Deleted
Posts: 0
May 16, 2024 14:49:07 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2019 14:48:49 GMT
I still think it will be interesting to watch. There may be twists and turns in that she sent it to a non-British recipient? I'm sure the Mail is perfectly aware of the law, so they likely have some defense to offer. I'll be watching to see how it plays out. The certainly should be aware as they've been sued before, lost in the courts and also lost in the appeal court for something very similar to what they did to Prince Charles some years ago.......they just never learn! I doesn't matter who the recipient was, the law still stands,she is the owner of that copyright. She's suing a British Corporation under British Law in a British Court. I have no dog in this race. Merely interest in the case law. "The Guardian reports that Markle had previously threatened the Mail on Sunday with legal action in regard to the letter. While Thomas gave the publication permission to use the letter, the author of the letter retains ownership of the copyright. There are exceptions to copyright, however, for fair use of a portion of the original content, especially when reporting current affairs." As I said, I'm sure the Mail/Associated Papers has some sort of defense lined up. That's why I think it will be interesting. www.newshub.co.nz/home/entertainment/2019/10/meghan-markle-suing-british-tabloid-for-publishing-private-letter.html
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 16, 2024 14:49:07 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2019 14:56:19 GMT
ps - a nice summary of royal suits against the press: In 2012, Harry’s brother and sister-in-law the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge launched legal proceedings against French magazine Closer to stop it re-printing topless photographs of Kate taken while the couple were on holiday....After a trial in 2017, six people were convicted of charges relating to the taking and publication of the images, and the duke and duchess were awarded more than 100,000 euros in damages for breach of privacy. In 2005, the Prince of Wales took legal action against Associated Newspapers over breach of his confidentiality and copyright following the publication of details from one of his private journals. Queen Victoria’s consort Prince Albert also fought his own copyright battle in the courts. He took exception to a printer who published copies of drawings he and Victoria had made of their children as part of a Christmas game. Prince Albert was not amused and sued for breach of copyright and privacy. The incident which sparked the Prince Albert v Strange case in 1849 was described by the judge as an exercise of “sordid prying into the privacy and domestic life of the Queen”. home.bt.com/news/uk-news/royals-v-the-press-legal-action-over-the-years-11364399498382
|
|
|
Post by myshelly on Oct 2, 2019 14:56:28 GMT
The certainly should be aware as they've been sued before, lost in the courts and also lost in the appeal court for something very similar to what they did to Prince Charles some years ago.......they just never learn! I doesn't matter who the recipient was, the law still stands,she is the owner of that copyright. She's suing a British Corporation under British Law in a British Court. I have no dog in this race. Merely interest in the case law. "The Guardian reports that Markle had previously threatened the Mail on Sunday with legal action in regard to the letter. While Thomas gave the publication permission to use the letter, the author of the letter retains ownership of the copyright. There are exceptions to copyright, however, for fair use of a portion of the original content, especially when reporting current affairs." As I said, I'm sure the Mail/Associated Papers has some sort of defense lined up. That's why I think it will be interesting. www.newshub.co.nz/home/entertainment/2019/10/meghan-markle-suing-british-tabloid-for-publishing-private-letter.htmlI am FIRMLY on the fair use side. Is no press outlet allowed to publish any first hand evidence because someone else is the one who put it in writing? That’s ridiculous. And frankly, dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by refugeepea on Oct 2, 2019 15:11:28 GMT
"The Guardian reports that Markle had previously threatened the Mail on Sunday with legal action in regard to the letter. While Thomas gave the publication permission to use the letter, the author of the letter retains ownership of the copyright. There are exceptions to copyright, however, for fair use of a portion of the original content, especially when reporting current affairs." This is probably why they published the letter. While this newspaper may be thought of as trash, courts seem to rule in favor of free press more often than not.
Plus, there's the international aspects of this letter. Sent from the U.K. to the U.S. Then given to a tabloid in the U.K. (or more likely sold ). It will be interesting for sure.
On another note, this is an awesome distraction from pedophile Andrew and that crap that is surely going to come down with Epstein. Who knows if it is true or not, but there's rumors Epstein abused one of his own daughters.
