It seems as if Ms Markle has won the first round of her case against 'The Mail on Sunday' newspaper (Associated Newspapers Limited), for having published that private letter to her father.
In my personal opinion, the Judge (Mr Justice Warby) was absolutely right. There is no question that there was misuse of private information, and an infringement of copyright; copyright always belongs to the writer of a letter (and/or other personal work). Appropriation of such copyright is a serious offence.
I am no fan of Ms Markle, but the law is rightly on her side. Her frustration must have been 'off the scale'.
Readers may remember that I, myself, have been the victim of blatant theft of copyright. I was advised at the time that there wasn't a court in the world that wouldn't find in my favour as far as damages were concerned. I was also wisely advised that it was probably 'more gentlemanly' not to damage the offender financially, or upset neighbourly relationships, so I reluctantly allowed him to stay away from court.
As with The Mail on Sunday, lessons must be learned; although I expect that any damages Ms Markle can expect, will be far in excess of what mine might have been.
Like her or dislike her, the correct decision was made.
ReplyDeleteIt can't really be disputed legally; try as hard as they will.
DeleteI cannot improve on Andrew's comment.
ReplyDeleteMe too.
DeleteI wish that this self-obsessed woman and her ginger prince would keep quiet. They departed these shores for Disneyland. Now stop moaning and suck it up! Most of us have no interest in you whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteI agree, but can't help but acknowledge that The Mail shouldn't have published her letter.
DeleteGiven how much space The Daily Mail dedicates to the couple, not sure I would agree that most have no interest.
DeleteI do to some extent agree with Yorkshire - they have decided to move away from Royalty and do their own thing. But I don't expect for one minute that the papers will ever allow them to do so.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Markle would allow the papers to do so either.
DeleteI’m with YP ...... they left the Royal family for privacy but do everything they can to be all over the media. Harry said that every click of a camera takes him straight back to the death of his mother ! It hasn’t stopped him working with Netflix who have ridiculed his mother on The Crown. The amount of money this court case must have cost ! She gave the letter to five of her friends hoping that it would be seen by the public. I’m sorry but I have no sympathy for either of them.All they want is fame and money off of the back of their titles. They have nothing to offer. Just go and be private. XXXX
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if they quit for 'privacy'; more like they wanted the fame, but on their terms.
DeleteThat probably sums it up perfectly.
DeleteI'm another agreeing with YP. They say they want privacy but always seem to court publicity eg. Netflix, Spotify etc.
ReplyDeleteThe huge annual cost of their crazy 'mansion' means they have to make lots and lots of money. I suppose we'll be hearing about them for ever after!
DeleteShe's signed a contract with Disney for 'voiceovers' for a rumored 1 BN dollars. Harry can settle into being a stay at home dad.
DeleteAnd she would not have gotten that sum of money if she were Jane from the plains. I also agree that the law should be based on legalities, NOT on the plaintiff's popularity.
DeleteI have reached the point of not caring much on this particular person.
ReplyDeleteI think they've already become irrelevant back in the UK, this court case will make sure we remember them.
DeleteI think MM revels in all the attention and I don't blame you all one bit for being glad to be rid of her. I get so sick of seeing them all over the news. I don't think this apple fell very far from her father's trashy tree. What the hell was Harry thinking?
ReplyDeleteThey all seem to be wanting to make money out of her; hasn't her sister just written a book?
DeleteMay I say that most of your commentators, so far, have misunderstood the point I believe you were trying to make - not whether you like someone or not, and therefore they "deserve" anything coming to them but a right to having the most personal protected. That their privacy is jeopardized by their position in society, and whether they court it or not is irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteWhat I'd like to know (I haven't followed the saga) how the Press got hold of the letter in the first place. Did her father pass it on? Someone must have. And whoever it was - shame on them. That the paper did what it did is what papers do. Not that I defend them. Neither am I aware that there is copyright on personal correspondence.
Anyway, of more interest to me how your copyright was infringed. That you backed down (as the "injured" party) is commendable if you had a personal relationship with the person in question. Hope he showed some appreciation of you not taking him to court. A case of Don P or Rothschild ca. I don't know would at least have amounted to a sticking plaster. Intriguing story.
U
Your first para grasps my point perfectly. I'm not sure exactly how The Mail got hold of the letter, no doubt this will be revealed in time.
DeleteUrsula, just as a matter of interest, in the normal course of things in English law the first copyright of a letter belongs to the writer for his or her lifetime and for 70 years thereafter to the beneficiaries of the estate. The writer can, of course, dispose of that copyright. The recipient of the letter owns the letter itself ie the paper and ink but not the copyright to the contents.
ReplyDeleteThanks for that, Graham. Whilst I was vaguely aware of copyright law as you describe it, I am also sure that it's habitually flouted with little ill effect. Leaks and all that . . .
DeleteBoth Cro's original post and your reminder set me thinking on confidentiality in general. For instance, is it ok to read something addressed to you to a third party? So, following what you said, I am not in possession of the actual ink and paper but I am privy to what has been related to the recipient and passed on to me (let's not call it gossip). If I were mean spirited, with an ulterior motive, would my knowledge gained and passed on to yet another party amount to copyright breach? I don't know. A question of ethics for sure.
U
Exactly my point in para 2. Regardless of what one thinks of Markle, her copyright must be legally respected.
DeleteGood for Meghan, and especially for having the money up front to take on such a paper.
ReplyDeleteI'm no fan of hers, but her rights must be respected, regardless! Let's hope that after this is all over, they'll settle down to a quieter life.
Delete