Morgan isn't my favourite journo, but in this, he's right.
Unfortunately, she spends a great deal of money on her PR team's salaries, and they're good at what they do.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
At best.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?
From that piece:
Best line from that ....
The author holds the copyright, not people who have received a copy.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
Thank youThe 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.
AhaDaddy Markle apparently made it available to them
Daddy Markle apparently made it available to them
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.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.
I shall be buying a copy tommorowFrom 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.