Harry and Megan: How long will it last?

How long


  • Total voters
    169
  • Poll closed .

Fake Sheikh

War Hero
Already a bun fight for Harry & Megan to do Xmas Adverts this year.
Lidl are the front runners as are Asda, Tesco & John Lewis allegedly.
 
In the US I believe newspapers/the media are classed as commercial entities and while it's legal to film or take photos of people in a public place, where all of this changes a little is when it comes to commercial use.

One generally has to have consent to use a photo of a person for commercial use, but those penalties are civil not criminal. For instance if someone takes your picture and puts it in a magazine, you can sue them for financial damages if consent wasn't given to do so.

You will quite often see on websites like twitter where newspapers will ask people for permission to use a photo someone has taken.
I think you will find that people ask to use a photo because the photographer is legally the original copyright holder. There was an incident on another forum I used to visit some years ago where an individual had taken some very distinctive photos of a building in London Docklands and posted them on the forum. A while later it transpired that the advertising company used by the architects had found the photographs online and decided to save a few bob by not paying a photographer and simply lifted the pics. They had to pay the forum member £8,000.00 once he had a solicitor write them a nice letter.

In the US you are fair game in a public place unless there is some kind of local ordinance, or you are taking pictures of things that may affect national security or the personal safety of those involved in such work:


Canada having read up on it now is a little more complicated. There are privacy laws in some of the States/Provinces and British Columbia is one of those affected. If it had just been Mr & Mrs Anybody out for a walk and they saw MeAgain and took a photo then to all intents and purposes that is not an issue and not worthy of time in court. However, phot's lurking in bushes to take pictures need to be able to prove that they took her photo because she is in the public interest - there is also an element in Canadian law to cover paparazzi behaviour. So she may have a case, though I would not consider smiling at the photographers as indicative of frowning on their behaviour - I would assume it was a decision not made by her and made after the fact in order to dissuade other photographers from intruding.
 
Last edited:
I think you will find that people ask to use a photo because the photographer is legally the original copyright holder. There was an incident on another forum I used to visit some years ago where an individual had taken some very distinctive photos of a building in London Docklands and posted them on the forum. A while later it transpired that the advertising company used by the architects had found the photographs online and decided to save a few bob by not paying a photographer and simply lifted the pics. They had to pay the forum member £8,000.00 once he had a solicitor write them a nice letter.

In the US you are fair game in a public place unless there is some kind of local ordinance, or you are taking pictures of things that may affect national security or the personal safety of those involved in such work:


Canada having read up on it now is a little more complicated. There are privacy laws in some of the States/Provinces and British Columbia is one of those affected. If it had just been Mr & Mrs Anybody out for a walk and they saw MeAgain and took a photo then to all intents and purposes that is not an issue and not worthy of time in court. However, phot's lurking in bushes to take pictures need to be able to prove that they took her photo because she is in the public interest - there is also an element in Canadian law to cover paparazzi behaviour. So she may have a case, though I would not consider smiling at the photographers as indicative of frowning on their behaviour - I would assume it was a decision not made by her and made after the fact in order to dissuade other photographers from intruding.
She can try, but she will lose just as other celebs have unless they start taking photos of them within the boundaries of private property, then it will be a different story. Professional photographers have already been arrested on previous occasions for public pic taking, and the courts always seem to side with them on the issue.
 

woger wabbit

War Hero
Well obviously as a 'Princess of Great Britain' and 'Internationally Protected Person', she can't be expected to scoop her dogs poop.
"Internationally Protected Person" has been deleted from their blurb as it only applies when carrying out Royal duties and they will no longer do so.
 
There was something strange about the birth. The refusal to name the doctors, where, when. Very odd. Not right.

Mothers a chav


”Archie descends from British royalty and the aristocratic Spencer family on his father's side and from his mother "a bellhop in a Cleveland hotel, a laundry worker in Chattanooga, and a bartender in an Atlanta saloon". He is the first half-American and mixed race baby in the history of British monarchy”

 
There was something strange about the birth. The refusal to name the doctors, where, when. Very odd. Not right.
Welcome to the world of la'la'land where they buy adopt various colours of children as fashion accessories to do good.
 
Last edited:
She can try, but she will lose just as other celebs have unless they start taking photos of them within the boundaries of private property, then it will be a different story. Professional photographers have already been arrested on previous occasions for public pic taking, and the courts always seem to side with them on the issue.
That will doubtless be the "public interest" defense.
 
