suit 'to protect them'.

[ACO]

The friend didn’t break copyright at all because they didn’t publish anything. I think you are meaning they made the letter public domain and therefore it was in public interest to publish. That’s what MOS is trying to establish.

Public interest and interesting to the public are two very different things. MOS are claiming that because of who Meghan is that it was in the interest of the public to publish her letter therefore copyright doesn’t apply.

That’s their argument.

[Sun Lion]

Must be hard ...

After the Duchess of Sussex requested “super-charged confidentiality” for the hidden five, to have her poor lawyer accidentally reveal one of the surnames, and the judge having to rule it couldn’t be reported.

Signs of stress maybe.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...inst-Mail.html

[muriel]

Originally Posted by Winnie

Apparently one attorney on TV just now stated that "in court the accused has the 100% right to face the accuser. This is true on both sides of the case." He assumed that the 5 individuals must present themselves in court to be cross examined under oath on whether or not they were given permission to acknowledge a personal letter written by Meghan to her father. Plus where they got a copy of this personal letter. He also stated that making a copy of a personal handwritten letter before mailing was quite odd, which will probably also be brought up in court. He stated that if he cross-examined Meghan, he would insist on knowing if she made copies of every piece of personal correspondence before mailing and demanded some immediate proof in court. Interesting viewpoint from a legal professor. So many twists and turns. Makes my head hurt.

If there was a list of the the most ill-thought through actions by H&M, this litigation will be certainly be on it!

[Denville]

Originally Posted by muriel

If there was a list of the the most ill-thought through actions by H&M, this litigation will be certainly be on it!

Yes Im not a great fan of theirs to put it mildly but for their own sakes' I hope they do drop this particular actiion.

[Fem]

Originally Posted by Jacknch

Indeed, it is interesting information and a reminder of how costly bringing a court case like this can be - and this is only the preliminary / pre-trial hearings isn't it?

Yes, exactly.

Originally Posted by ACO

The friends went to People Mag anonymously. They didn't want the press in their business. Also not sure why they need to be revealed. One of them spoke of the letter, not all 5. So there is a point in asking why MoS wants them revealed so badly when they have little to nothing to do with the lawsuit.

That said -- I think most have a good idea who some of them are.

Look, I get that some people might want to push the agenda of the "big bad MOS", but this issue is actually a bit more complicated. In a normal situation, the identities of these people (that went and talked to the press) would be revealed during the trial, and as the trial is public, their names would be public too. It's not MOS pushing for them to be revealed to the public, it's a standard procedure... And Meghan's lawyers are trying to prevent that happening.

[Denville]

It could just be me, but if they talk to the press and the case ends up in court, yes, its likely that their names are going to have to be revealed. the trial is public. If they didn't want this to happen, if they want to remain private people, don't talk to the press. If Meg wants to protect her friends, she should not embroil them in something where the press get involved.

[SLV]

Originally Posted by Winnie

Apparently one attorney on TV just now stated that "in court the accused has the 100% right to face the accuser. This is true on both sides of the case." He assumed that the 5 individuals must present themselves in court to be cross examined under oath on whether or not they were given permission to acknowledge a personal letter written by Meghan to her father. Plus where they got a copy of this personal letter. He also stated that making a copy of a personal handwritten letter before mailing was quite odd, which will probably also be brought up in court. He stated that if he cross-examined Meghan, he would insist on knowing if she made copies of every piece of personal correspondence before mailing and demanded some immediate proof in court. Interesting viewpoint from a legal professor. So many twists and turns. Makes my head hurt.

I don't find a copy that weird, actually. On a computer you can just delete and rewrite sentences, but not on paper. It makes sense to rewrite the letter on a new paper which would be send. The original remains at home and would serve as a copy of what was written.

