Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media

[evolvingdoors]

But isn't this old news that has been resurected again. I thought this was in the news back in March.

There was a court hearing yesterday.

 

[Lori138]

The Duchess of Sussex is suing Splash News, a paparazzi picture agency, over pictures of her walking with Archie and her dogs in a public park in Vancouver in January.


Article from the Evening Standard

Those photos were published in many newspapers and magazines, including several in Canada. There is no law about taking pictures in public places in Canada. If she doesn't want her photo taken, she should stay home.

 

[Mbruno]

Honest question; so it's possible to make a court case in London to sue a LA based company for something that happened in Vancouver to an American citizen who now resides in LA?

Wow, that's three countries and two continents involve there.

I suppose there could be a court case in London if the photos were published in the UK. Otherwise, as you have implied, I think UK courts do not have jurisdiction in this matter.


I wonder why she is not suing in Canada or in the US, but rather only in the UK.

 

[REAL COUNTESS]

Meghan and Harry must be loved by Lawyers,they make a ton of money of them. I feel for Archie he will not be able to play outside,because someone may make a photo of him. If it will be in a park,this is not private property. On their property that's different of course. But always sue not a great idea. Well it is not my family.

 

[yukari]

I suppose there could be a court case in London if the photos were published in the UK. Otherwise, as you have implied, I think UK courts do not have jurisdiction in this matter.


I wonder why she is not sueing in Canada or in the US, but rather only in the UK.

That's the question, isn't it? It would be even funnier if the paps turns out to be an American working for American paps agency.

If the problem is with UK tabloids (or MailOnline), why not suing them?
But then again, there's lots of Pippa and Arthur's paps snaps (in public, but both are private citizens unlike Meghan at that time). Or say, the Philips and the Tindalls, say at Balmoral which is a private property. So the tabloids maybe can get away with it, especially since they didn't print Archie's face.

Isn't it said that Canada has better privacy law? Why not fill the case there? Or in LA? Weren't there some cases where celebrities won a case for privacy invasion towards their children in LA?

At this rate, it starts to look as if they're setting score with UK press.

 

[evolvingdoors]

The funny thing is, that there are other paparazzi pics of them in LA, taken by a different pap agency... yet they are not suing them.

To me the major part of the lawyer words is this:

This was without their acquiescence or consent and it is accepted that it was by an employee of the (US agency), Steve Dennett.'

So... is the lawyer saying that other pap pics of them in public were done with their "acquiescence or consent"?

'at the private home of the claimants' and said he was 'casing their home, testing his light meter and taking photos through the security fence, so he was not at the park by accident'.

What he means is: the photographer was standing in public territory with his camera taking pictures with his camera..
I do not think it is illegal, standing on a public area and taking pictures of a house and property.

"he was not at the park by accident"
Probably not, but the park is a public place and it is vast.. he would have had to know Meghan would be at that specific pathway at that specific time.


Several paparazzi's, and Finding Freedom too, have said out loud or alluded to the fact Meghan have called them before, there is therefore reason to assume that she has done so too during her time in the royal family, and after leaving for LA.

 

[Lee-Z]

Can't shake the impression that they are not so much wanting to "Find Freedom" but they actually want to "Find Control".

 

[Denville]

what about the pictures of them in LA delivering food? are they suing whoevever took these photos?

 

[Osipi]

The more lawsuits appear as time goes by, the more I'm in agreement with Lee-Z that they're not "finding freedom" but trying to "find control". This tells me that they have no concept whatsoever of the "real" world.

Perhaps they think that every picture taken that isn't "authorized" by them is a lawsuit and by filing mega lawsuits, only "authorized" photos will ever be available for public consumption. This has as much chance of happening as a tornado ripping through a junkyard and fully assembling a 747 jet. In fact, I think its the opposite that will happen. It'll become a game to get as many "unauthorized" photos of these people as they'll be the "big money" shots. As long as the paps stay in legal bounds, all that will happen is the Sussexes shell out a whole lot of green dollars in court and lawyer expenses.

What's next? Will the Sussexes take a page from Michael Jackson's playbook and require Archie to wear a face covering every time he steps out somewhere public?

 

[poppy7]

what about the pictures of them in LA delivering food? are they suing whoevever took these photos?

They can't because they aren't on private land and they don't include a minor. To be honest, since his face isn't shown, this case is flimsy. They are out of control in my opinion at the moment.

 

[Fem]

That's the question, isn't it? It would be even funnier if the paps turns out to be an American working for American paps agency.

