Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media

[Rudolph]

The MoS is going to present a pretty simple case imo.

One way or another, Meghan provided contents of a personal letter to be shared with an American glossy magazine that’s been very friendly to her in the past.

Ok but the MoS will argue that she only shared contents of the letter to paint herself as a victim.

The MoS will argue there’s always two sides to every story and published a rebuttal to People Magazine.

 

[Gawin]

I think there is a misunderstanding of what "in the public interest" means in this context. It does not mean "interesting to the public" or "interests the public." It is something closer to "for the public good." Think of exposing a confidential letter because it reveals a government secret that if printed will save lives, or will stop a double agent from being elected to public office.

I have no idea what defense strategies are available to the Mail, and some may or may not be that the letter was interesting to the public, that the People magazine interview somehow made it fair game, ideas around fair use, etc. However, there is a "in the public interest" defense that exists. It has nothing to do with cases like Meghan's letter, though.

Thank you for the clarification.

 

[Gawin]

The MoS is going to present a pretty simple case imo.

One way or another, Meghan provided contents of a personal letter to be shared with an American glossy magazine that’s been very friendly to her in the past.

Ok but the MoS will argue that she only shared contents of the letter to paint herself as a victim.

The MoS will argue there’s always two sides to every story and published a rebuttal to People Magazine.

She obviously shared the contents with her friends. Whether or not she wanted it shared with People is a question that might come up in court.

 

[Rudolph]

Meghan is a public figure and in that respect the courts may decide she’s doesn’t have a right to pick and choose what’s positive press.

If Meghan wants to disclose the contents of a private letter to certain media outlets without scrutiny from other outlets, I think the law will find in favour of the press.

 

[Cocoasneeze]

I think there is a misunderstanding of what "in the public interest" means in this context. It does not mean "interesting to the public" or "interests the public." It is something closer to "for the public good." Think of exposing a confidential letter because it reveals a government secret that if printed will save lives, or will stop a double agent from being elected to public office.

I have no idea what defense strategies are available to the Mail, and some may or may not be that the letter was interesting to the public, that the People magazine interview somehow made it fair game, ideas around fair use, etc. However, there is a "in the public interest" defense that exists. It has nothing to do with cases like Meghan's letter, though.

Thank you for posting this and clarifying this.

 

[Cocoasneeze]

Meghan is a public figure and in that respect the courts may decide she’s doesn’t have a right to pick and choose what’s positive press.

If Meghan wants to disclose the contents of a private letter to certain media outlets without scrutiny from other outlets, I think the law will find in favour of the press.

The court case isn't about positive press or scrutiny over the letter. It's publishing it without the consent of the copyright holder of the letter, and the copyright belongs to Meghan.

 

[Gawin]

Meghan is a public figure and in that respect the courts may decide she’s doesn’t have a right to pick and choose what’s positive press.

If Meghan wants to disclose the contents of a private letter to certain media outlets without scrutiny from other outlets, I think the law will find in favour of the press.

That's a very good point but at the present we only know her friends shared the letter with the press. Not Meghan herself. That might be a question brought up in court. Did Meghan authorise her friends to share the letter with People? If yes, that might change things, as you correctly point out.

 

[Rudolph]

The court case isn't about positive press or scrutiny over the letter. It's publishing it without the consent of the copyright holder of the letter, and the copyright belongs to Meghan.

That the copyright belongs to Meghan in this particular case will be open to interpretation from a judge.

It’s not like this letter fell from heaven. It was disclosed to present people in a certain light.

 

[Cocoasneeze]

That the copyright belongs to Meghan in this particular case will be open to interpretation from a judge.

It’s not like this letter fell from heaven. It was disclosed to present people in a certain light.

In what light was it disclosed? Mr Markle's reputation and character were in no way damaged by the few sentences the letter was mentioned in the People article. The wording of Meghan's private letter to her father serves no public interest.

 

[Hallo girl]

In what light was it disclosed? Mr Markle's reputation and character were in no way damaged by the few sentences the letter was mentioned in the People article. The wording of Meghan's private letter to her father serves no public interest.

I agree, it is just a pity its existence was revealed in People magazine by friends of Meghan.