I did the same thing with a German boyfriend in highschool. My German was bad and his English non-existant. I would write my letter, dictionary in hand. And afterward copy it anew, and that would be send to him. I still have those original copies.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by ACO

The friend didn’t break copyright at all because they didn’t publish anything. I think you are meaning they made the letter public domain and therefore it was in public interest to publish. That’s what MOS is trying to establish.

Public interest and interesting to the public are two very different things. MOS are claiming that because of who Meghan is that it was in the interest of the public to publish her letter therefore copyright doesn’t apply.

That’s their argument.

People published enough information about the letter for people to get an idea of the content of the letter ... that is the point. Just mentioning that Meghan wrote a letter to her father isn't enough for any public interest ... it was what was suggested was in the letter that is the crucial aspect of the case.

Thomas only gave the MoS the letter due to what was alleged was in the letter from the People article ... that is more than mentioning the letter exists.

[Curryong]

A judge in California has given permission for subpoenas to be served ( presumably on certain photo agencies) with regard to the drones taking pictures of Archie situation.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...es-Archie.html

[Duchess_Watcher]

Will they be suing Omid for his book? That information is so private it had to come from them, but it seems if you want privacy you should be against this information being leaked. I really do like Meghan and Harry, but that is just odd.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

People published enough information about the letter for people to get an idea of the content of the letter ... that is the point. Just mentioning that Meghan wrote a letter to her father isn't enough for any public interest ... it was what was suggested was in the letter that is the crucial aspect of the case.

Thomas only gave the MoS the letter due to what was alleged was in the letter from the People article ... that is more than mentioning the letter exists.

Interestingly enough, in the court papers Meghan even makes it clear that the People article gave an incorrect impression of the letter. So, it could be seen as tarnishing Thomas' reputation (not that I think that he had much reputation left but I could see the lawyers use that argument).

[ACO]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

People published enough information about the letter for people to get an idea of the content of the letter ... that is the point. Just mentioning that Meghan wrote a letter to her father isn't enough for any public interest ... it was what was suggested was in the letter that is the crucial aspect of the case.

Thomas only gave the MoS the letter due to what was alleged was in the letter from the People article ... that is more than mentioning the letter exists.

But again the friends didn't print it. You can't claim they violated copyright by mentioning it. Thomas might have felt he was defending his honor or whatever. That is on him. That doesn't change the fact the Mail on Sunday took it and printed it.

I get their argument. Of course they will claim the contents were of public interest. We shall see what comes of it once this goes into trial.

[Elenath]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

People published enough information about the letter for people to get an idea of the content of the letter ... that is the point. Just mentioning that Meghan wrote a letter to her father isn't enough for any public interest ... it was what was suggested was in the letter that is the crucial aspect of the case.

Thomas only gave the MoS the letter due to what was alleged was in the letter from the People article ... that is more than mentioning the letter exists.

This is what the friends said.

After the wedding she wrote him a letter. She’s like, ‘Dad, I’m so heartbroken. I love you. I have one father. Please stop victimizing me through the media so we can repair our relationship.’ Because every time her team has to come to her and fact-check something [he has said], it’s an arrow to the heart. He writes her a really long letter in return, and he closes it by requesting a photo op with her. And she feels like, ‘That’s the opposite of what I’m saying. I’m telling you I don’t want to communicate through the media, and you’re asking me to communicate through the media. Did you hear anything I said?’ It’s almost like they’re ships passing.”

https://people.com/royals/meghan-mar...after-wedding/

It could be seen as a very vague description of what the letter says. Or perhaps this simply what she told her friends, that him talking to the press hurts her and she wants him to stop. If this happened to me it’s what I would tell my friends.

I guess it’s like the friend of a writer who gives a vague description to the press of a book or document the writer is working on. It doesn’t give others the right to publish said book or document.

Or at least that’s how I understood it.

[Duchess_Watcher]

It is weird to sue for privacy but then give friends information to leak information that is very private. That is where they look like hypocrites and I want to root for them as a woman of color myself. I feel they didn't like how they left, so they want to ruin the rest of the Royal family.