Splash News & Pictures Agency is an american company, though they do also have UK offices. They're quite often the ones getting photos of the Sussexes. I think they were also the ones who took the photos of the Cotswolds home.

So... is the lawyer saying that other pap pics of them in public were done with their "acquiescence or consent"?

That's why it's not a good idea to sue over photos unless they really cross a line, because it looks exactly like that.

 

[Madame Verseau]

This just came over on Omid Scobie's Twitter: Harry is suing the Sunday Times for reporting the Sussexes bailed on the Invictus charity event because of the Netflix deal. Royal reporter Roya Nikkah wrote the story. With Invictus backing this up, stating the story is false I don't see how the Times wins here.

 

[acdc1]

This just came over on Omid Scobie's Twitter: Harry is suing the Sunday Times for reporting the Sussexes bailed on the Invictus charity event because of the Netflix deal. Royal reporter Roya Nikkah wrote the story. With Invictus backing this up, stating the story is false I don't see how the Times wins here.

Not saying the press was right in this instance (they’re not), but it seems like H&M are extremely trigger-happy with suing the press these days.

 

[AC21091968]

This just came over on Omid Scobie's Twitter: Harry is suing the Sunday Times for reporting the Sussexes bailed on the Invictus charity event because of the Netflix deal. Royal reporter Roya Nikkah wrote the story. With Invictus backing this up, stating the story is false I don't see how the Times wins here.

This is a terrible move by Harry, given the incidence (caused by Extinction Rebellion) that happened last weekend. A lot of politician and commentators believe the protest blockage of newspaper printing presses (Daily Telegraph, Sunday Telegraph, The Sun, Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday, The Times, Sunday Times, London Evening Standard, Financial Times) was an attack of free speech and freedom of press.

The Sunday Times' reporting is definitely false, but I don't think suing the press is helping his cause. Even the Invictus has confirm that the decision for charity event occur before the Netflix deal, so effectively the false story has been shut down. I don't see the point suing the Sunday Times. The Daily Mail has also reported the same, is he suing them as well?

Imagine every public figure filing a lawsuit for every false stories published by the media, there will be endless court cases.

Is Harry and Meghan seriously unaware of freedom of press?

 

[Madame Verseau]

Freedom of the press does not mean printing a false story that could cause harm. Writing that the Sussexes dumped Invictus could have impacted the event to go forward at all or make it hard it for getting replacements. The Times needs to print a retraction and an apology and Harry would drop the suit. Otherwise Roya would have to name her source at trial to stick with the story.

 

[Curryong]

That story by Roya was false and I think Harry is expecting a swift retraction and apology by the Sunday Times rather than a full court case. The story was an additional thumping in addition to the DM going full pelt about Frogmore Cottage renovations on the same weekend. He (and the Invictus spokesperson) closed these stories down quickly.

 

[Madame Verseau]

On the Times website there is scrawl at the top saying this story is subject to a legal action by the Duke of Sussex. Not Sure if that is an acknowledgement the Times stepped in it here. I'm not sure if Roya and the editor are having a come to Jesus meeting with the brass with the choices clean up this mess or clean out your desk.

 

[Mbruno]

This just came over on Omid Scobie's Twitter: Harry is suing the Sunday Times for reporting the Sussexes bailed on the Invictus charity event because of the Netflix deal. Royal reporter Roya Nikkah wrote the story. With Invictus backing this up, stating the story is false I don't see how the Times wins here.

As a matter of fact, a false story is not sufficient to characterize libel. In the UK, a possible defense is to argue that the story was a "fair comment in a matter of public interest", meaning that the newspaper had reasons to believe (and genuninely believed) that the story was true when it published it and that it did its best to verify the accuracy of the story within the time constraints imposed by the urgency to publish a matter of public interest.



In the US, because of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment, winning a libel case on the grounds of publication of false information is even more difficult as the plaintiff has to prove that the newspaper acted on malicious intent, i.e that it knew that the story was false and deliberately published it nonetheless to harm the plaintiff.



It may look that UK and US law are similar in that respect, but the burden of proof is reversed in the two countries. In the UK the defendant has to prove, as a defense, that it did not act maliciously while, in the US, it is the contrary, i.e. the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant acted maliciously. Either way, as I said in the beginning, the fact that the story was false in itself is not enough.

 

[Eskimo]

As a matter of fact, a false story is not sufficient to characterize libel. In the UK, a possible defense is to argue that the story was a "fair comment in a matter of public interest", meaning that the newspaper had reasons to believe (and genuninely believed) that the story was true when it published it and that it did its best to verify the accuracy of the story within the time constraints imposed by the urgency to publish a matter of public interest.