 

[Zaira]

People keep saying Meghan's friends showed People Magazine the letter when we have zero proof of that.

Meghan's friend(s) paraphrasing a letter is not the same as them showing the letter to someone. We have proof that one or some of her friends knew a general summary of the letter, thats it.

From their statement and what little we know of the claims, I still maintain that the MoS is not really gonna challenge the copyright claim but will challenge the misrepresentation bits. That is IMO probably also where settlement negotiations broke down too.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

People keep saying Meghan's friends showed People Magazine the letter when we have zero proof of that.

Meghan's friend(s) paraphrasing a letter is not the same as them showing the letter to someone. We have proof that one or some of her friends knew a general summary of the letter, thats it.

From their statement and what little we know of the claims, I still maintain that the MoS is not really gonna challenge the copyright claim but will challenge the misrepresentation bits. That is IMO probably also where settlement negotiations broke down too.

Can you point out where people are saying that Meghan's friends showed People the letter? I haven't noticed any posts indicating that, but may easily have missed them.

What people are saying-- quite rightly, in my opinion-- is that Meghan revealed the intimate details of the letter to them, then authorized them to speak about those details to People. She also made them privy in some way to the contents of his reply.

 

[Gawin]

Can you point out where people are saying that Meghan's friends showed People the letter? I haven't noticed any posts indicating that, but may easily have missed them.

What people are saying-- quite rightly, in my opinion-- is that Meghan revealed the intimate details of the letter to them, then authorized them to speak about those details to People. She also made them privy in some way to the contents of his reply.

Actually, I stated Meghan's friends shared the letter but meant to say they shared the contents of the letter. My mistake.

 

[Osipi]

I think its basically like someone posted upthread that if she had a handwritten letter from Margaret Thatcher, she could loan it out for display or quote a bit from the letter but she couldn't actually publish the entire contents of the letter without the permission from Prime Minister Thatcher's estate.

Meghan could have told her friends that her father has purple hair and them repeating that to the press is called "hearsay". The friends own those words out of their mouth as its what they heard someone say. To print a private letter without someone's permission is a violation of their intellectual property as the letter reflected a person's thoughts and words put onto paper.

As Meghan's friends still remain anonymous and have only *said* to People magazine their thoughts on what was in the letter or stated what the purpose of that letter was, it still remains being *hearsay* and there's no tangible proof or evidence that can be found.

This case is going to end up being between Meghan, the MoS and the verdict will be handed down by the judge as he/she sees fit according to the laws of the land. Personally (and remember I'm no expert in these things), I believe that just the fact that Meghan's relationship with her father was so widely known and so widely reported on that there is no question in my mind of just why the MoS wanted the scoop of the year getting a hold of the actual letter and printing it.

It reminds me of grade school and someone crushing on a boy in class and passing a note that the teacher intercepted and read aloud to the entire class with the intention to "shame" the poor girl passing a note (although a big no no). This exemplifies, to me, the mindset behind the MoS with this letter.

Then again, I could be wrong. I often am.

 

[BaiSoSo]

I agree, it is just a pity its existence was revealed in People magazine by friends of Meghan.

It's more of a pity that TM did several interviews after receiving the letter and lied about his daughter saying that she hadn't reached out to him since the wedding. The stress he was causing his heavily pregnant daughter made her friends concerned for her health and is why they mentioned his untruthfulness.

I don't see how Meghan's friends knowing about or seeing the letter has any impact on the lawsuit. The lawsuit isn't about people seeing it, knowing it existed....it is about the MoS publishing said letter without the permission of the author. If they had just given a summary of the letter then I don't believe it would have been a copyright issue. But because of their greed...they went for what they felt would make them the most money and ignored the law.

Side note: Publishing that letter did not do his reputation any favors...it showed that he was indeed more concerned about getting a picture with Meghan & Harry, than Meghan's well-being.

 

[Gawin]

I don't see how Meghan's friends knowing about or seeing the letter has any impact on the lawsuit. The lawsuit isn't about people seeing it, knowing it existed....it is about the MoS publishing said letter without the permission of the author. If they had just given a summary of the letter then I don't believe it would have been a copyright issue. But because of their greed...they went for what they felt would make them the most money and ignored the law.



.