Which is worse press coverage for the royal family? A difficult American royal or a pedophile prince?
|
|
mich5481
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,573
Oct 2, 2017 23:20:46 GMT
|
Post by mich5481 on Oct 2, 2019 15:53:27 GMT
I have mixed feelings about this. I understand being upset that a private letter was printed in the press...but you know what, once that letter leaves her hands, the receiver can do anything they want with it, she no longer has control. The way to avoid that is to not write a letter in the first place. I don't see how the publication of the letter was "unlawful" if the owner of the letter - her father - gave it to the press and gave them permission to publish it. Exactly. For someone as politically involved as she is, you would have thought she'd have learned never put anything in writing you don't want the entire world to see - especially given her family's history of running to the media. In or out. You can't have it both ways.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 16, 2024 14:49:07 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2019 16:01:03 GMT
"The Guardian reports that Markle had previously threatened the Mail on Sunday with legal action in regard to the letter. While Thomas gave the publication permission to use the letter, the author of the letter retains ownership of the copyright. There are exceptions to copyright, however, for fair use of a portion of the original content, especially when reporting current affairs." This is probably why they published the letter. While this newspaper may be thought of as trash, courts seem to rule in favor of free press more often than not.
Plus, there's the international aspects of this letter. Sent from the U.K. to the U.S. Then given to a tabloid in the U.K. (or more likely sold ). It will be interesting for sure.
On another note, this is an awesome distraction from pedophile Andrew and that crap that is surely going to come down with Epstein. Who knows if it is true or not, but there's rumors Epstein abused one of his own daughters.
Which is worse press coverage for the royal family? A difficult American royal or a pedophile prince?
Free press? this has nothing to do with free press. Free press, same as free speech is the right of newspapers, magazines, etc., to report news without being controlled by the government. No government has interfered or banned the press in this case.Having a free press does not give the media the right to publish private or copyright material. As for the rest of your post....when and if Prince Andrew faces a court and gets convicted then you are free to call him what you did but until then he's innocent until proven guilty of that offence that you are so quick to tarnish him with.
|
|
mich5481
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,573
Oct 2, 2017 23:20:46 GMT
|
Post by mich5481 on Oct 2, 2019 16:17:37 GMT
I think Harry is the royal family's version of this personality type. Why suddenly now though? He's never been accused of being like this, or thought of as like this before. Meghan.
|
|
|
Post by gar on Oct 2, 2019 16:33:10 GMT
Why suddenly now though? He's never been accused of being like this, or thought of as like this before. Meghan. That was my point. Some people feel she has changed him.
|
|
|
Post by gar on Oct 2, 2019 16:40:40 GMT
Why suddenly now though? He's never been accused of being like this, or thought of as like this before. I personally don't think it is new. Don't you think we've all been aware of his personality for a long time? I can honestly say I’ve never thought of him like that, no 🙂
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 16, 2024 14:49:07 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2019 16:47:35 GMT
That was my point. Some people feel she has changed him. I don't think she has changed him at all. But, her presence has made people start noticing or talking about things they hadn't before. He now has a family of his own that he loves and feels the need to protect. I think that protective feeling has long been there but he wasn't the spouse/parent so kept silent. But now he has a responsibility to protect his wife and child. It would help if Meghan learned she needs to cut ties with her father. He is going to tell everything he knows to anyone who asks. When he stops having new "insights" the press will move on.
|
|
mich5481
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,573
Oct 2, 2017 23:20:46 GMT
|
Post by mich5481 on Oct 2, 2019 17:23:04 GMT
That was my point. Some people feel she has changed him. I don't know if changed him is the right word. I think she brings light to some of his preexisting bad qualities. I have a sister-in-law who brings out the worst in my brother, so that is where my guess is coming from.
|
|
RedSquirrelUK
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,740
Location: The UK's beautiful West Country
Aug 2, 2014 13:03:45 GMT
|
Post by RedSquirrelUK on Oct 2, 2019 17:32:47 GMT
Sideways thinking here.
Celebrities court fame and fortune. They went into the industry knowing full well what they were getting into, and the media has great fun dishing/fabricating the dirt knowing that any publicity is good publicity.
Royals who were born into it are a bit different, because they didn't choose that way of living. There's an unwritten feeling that it is unfair, like speaking ill of the dead, to attack royals simply for being royal. (I'm not talking of wrong-doing - that's a whole different ball-game.) It's not as if royals can opt out.
But Meghan is new territory, because she chose the celebrity lifestyle and has now chosen royalty. Not only is the media still thinking of her as fair celebrity game, but she also has the disadvantage of having unwise relatives who can't keep their mouths shut. I think this is the media is pushing the boundaries to see how far it can go. Like Wallis Simpson and Edward, but far, far nastier, because nastiness sells.