There was something strange about the birth. The refusal to name the doctors, where, when. Very odd. Not right.
and the pregnancy, the ‘bump’ being cradled in every photo opportunity and the bizarre videos (no stacker, I haven’t got any links) where the ‘bump’ seemed to move. We need to mobilise the Arrse collective to see if we can obtain Archies DNA through his saliva off his Sussex Royal Tommie Tippie mug. If they come over to Newfoundland in May, they can pop in to my gaff for a cup of proper English tea And some chocolate Hobnobs.
 
and the pregnancy, the ‘bump’ being cradled in every photo opportunity and the bizarre videos (no stacker, I haven’t got any links) where the ‘bump’ seemed to move. We need to mobilise the Arrse collective to see if we can obtain Archies DNA through his saliva off his Sussex Royal Tommie Tippie mug. If they come over to Newfoundland in May, they can pop in to my gaff for a cup of proper English tea And some chocolate Hobnobs.
I think "Dick of the yard" should be on the case.
 
and the pregnancy, the ‘bump’ being cradled in every photo opportunity and the bizarre videos (no stacker, I haven’t got any links) where the ‘bump’ seemed to move. (...)
It's not unusual for the baby to get a bit boisterous while still inside and for that to be visible from the outside.

If they come over to Newfoundland in May, they can pop in to my gaff for a cup of proper English tea And some chocolate Hobnobs.
Do you think you'll have dug your way out to the surface by May? That might be a bit ambitious.
 
It's not unusual for the baby to get a bit boisterous while still inside and for that to be visible from the outside.


Do you think you'll have dug your way out to the surface by May? That might be a bit ambitious.
I understand about the baby doing gymnastics, but the whole bump was seen to move position on her body.

With regard to the big dump of snow, outside is starting to look like the trench system on the Somme...
 
(...) Canada having read up on it now is a little more complicated. There are privacy laws in some of the States/Provinces and British Columbia is one of those affected.
I mentioned this in a previous post on this thread, with references.

If it had just been Mr & Mrs Anybody out for a walk and they saw MeAgain and took a photo then to all intents and purposes that is not an issue and not worthy of time in court. However, phot's lurking in bushes to take pictures need to be able to prove that they took her photo because she is in the public interest - there is also an element in Canadian law to cover paparazzi behaviour.
No, it's not "she is in the public interest" as in the public are curious about something. That is not how public interest is normally defined in Canada. Normally it must be that there is some greater overriding public good to be derived which is sufficient to justify it. A journalist taking photographs of a politician meeting with a lobbyist over dinner in a restaurant to accompany a story about illegal lobbying would likely be seen as being in the public interest. Putting a celebrity under more or less continual surveillance may not serve an overriding public interest under BC privacy law.

Where it gets a bit uncertain is that without a history of paparazzi test cases it's not clear exactly where the line is drawn. The Sussexes may wait until they get a solid case of particularly egregious behaviour and go with that to get a test case set in their favour which would make subsequent cases easier to pursue and encourage the paparazzi to chase after easier prey.

So she may have a case, though I would not consider smiling at the photographers as indicative of frowning on their behaviour - I would assume it was a decision not made by her and made after the fact in order to dissuade other photographers from intruding.
Going from the associated video which someone posted on this thread, the photographers were operating through large telescopic lenses from a long ways away. The photo which has been posted several times on this thread is also grainy to a very noticeable degree..It is questionable whether she even saw them. They will have dozens of photos as well as hundreds or thousands of individual video frames to choose from to select the one they wanted to publish.
 

Robme

LE
I'd say that with maybe the exception of his missus, who knows what goes through Harry's mind and what he thinks. Could be that once in Canada and away from the Royal Family and all it entails they both might be a lot happier with their lot. That's providing the media leaves them alone to get on with life.
So that would exclude the Septic National Enquirer, whom in the pursuit of a grubby photo of Megans Norks National Interest have already made a nuisance of themselves with Paps al over them like a rash. Seems there plans for a quiet life have gone tits-up already.
 
In answer to the threads original question:- Until the money runs out.
Until the attention ceases Entirely.
Until smiling boy has had a gutfull and binns her.
Until she has had a gut full and bins him.
As soon as she finds another mug.
or a "Accident" offs her, at night, in an underground car park-tunnel.
 

Top