It's relevant because other attorneys have stated the MoS might bring it up as part of their defense.

I'm including two quotes from the Times I posted earlier

"The newspaper could defeat her claims for breach of privacy and misuse of private information if it can establish that the duchess authorised earlier references to the letter by her “friends” in a US gossip magazine."

"Amber Melville-Brown, a partner at Withers, points out, the Mail on Sunday “may adopt a robust hypocrisy public interest defence, arguing that Meghan’s letter to her father was not the conciliatory missive that those in camp duchess have portrayed it to be.”

Whether or not the court accepts that defense is another matter.

 

[alvinking]

Then, why publish portion of the letter only, and not whole verbatim write up, of said letter, but portion of facsimile of the said letter with her handwriting. I clearly remember it being number in the upper right corner 1/5. This means it was a 5 pages letter. I doubt that Thomas Markle sent only the different portions that were published but rather the whole letter. They took upon themselves to edit and publish selected portion of the letter to drive a narrative.

Further, how did they get the letter. Did Thomas Markle went to them? Why? He was in Mexico, the so called article in People Magazine in the US. Why go all the way to the UK MOS If Right of reply there was it should have been in People Magazine. MOS was not the original publish of the article to give him any right to reply.

If they approached him, then why? was he paid for the letter? how much?

 

[Cocoasneeze]

I agree, it is just a pity its existence was revealed in People magazine by friends of Meghan.

Meh, when every post card and note Meghan had ever sent to her dad was already published by Daily mail, I don't see the issue with Meghan's friends mentioning a letter she wrote to Mr Markle after he had insisted Meghan had not contacted him after her wedding. I have no issue with it, and as far I have read comments from lawyers, it shouldn't be an issue in the court room.either.

 

[Jacknch]

Case Law will have played a major part in these proceedings and will have been studied closely by both parties.

It's a complex case around a simple issue and indeed one question could well be that would knowledge and reference to a letter's existence elsewhere, and inferences as to it's content, compromise the case against the MoS?

Technically, the Sussex's could easily win - I think - on the single point of copyright assuming enough of the letter was published to warrant breaking the law.

However, suing for damages for hurt feeling, loss of privacy etc may not be quite as easy to achieve IF it can be shown that specific details of the letter were disclosed by the Duchess to third parties AND that the Duchess herself gave permission for those third parties to discuss such content details publicly.

Of course, it all depends on how each side present heir case to the Judge.

 

[Hallo girl]

Meh, when every post card and note Meghan had ever sent to her dad was already published by Daily mail, I don't see the issue with Meghan's friends mentioning a letter she wrote to Mr Markle after he had insisted Meghan had not contacted him after her wedding. I have no issue with it, and as far I have read comments from lawyers, it shouldn't be an issue in the court room.either.

That is an interesting point, that other correspondence from Meghan to her dad had already been published by the Daily Mail, I had not realised that. So why did they not include that correspondence in the law suit, or maybe they have.
If they have not issued a writ with regards this other correspondence could this go against the royals. Are they being selective in what they object to, was the letter a step too far.

I do not read the newspaper or click on, anything I know about it is from the posters here who comment on the newspaper and its contents.

 

[Madame Verseau]

I happen to pull my personal issue of People and re-read the entire article. I found the longtime friend's reference to "Dad I am so heartbroken. I love you. I have one father. Please stop victimizing me through the media so we can repair our relationship". Then I went online to get the Mail's February 10 2019 article about the letter

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...-true-tragedy-Meghan-Markles-rift-father.html

The friend's words in People are never mentioned in DM article from that day. The handwritten part reproduced was the first paragraph. Other parts of the letter was printed in italics along with Dad's response. DM is not showing Dad's alleged letter in its original form. DM is also claiming in February 2019 it had the full contents. Fast forward October 2019 and Dad tells the Mail (and no other outlet) he sent parts of the letter. Which is it? I have a suspicion that Dad is on retainer for DM to do stories and commentary on Meghan for a fixed amount, a grand sum and present those words as dictated by DM. Those issues could be addrwas at trial. Other corresspondence could be addressed in later filings. The disclaimers that Dad was not paid for a specific article looks disingenuous. To me it confirms my suspicions that DM is setting up Dad to take the fall for this lawsuit.

