Harry and Megan: How long will it last?

How long


  • Total voters
    169
  • Poll closed .
pc.gif
 
Morgan isn't my favourite journo, but in this, he's right.

The most extraordinary part of that report was this:

'The Court of Appeal said it had noted the duchess's apology, and concluded, 'this was, at best, an unfortunate lapse of memory on her part.'

What? Did I read that?
 
perhaps ones positive to come out of this, is that Newspapers and Journalists in general will steer clear of the montecito mongrel, and cut her air time
Unfortunately, she spends a great deal of money on her PR team's salaries, and they're good at what they do.
 

naffnickname

MIA
Book Reviewer
It would be ineteresting to see the precedent later applied to her when she addis private info on others - like the floorplans of the Cambridge apartment included in the book she forgot she was involved with et al. Mind you originally she was involved, then backtracked and said she was not. And had to remember again that she might have been.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
Morgan isn't my favourite journo, but in this, he's right.

The most extraordinary part of that report was this:

'The Court of Appeal said it had noted the duchess's apology, and concluded, 'this was, at best, an unfortunate lapse of memory on her part.'

What? Did I read that?
At best.
8-O
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
Would it not make a difference that the recipient of the letter made it available to the Mail?

I think if I were making a case it would be against her father for making a private letter available to the press to publish
The author holds the copyright, not people who have received a copy.

It's not usual to sue for copyright on a personal lette, because the value of such a letter is so low that it wouldn't be worth while going to court over it.

I'm not a lawyer, but as a bystander I suspect that the Daily Mail's best argument would revolve around publishing the letter being in the public interest (that's "in the public interest", not "the public are interested"). I also suspect however that the fact that Harry and Meghan are private citizens of no real importance in the world means there is no public interest to be served in publishing.

I wouldn't cry for the Daily Mail however. They undoubtedly knew exactly what they were doing and feel they come out ahead regardless.
 
The author holds the copyright, not people who have received a copy.

It's not usual to sue for copyright on a personal lette, because the value of such a letter is so low that it wouldn't be worth while going to court over it.

I'm not a lawyer, but as a bystander I suspect that the Daily Mail's best argument would revolve around publishing the letter being in the public interest (that's "in the public interest", not "the public are interested"). I also suspect however that the fact that Harry and Meghan are private citizens of no real importance in the world means there is no public interest to be served in publishing.

I wouldn't cry for the Daily Mail however. They undoubtedly knew exactly what they were doing and feel they come out ahead regardless.
Thank you
 

Joshua Slocum

LE
Book Reviewer
Daddy Markle apparently made it available to them
Aha
I wonder if money changed hands, if so its a contract of some form
although it would have been far better for them to have made up a letter so far beyond belied that she would have to release hers to counter it
( its been done before)
 

kimmi851

War Hero
Daddy Markle apparently made it available to them

Well after she had handed it to several friends and let them release it to approved publications - which was the source of the newspapers argument - that the letter was effectively in public domain because of her own actions and he was just clearing his name by releasing the more offensive parts she had not submitted to the papers herself.
 
Well after she had handed it to several friends and let them release it to approved publications - which was the source of the newspapers argument - that the letter was effectively in public domain because of her own actions and he was just clearing his name by releasing the more offensive parts she had not submitted to the papers herself.
From a copyright law perspective, "public domain" has a specific legal meaning. It means the copyright has expired due to the passage of time, or through some other means specified in copyright law.

"Copyright violation" comes from making copies. The Daily Mail made a gazillion copies when they published a copy of the letter in each copy of their newspaper they printed, or displayed on their web site when they didn't have the "rights" to the letter.

As I said previously it is very unusual to sue for copyright on a personal letter, but it appears to be pulled out as used as one of the tools in this case. Quite possibly the copyright claim might have been simply hoofed by the judge in another country as being too inconsequential for a court to waste time on it.

I suspect the Daily Mail could have avoided any legal come back by just quoting and paraphrasing small selected bits of the letter and providing their commentary and interpretation on it. Again though, I suspect the Daily Mail feel that while they may have lost the court case they're still ahead of the game overall.
 

Joshua Slocum

LE
Book Reviewer
From a copyright law perspective, "public domain" has a specific legal meaning. It means the copyright has expired due to the passage of time, or through some other means specified in copyright law.

"Copyright violation" comes from making copies. The Daily Mail made a gazillion copies when they published a copy of the letter in each copy of their newspaper they printed, or displayed on their web site when they didn't have the "rights" to the letter.

As I said previously it is very unusual to sue for copyright on a personal letter, but it appears to be pulled out as used as one of the tools in this case. Quite possibly the copyright claim might have been simply hoofed by the judge in another country as being too inconsequential for a court to waste time on it.

I suspect the Daily Mail could have avoided any legal come back by just quoting and paraphrasing small selected bits of the letter and providing their commentary and interpretation on it. Again though, I suspect the Daily Mail feel that while they may have lost the court case they're still ahead of the game overall.
I shall be buying a copy tommorow
worth it to help the fighting fund
 

Latest Threads

Top