It's bullying, pure and simple. I hope they win the legal case, and it sets a precedent that keeps the media in check. We can't teach kids that bullying is wrong at school, and then have them come home and watch it happen quite legally and acceptably in the media. Which example are they going to follow? Not the school teaching, you can be certain.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 16, 2024 14:49:07 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2019 17:33:32 GMT
I have mixed feelings about this too. Having lost his mother in the way that he did, I can see why he would be over-zealous in defending Meghan and his family. I have a hard time understanding her, however. It's not like she married into the Royal Family as some doe-eyed, never been across the ocean before innocent young girl. She is famous in her own right and I would have thought somewhat more sophisticated with respect to media relations.
|
|
|
Post by jackie on Oct 2, 2019 17:47:07 GMT
Do you also find it dangerous or ridiculous to take so eine’s words andchop them up, remove words, and leave out sentences rhat provide context?
|
|
|
Post by gar on Oct 2, 2019 18:38:45 GMT
On another note, this is an awesome distraction from pedophile Andrew and that crap that is surely going to come down with Epstein. Who knows if it is true or not, but there's rumors Epstein abused one of his own daughters.
Which is worse press coverage for the royal family? A difficult American royal or a pedophile prince? While I'm no Prince Andrew fan at all, you're out of line here. And there's not a competition between the two...actually there's no connection at all.
|
|
|
Post by lisacharlotte on Oct 2, 2019 20:40:26 GMT
True, he did not choose to be born the son of the future king. However, he is not required to live that life if the cost is too great for his family’s wellbeing. He is not heir to the throne. He can choose to live privately. There is enough room between him and the crown now that he can stop being a public figure. The choice is his, he knows what he’ll have to deal with if he stays. He cannot stop people from being assholes.
|
|
|
Post by gar on Oct 2, 2019 20:47:34 GMT
True, he did not choose to be born the son of the future king. However, he is not required to live that life if the cost is too great for his family’s wellbeing. He is not heir to the throne. He can choose to live privately. There is enough room between him and the crown now that he can stop being a public figure. The choice is his, he knows what he’ll have to deal with if he stays. He cannot stop people from being assholes. And maybe he will...time will tell, it's early days in their married life.
|
|
|
Post by refugeepea on Oct 2, 2019 20:56:40 GMT
While I'm no Prince Andrew fan at all, you're out of line here. And there's not a competition between the two...actually there's no connection at all. That's not what I meant.
|
|
|
Post by refugeepea on Oct 2, 2019 20:58:10 GMT
As for the rest of your post....when and if Prince Andrew faces a court and gets convicted then you are free to call him what you did but until then he's innocent until proven guilty of that offence that you are so quick to tarnish him with. I hope I'm wrong, but....
Oh no, I tarnished a prince on a message board. A message board that started when a scrapbooking website closed down. I mean, I have a big following on social media. I'll be sure to keep the pedophile prince comments to myself. I'm a well known influencer on instagram.
|
|
|
Post by gar on Oct 2, 2019 21:00:32 GMT
While I'm no Prince Andrew fan at all, you're out of line here. And there's not a competition between the two...actually there's no connection at all. That's not what I meant. What did you mean? I guess you meant Andrew might be grateful for the public distraction? I was being facetious but whatever you meant, calling someone a paedophile isn't cool unless it's been proved.
|
|
|
Post by refugeepea on Oct 2, 2019 21:05:30 GMT
What did you mean? I guess you meant Andrew might be grateful for the public distraction? I was being facetious but whatever you meant, calling someone a paedophile isn't cool unless it's been proved. No, I meant that the tabloids in the UK love to trash the royals. They aren't going to stop. I'm sure the family is relieved that Andrew isn't making the headlines (made up or not) because it's a hell of a lot more disgusting than a "spoiled American royal".
|
|
|
Post by gar on Oct 2, 2019 21:09:59 GMT
What did you mean? I guess you meant Andrew might be grateful for the public distraction? I was being facetious but whatever you meant, calling someone a paedophile isn't cool unless it's been proved. No, I meant that some of the tabloids in the UK love to trash the royals. They aren't going to stop. I'm sure the family is relieved that Andrew isn't making the headlines (made up or not) because it's a hell of a lot more disgusting than a "spoiled American royal". Do I detect a tone of resentment that some people are upset with someone who happens to be American? Whatever.