In the US, because of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment, winning a libel case on the grounds of publication of false information is even more difficult as the plaintiff has to prove that the newspaper acted on malicious intent, i.e that it knew that the story was false and deliberately published it nonetheless to harm the plaintiff.



It may look that UK and US law are similar in that respect, but the burden of proof is reversed in the two countries. In the UK the defendant has to prove, as a defense, that it did not act maliciously while, in the US, it is the contrary, i.e. the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant acted maliciously. Either way, as I said in the beginning, the fact that the story was false in itself is not enough.

So unless The Times settles this, it will be another drawn out and costly lawsuit?


Edited to add: This is a complaint not a lawsuit

 

[JessRulz]

On the Times website there is scrawl at the top saying this story is subject to a legal action by the Duke of Sussex. Not Sure if that is an acknowledgement the Times stepped in it here. I'm not sure if Roya and the editor are having a come to Jesus meeting with the brass with the choices clean up this mess or clean out your desk.

The scrawl is at the top of the original article, not the entire The Times website. Standard procedure when an article has a IPSO complaint made about it. No need to exaggerate.

The Times is not going to have a "come to Jesus meeting" with Roya over this particular article - at most, the article will be retracted and a two-line apology published. Perhaps a donation to the Invictus Games if The Times wants to win some favour.

Let's be realistic here.

 

[AC21091968]

So unless The Times settles this, it will be another drawn out and costly lawsuit?


Edited to add: This is a complaint not a lawsuit

If it's a complaint to the Sunday Times, then I'm glad. I do not want this to go to the courts. Harry and Meghan has filed too many lawsuits to date. Frankly, I think the British public are sick of it (from reading the social media posts under BBC, sky or itv news).

 

[Curryong]

And no doubt Harry and Meghan are sick of false stories appearing in the British Press casting them in a negative light over something they haven't done.

Unfortunately, before Harry filed that complaint the original story reappeared, copied within minutes in online British tabloids, complete with embroideries about shattered Invictus vets angry at Harry, and on dozens of overseas inline sites as well.

 

[Osipi]

In a way, I'm glad that Harry was quick to file a complaint against the Sunday Times in regards to the false Invictus stories. This shows me that if there's one thing you *don't* do its attack someone's child and to me, the Invictus Games are just as much Harry's child as Archie is. He has always been deeply involved and passionate about this organization and that hasn't changed.

It also lays to rest, for me, the speculations that with the "new life", Harry and the Invictus Games would part ways or become obsolete.

Good going Harry!!

 

[texankitcat]

So now they are Legally going after US news organizations as well. Welcome to America Harry. It’s a good thing they are becoming financially independent so they can pay their own legal fees. Their Lawyers will have bigger mansions than they do in no time.

 

[ACO]

Well the Times has removed the article.

 

[ACO]

I have no issue with him filing a complaint over a blatant lie. They were implying he was dismissing something extremely important to him. It spread around as fact. They have since removed it and now it’s been explained it wasn’t even officially scheduled. It was just in conversation. Anyways it was corrected though not that it matters overall. Damage was done.

 

[Humbugged]

So now they are Legally going after US news organizations as well. Welcome to America Harry. It’s a good thing they are becoming financially independent so they can pay their own legal fees. Their Lawyers will have bigger mansions than they do in no time.

Well that agency was taking photos in BC where it is illegal to take pap pics .And guess what they now live in California and their are rules their about taking pap pics as well

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

Freedom of the press does not mean printing a false story that could cause harm. Writing that the Sussexes dumped Invictus could have impacted the event to go forward at all or make it hard it for getting replacements. The Times needs to print a retraction and an apology and Harry would drop the suit. Otherwise Roya would have to name her source at trial to stick with the story.

There are very, very few protections for public figures in the United States when it comes to false stories, including damaging stories, printed in the press. Freedom of the press does in fact extend, in most cases, to printing false stories that cause harm, at least when it comes to public figures. Nor do reporters have to "name their sources" at trial- the burden is on the moving party.

 

[Denville]

Well that agency was taking photos in BC where it is illegal to take pap pics .And guess what they now live in California and their are rules their about taking pap pics as well

There are going to be photos of them all the time, if they continue with a public career..

 

[camelot23ca]

Well the Times has removed the article.

After getting a ton of free publicity when Harry made the complaint, which was probably their goal to start with.