Royalty Thread #10 -Archie Phase 2 - Bold and Bald Still

puglover

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,732
I feel like too many issues are lumped in together. I am not sure the royals should be immune to all criticism. I have already stated I think they could be at least questioned on the private jet thing - if at the same time they are calling for care for the environment. Also, I don't know much about the renovations on Frogmore Cottage but presumably the British people could question out of line expenditures and if they seem excessive they may be criticized. When it comes to their personal lives, and in this case a young woman's troubled relationship with her father, they cross a line. How beastly to publish a personal letter, or parts of it. I hope they win sufficiently that their point is made.
 

Lorac

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,798
There's a big article about in The Guardian (can't link to it from my phone). The article says that authors of letters retain copyright even after the letter is out of their possession, which is probably why they chose to pursue this lawsuit. There are some long quotes from Harry's statement.
Here's the link

Interesting. I did not know that about private letters. Thanks for the link.
 

mella

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,468
There's a big article about in The Guardian (can't link to it from my phone). The article says that authors of letters retain copyright even after the letter is out of their possession, which is probably why they chose to pursue this lawsuit. There are some long quotes from Harry's statement.
Interesting. I didn't realise this, although I guess it does make sense if I compare it to copyright of drawings/reports or something like that in a (my) work context.
 

mella

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,468
I feel like too many issues are lumped in together. I am not sure the royals should be immune to all criticism. I have already stated I think they could be at least questioned on the private jet thing - if at the same time they are calling for care for the environment. Also, I don't know much about the renovations on Frogmore Cottage but presumably the British people could question out of line expenditures and if they seem excessive they may be criticized. When it comes to their personal lives, and in this case a young woman's troubled relationship with her father, they cross a line. How beastly to publish a personal letter, or parts of it. I hope they win sufficiently that their point is made.
I agree criticism on the private flights given their campaigning is valid.

On Frogmore questions were asked but I think had actually already been answered in that it was reported that public funds paid for work to the fabric and they paid for the personal "extras" my paraphrasing not the reported words. So my understanding is public funds paid for things they would pay for at any royal building needing works. The question was fair (if unnecessary as the information was freely given) but the relentless repetition and reporting as if something was untoward despite the response stating otherwise was wrong. If the response is inaccurate or dishonest that's for the government to address and be open about. I can't recall reading anything that suggested this was the case just lots of moaning about it.

The situation with the reporting on her father is very sad. She cannot stop that as he has clearly decided he will not stop speaking to the press and that is his right. I think if she holds copyright over her personal letters and can prevent them being published (particularly in a misleading way if that is true) then it's fair that she does that. IMO it's no different than going to court for breach of privacy over nude photos.

I do think the references to Diana are unnecessary and counterproductive. Not convinced it's anything like that level at this point. But at the same time can only imagine his personal fears about where this road goes. And it's clear there are a (small?) number of threatening individuals who are likely encouraged by the tone of some of the tabloid and internet coverage.
 

PDilemma

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,639
I feel like too many issues are lumped in together. I am not sure the royals should be immune to all criticism. I have already stated I think they could be at least questioned on the private jet thing - if at the same time they are calling for care for the environment. Also, I don't know much about the renovations on Frogmore Cottage but presumably the British people could question out of line expenditures and if they seem excessive they may be criticized. When it comes to their personal lives, and in this case a young woman's troubled relationship with her father, they cross a line. How beastly to publish a personal letter, or parts of it. I hope they win sufficiently that their point is made.
Harry seems to think that they should be above all criticism. But they are public servants on the public payroll essentially (yes, I know that the finances are complicated, but at the end of the day, this family has millions because they are allowed it by the public not because anyone ever earned it. If the monarchy were abolished, the Duchy of Cornwall would likely become public property, for example and that income could be fund government/public needs rather than wardrobes for royals). In the U.S., the status of being a public servant on public payroll has meant that a free press is allowed to be critical of the choices those people make. While the law differs, the standard in the UK in practice has been the same. Children have generally been exempt and the mainstream British press has been good to the royal family in that regard--not stalking children at school or even young adults at university, for example. But that has been done in return for regular access to photos or big events. Harry and Meghan have decided not to give their share in that and then wonder why it upsets the press. It has to be a give and take in their position.

As for this letter, I read last night that under British law, even implied consent to its release can nullify any copyright claim by Meghan. Prior to her father releasing it to the press, her friends quoted, or at least paraphrased it, for People Magazine with absolutely no objection from her (and as far as anyone could tell, her approval). They did so while dragging his reputation. He released it with the intention of telling his side after that story was published. Meghan sharing it with these friends and making no objection to them sharing the content could be considered implied consent to it being public.

Prior to that, Tom Markle has been quiet for months. He, understandably, felt that he was being dragged into the story in a bad light again. If Meghan wants him to lay low, then she and her friends need to stop bringing him up, especially with the intent to malign his reputation. This lawsuit won't do any good as I'm sure his phone has been ringing for the last 24 hours to rehash all of it.
 

antmanb

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,051
As for this letter, I read last night that under British law
There's no such thing as "British law". Britain is made up of different countries, each with their own laws.

even implied consent to its release can nullify any copyright claim by Meghan
Do you have a link to where you read this? Implied consent is extremely difficult to argue in copyright cases and would amount to the copyright owner doing or saying something that amounts to giving full consent, I seriously doubt the Mail on Sunday even has the slightest chance of that argument working since it is the consent of the copyright owner that is required.