|
|
|
Post by refugeepea on Oct 2, 2019 21:11:52 GMT
Free press? this has nothing to do with free press. Free press, same as free speech is the right of newspapers, magazines, etc., to report news without being controlled by the government. No government has interfered or banned the press in this case.Having a free press does not give the media the right to publish private or copyright material. I did word that weird. I should have said free speech. A tabloid that big has to have legal counsel. I'm sure they are hoping to get past some loophole. Or they have a lot of money to settle a suit. Maybe they figured the press coverage would ultimately increase revenue over time and they could take a loss. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in court.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 16, 2024 14:49:07 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2019 21:17:33 GMT
As for the rest of your post....when and if Prince Andrew faces a court and gets convicted then you are free to call him what you did but until then he's innocent until proven guilty of that offence that you are so quick to tarnish him with. I hope I'm wrong, but....
Oh no, I tarnished a prince on a message board. A message board that started when a scrapbooking website closed down. I mean, I have a big following on social media. I'll be sure to keep the pedophile prince comments to myself. I'm a well known influencer on instagram. Be it a Prince or not, calling someone a paedophile is a serious accusation when you have no evidence to prove it. And in case you were unaware of it this message board is a public message board.
|
|
|
Post by refugeepea on Oct 2, 2019 21:19:33 GMT
Do I detect a tone of resentment that some people are upset with someone who happens to be American? Whatever. No. I could not care less who Harry married. I never heard of her until it was reported they were dating. It seems she has been vilified for not doing things the correct way. From what the peas have said on this board, it seemed to be implied because of her being an "outsider" aka American, not royal, had her own life before marriage... I didn't mean to offend. Take American out of my quote if you want. Doesn't she have to renounce her citizenship anyway? I have no idea.
Again, the only time I hear royal news is from this board.
|
|
|
Post by refugeepea on Oct 2, 2019 21:25:59 GMT
Be it a Prince or not, calling someone a paedophile is a serious accusation when you have no evidence to prove it. And in case you were unaware of it this message board is a public message board. Thanks! I had no idea! I'm sure when someone googles Prince Andrew this site will come up. People will be furious with me. Everyone has heard of 2peas refugees. Forget TMZ, those blind item websites, or the tabloids. This place is where people come first.
ETA: I'm sure you've never accused Trump of wrong doings on the political threads. They are doing an impeachment inquiry. He has not been impeached. There is a difference! He's still the president after four years! Where is your proof?! That is some serious accusations.
He is the leader of my country! How dare you!
FTR, I think he's shady AF, just like Prince Andrew. And before it's mentioned yes, a connection with Epstein as well. That's all. My opinion on a message board.
|
|
sassyangel
Drama Llama
Posts: 7,456
Jun 26, 2014 23:58:32 GMT
|
Post by sassyangel on Oct 2, 2019 23:39:43 GMT
That was my point. Some people feel she has changed him. She might have. But it also could be having a wife and child of his own now, that’s behind the change. It’s far more personal now.
|
|
|
Post by peasapie on Oct 3, 2019 17:28:56 GMT
Has she no right to privacy? Obviously her father doesn't think so, he was the one who showed the letter to the press, he's the one who shows them her text messages on his phone, he's the one who goes on TV and blabs about phone calls he has with her & Harry. If anyone is "breeching her privacy" first in line for their anger & condemnation needs to be her own family. Yes but the press chose to publish it. Just as the press chases this sort of gossip-especially certain publications. I’m glad he is pushing back on this. People seem to have started thinking this is acceptable merely because one is a public figure and that, to me, is fundamentally flawed thinking.
|
|
Sarah*H
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,978
Jun 25, 2014 20:07:06 GMT
|
Post by Sarah*H on Oct 3, 2019 19:59:42 GMT
What is the "1000 years of custom and protocol" these two have supposedly broken?
I think the lawsuit is the right thing for them to do in this situation.
|
|
Country Ham
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,313
Jun 25, 2014 19:32:08 GMT
|
Post by Country Ham on Oct 3, 2019 20:55:20 GMT
but you know what, once that letter leaves her hands, the receiver can do anything they want with it, she no longer has control. The way to avoid that is to not write a letter in the first place. My mother always told me growing up if I didn't want anyone to read something I wrote NOT to write it down in the first place. She said to always expect that anyone, at anytime could read something. Even a diary, she said that there was no guarantee someone wouldn't read it. She never said it was right that people read someone's private journal, letters etc but that doesn't mean it will not happen
|
|