 

[ladongas]

...

The friend's words in People are never mentioned in DM article from that day. The handwritten part reproduced was the first paragraph. Other parts of the letter was printed in italics along with Dad's response. DM is not showing Dad's alleged letter in its original form. DM is also claiming in February 2019 it had the full contents. Fast forward October 2019 and Dad tells the Mail (and no other outlet) he sent parts of the letter. Which is it? I have a suspicion that Dad is on retainer for DM to do stories and commentary on Meghan for a fixed amount, a grand sum and present those words as dictated by DM. Those issues could be addrwas at trial. Other corresspondence could be addressed in later filings. The disclaimers that Dad was not paid for a specific article looks disingenuous. To me it confirms my suspicions that DM is setting up Dad to take the fall for this lawsuit.

If the lawsuit is for copyright infringement, I don’t think the DM can use a “Dad made me do it” defense. Assuming he handed all or part of it over to them, it makes him look bad, but he couldn’t have ordered them to print it.

IMO, Dad thought that Meghan had hit a financial jackpot with her marriage, and that he could demand more than ‘a couple of grand here and there’. I’m sorry for an older person struggling financially, but he went about this the wrong way.

 

[alvinking]

By the way it is a mistake to try to reduce this to simple copyright issues.

According to what a legal spokesperson for Schillings said: “We have initiated legal proceedings against the Mail on Sunday, and its parent company Associated Newspapers, over the intrusive and unlawful publication of a private letter written by the Duchess of Sussex, which is part of a campaign by this media group to publish false and deliberately derogatory stories about her, as well as her husband.

“Given the refusal of Associated Newspapers to resolve this issue satisfactorily, we have issued proceedings to redress this breach of privacy, infringement of copyright and the aforementioned media agenda.”

 

[tommy100]

Personally I think they will find it hard to fight the "aforementioned media agenda" as it draws real questions about where freedom of the press starts and stops. I mean where is the line drawn and what has the DM done that other media haven't etc.

The copyright issue is a pretty basic case of law.

 

[alvinking]

Personally I think they will find it hard to fight the "aforementioned media agenda" as it draws real questions about where freedom of the press starts and stops. I mean where is the line drawn and what has the DM done that other media haven't etc.

The copyright issue is a pretty basic case of law.

Au contaire, pretty easy actually

Examples
Not sure if it was in DM or the Mail on Sunday but

Cost of outfits for 2019, in excess of £1 million
The Sussexes can produce the real cost of her outfit and prove the lie
The DM or MOS would have to prove that what they say was true. What are the sources of this affirmation

She send texts at 5:30am to her staff
The Staff can be called under oath to deny having receive any text at said hour
The DM or MOS would have to prove that what they printed was true; What are the sources

She made Princess Charlotte cry
Th people present at the fitting can be called and testify under oath that it never happened
The DM and the MOS would have to prove that what they printed was true. What are the sources

These are just 3 examples off the top of my head

If the can demonstrate a continuous pattern of printed lies overtime, there is the agenda

 

[Hallo girl]

Au contaire, pretty easy actually

Examples
Not sure if it was in DM or the Mail on Sunday but

Cost of outfits for 2019, in excess of £1 million
The Sussexes can produce the real cost of her outfit and prove the lie
The DM or MOS would have to prove that what they say was true. What are the sources of this affirmation

She send texts at 5:30am to her staff
The Staff can be called under oath to deny having receive any text at said hour
The DM or MOS would have to prove that what they printed was true; What are the sources

She made Princess Charlotte cry
Th people present at the fitting can be called and testify under oath that it never happened
The DM and the MOS would have to prove that what they printed was true. What are the sources

These are just 3 examples off the top of my head

If the can demonstrate a continuous pattern of printed lies overtime, there is the agenda

It opens Pandoras box, once it is opened it cannot be closed. I cannot see any real winners coming out of this. I am not talking about winning in court but the bigger picture.
Can you really see the Duchess of Cambridge turning up in court to say yes or no to Meghan causing an upset at Charlottes dress fitting.

 

[Osipi]

I don't see specific incidents and specific stories being included with oodles of witnesses and sworn statements and whatever in this case. As you say, Hallo Girl, it opens a Pandora's box. I think this copyright lawsuit will just be both sides lawyers fighting it out in court and the judge passing a judgment.

