Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the 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/ikrd/prince-harry-meghan-markle-archie-lawsuit-paparazzi

 

[poppy7]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

That is the style of policy they follow from other monarchies: provide photoshoots, instagram posts, videos. With this they take the wind out of the sails of eventual claims by media that "it is in the public interest too see children of public persons".

In any lawsuit the Judge will see: George to school, George with animals, George at the balcony during the Trooping, George with grandpapa, George with doggie, George with Charlotte and rule that eventual public interest in the private lives of the Cambridge children are more than met, dismissing any justification for infringement of basic European human rights of the Cambridges and the Sussexes on having respect for their private- and family life. Archie is still too young to have George's media record.

 

[Mbruno]

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 Catherine's children are obviously far more protected than Harry's family and they are generally considered off-limit, even by the British tabloid press.



By leaving the RF and moving to the celebrity capital of the world (LA), Harry has just exposed Archie to greater risk. Lawsuits, albeit justified in this case, won't discourage photographers from trying similar stunts in the future as long as the family remains unprotected.

 

[QueenMathilde]

It's kind of a catch 22. If you put your children's pictures out there at all you're heavily criticized. Angelina got a lot of flack for selling her newborn's pictures for charity. And if you don't then the paps won't leave you alone.

 

[Jacknch]

Several recent posts have been moved to the General News thread (https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...ussex-family-part-two-april-2020-a-47411.html). Let's now move on back to the Legal Actions here.

 

[poppy7]

Has anyone hear this.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/duchess-of-sussex-forced-to-pay-67-000-after-losing-first-round-of-legal-battle-zzn80g0pj

 

[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:

Her bill was revealed as the court heard that forcing her to reveal the identities of five friends who gave an anonymous interview to a US magazine would be “an unacceptable price to pay” for pursuing the legal action against the newspaper.

Source: The Times

 

[Tarlita]

Has anyone hear this.


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...-losing-first-round-of-legal-battle-zzn80g0pj

Thanks for the link Poppy. Well that is a hefty price to pay. Some have suggested there were no five friends to start with, and that it was all her doing.
But surely the newspaper could reveal who the five friends are.

 

[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?

 

[poppy7]

Well the lawyer mentioned a surname. Friend B. I am surprised it isn't on twitter. That will leak.

 

[Denville]

Why does she not want to release the names?

 

[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.

 

[Somebody]

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.

If they hadn't talked, the letter would probably never have been revealed (and at least not at that point), so 'little to nothing to do with the lawsuit' sounds a little too generous.

 

[poppy7]

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.

The MOS don't want it revealed. Or at least they seem uninterested. The point is over whether their names can be released in the process of the court case. Or whether they will be withheld.

 

[Denville]

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.

I have no idea.. but - if they dot want the press in their business, don't go talking to the Press. Dont speak to magazines....

 

[ACO]

If they hadn't talked, the letter would probably never have been revealed (and at least not at that point), so 'little to nothing to do with the lawsuit' sounds a little too generous.

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.

The MOS don't want it revealed. Or at least they seem uninterested. The point is over whether their names can be released in the process of the court case. Or whether they will be withheld.

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.

 

[poppy7]

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.



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 don't. She brought it up BUT their names would be released in the normal process of things. So they probably were just waiting for that and now are thinking. Well that will be more stories for us.

 

[Denville]

They don't. She brought it up BUT their names would be released in the normal process of things. So they probably were just waiting for that and now are thinking. Well that will be more stories for us.

Is it possible that she will drop the case?

 

[poppy7]

Is it possible that she will drop the case?

I think if this judgement goes against her that she might. I mean I would and use that as an excuse. If they go ahead and release their names, it will be bedlam.

 

[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.

 

[poppy7]

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.

Law differs between countries but 300 percent if this goes to court, each and everyone of them will be subpoenaed.

And yea all those are things a barrister would ripen into her about.