Win or lose, and we know Harry and Meghan aren't in this for the money as they'll donate any settlement to an anti-bullying campaign, looking at the big picture I'm seeing, its more about the principle of standing up and saying "no more" to abuse and bullying and its garnering global attention and really has the conversation started (at least here its really in full swing).

Harry and Meghan have won the lawsuit against those that used a drone to take and publish pictures of their private home in the Cotswolds. They're now suing the MoS and the Associated Newspapers for copyright infringement and Harry has joined a group action suit against hacking private phone calls.

To me, this is taking action against those that purposely used and abused the private lives of the Sussexes (and other people with the hacking case) for their own personal gain. It is sending a clear and concise message "out there" for everyone to see that it will not be tolerated and that they *will* be taken to court should they legally infringe on their right to privacy. Perhaps most importantly, that they'll be watching closely and keeping tabs on these that would do them harm.

This is standing up for what one believes in. Its standing up against bullies and publications that would contrive to degrade, slander, demean and pitch a war between private lives of people for all and sundry to enjoy as *entertainment*. Its standing up and legally taking action to fight against all this.

Its just as meaningful to the "public interest" as William spending a cold night on the streets for Centrepoint or Charles writing a beautiful testimonial for Cardinal Newman at the time of his canonization in Rome or Diana hugging an AIDs patient publicly. Its sending a message. That's what good people in the public eye do.

Harry and Meghan are not only fighting a battle, they're sending a message loud and clear for all of us to pay attention to. This is really how one begins to say "No More!".

 

[tommy100]

I 100% agree that trying to fight the stories they feel are unfair is tricky and opens a whole can of worms. Do they mention every untrue stories, even the ones that are perhaps quite flattering, or just the ones that make them look bad? Once you start getting into whether certain stories are true or not it opens up the whole thing. Yes where stories are complete lies they can be factually refuted, but it only takes one member of staff to have had a text sometime around 5am. For the clothes the DM only has to show that there was a way to calculate their total at those prices, if Meghan gets a discount that makes it cheaper that would have to be revealed etc. There is a reason the RF use "never complain, never explain" as a mantra. If they go down that route it potentially opens up things they may wish to forget. How do you interpret the Cambridge/Sussex fall out - have Meghan and Kate ever had cross words? Have William and Harry? Suddenly that becomes the story.

I would say, and its only my opinion, they are better sticking to the very clear breeches of law - the drone pics, the copyright, the hacking of phones.

 

[Hallo girl]

I 100% agree that trying to fight the stories they feel are unfair is tricky and opens a whole can of worms. Do they mention every untrue stories, even the ones that are perhaps quite flattering, or just the ones that make them look bad? Once you start getting into whether certain stories are true or not it opens up the whole thing. Yes where stories are complete lies they can be factually refuted, but it only takes one member of staff to have had a text sometime around 5am. For the clothes the DM only has to show that there was a way to calculate their total at those prices, if Meghan gets a discount that makes it cheaper that would have to be revealed etc. There is a reason the RF use "never complain, never explain" as a mantra. If they go down that route it potentially opens up things they may wish to forget. How do you interpret the Cambridge/Sussex fall out - have Meghan and Kate ever had cross words? Have William and Harry? Suddenly that becomes the story.

I would say, and its only my opinion, they are better sticking to the very clear breeches of law - the drone pics, the copyright, the hacking of phones.

Excellent post, I agree. You can see why the royal family in the main ignore the stories. It could get messy.
With regards the phone hacking, if this relates to incidents several years ago does that mean that any of Harrys friends from that period could be drawn in to this.

 

[BaiSoSo]

I the "I don't see any winners in this" theory disheartens me. How are we as a larger society to supposed to diminish bullying if we encourage victims to remain quiet, to just take it because it can get worse? Imagine being a kid in school getting bullied regularly we often tell them it will get better when you get older and then they see those with resources getting bullied on a national level and unable to do anything about, doesn't leave one with much hope.

I know it wasn't an easy choice for Harry and Meghan- the right thing is seldom the easy thing to do but I given them a lot kudos for forging ahead and I wish them all the best in their cases.