Prior to her father releasing it to the press, her friends quoted, or at least paraphrased it, for People Magazine with absolutely no objection from her (and as far as anyone could tell, her approval). They did so while dragging his reputation. He released it with the intention of telling his side after that story was published. Meghan sharing it with these friends and making no objection to them sharing the content could be considered implied consent to it being public.
No, it absolutely couldn't be taken to be implied consent in any way shape or form. A copy of the letter was not printed in People Magazine. A publication reporting on something and including paraphrasing or descriptions of a copyright work is allowed to do so for the purposes of "criticism, review and news reporting" without the consent of the copyright owner so just because that paper had a defence to an infringement claim, it doesn't mean anyone else can rely on that.

Implied consent can never be taken to be given because of a lack of action in any other instance by a copyright owner. Waiver of rights in one instance can, more or less, never be used to imply consent in another.

Copyright, at its most fundamental level is the right to not have copies made of your work without your consent. There is no question that Meghan is the copyright owner of the letter she wrote so I think it's a pretty good idea to use copyright law in this instance because proof that it was copied is all that is required to show infringement. The onus is then on the infringer to establish their own defence to the satisfaction of the court.

There are a number of further argument I expect she will make, for example, she has the right to object to derogatory treatment of the work. Harry's statement suggests that sentences and words were omitted and changed in order to change the meaning. The statutory definition of derogatory treatment is "...if it amounts to distortion or mutilation of the original work or is otherwise prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the author...".

I think using copyright law is a stroke of genius on their part.
 
Last edited:

taf2002

Fluff up your tutu & dance away.....
Messages
23,169
@PDilemma, objecting to the posting of her letter by a "news" agency is NOT dragging him into the story.

And you said: "But they are public servants on the public payroll essentially (yes, I know that the finances are complicated, but at the end of the day, this family has millions because they are allowed it by the public not because anyone ever earned it.

The royal family brings in lots of revenue for businesses in the form of merchandise featuring the family & they bring attention to the causes they endorse. IMO they have earned a lot of what they get, maybe not millions but that's not our business, anymore that YOUR salary is not anyone's business.

Along with others here, I don't understand your presence in this thread since you obviously have no fondness for royalty. I don't know if it's jealousy or hatred but it's really a downer.
 

Vagabond

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,292
Harry seems to think that they should be above all criticism.
I disagree. Harry himself was criticized publicly many times before he met his wife and either accepted it or at least did not bother to respond to it. He seems to me to be concerned that the media obsession (positive and negative) with his mother is repeating itself.
 
Last edited:

canbelto

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,130
I think it's really dangerous for anyone in this thread to speculate on Mr. Markle and Meghan's relationship, @PDilemma. When there is a complete breakdown of the relationship it's never just one person's fault. It's personal and Thomas Markle has repeatedly made the situation worse by publicizing beefs. But again, we don't know what happened in their family and I do know that complete estrangements are very painful for both sides involved so again, I don't think anyone should just say it's all Meghan's fault.

And also, she sent the letter to Mr. Markle and he chose to sell it to the tabloids without her consent. That is breaking copyright.
 

AxelAnnie

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,358
The United Kingdom has something called Subsistence of Copyright.

Subsistence of copyright
Copyright arises automatically, without the need for registration.[3] As the law currently stands, the United Kingdom has a closed-list system: copyright only subsists in certain enumerated subject-matter. The eight classes of subject-matter are listed in section 1(1) of the Act. It is a fundamental principle of copyright law that copyright subsists in the expression of an idea, not in an idea itself.[4]
And here is the list that falls under the closed-list. As near as I can tell, a letter would not have an assumption of or automatic copyright protection.
Works eligible for protection
The works in which copyright can subsist are typically divided into two sub-classes. Works in the first sub-class are known as authorial works:

  • Original literary works;
  • Original dramatic works;
  • Original musical works; and
  • Original artistic works.[5]

For copyright to subsist in these works, the work itself must be 'original'. This is traditionally seen as requiring that the author exercised skill, labour and judgment in its production.[6] Three of these works are also subject to a fixation requirement: a literary, dramatic, or musical work must be recorded.[7] It is immaterial if this was done without the author's permission.[8]
Bottom line: Who the hell knows. I think the actions she is taking (lawsuit) will only give more weight and more exposure of whatever the content of the letter is.

But, giving that this involves members of The Firm, who knows what special "laws" there may be.
 

kittyjake5

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,607
I won’t link it here but if you are interested in what the Mail published concerning the letter it is up on their website. It did not take me long to find it.
 

Jenny

From the Bloc
Messages
20,853
I think the actions she is taking (lawsuit) will only give more weight and more exposure of whatever the content of the letter is.
You have a point here. Obviously I follow royal news, but I usually ignore Meghan's family drama in favour of the fun stuff, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who is now curious about that letter, where I wasn't before.

The length and depth of Harry's statement - which I didn't read on their site but rather am seeing reported everywhere today - also would seem to put more weight on this and ignite more interest than necessary. I certainly get where his passion is coming from, for both his wife and mother and likely his child too as he grows up, but at the same time they have been getting a ton of friendly press around this trip to Africa, so maybe they should have taken a different tack.

By all means go ahead with the lawsuit, but keep the statement short and to the point - the Sussexes and the Royal Family will not let violations of their privacy or legal rights go unchecked, done, now let's talk about all the good work we're doing in Africa.
 

MacMadame

Cat Lady-in-Training
Messages
29,693
I think the purpose of the lawsuit is to stop future similar articles. It's pretty clear that Meghan's dad is going to continue to talk smack about her to the press whenever he needs some cash or is feeling particularly aggrieved. She can't stop him but she can stop the press from crossing the line when they report on it and it might even make them less likely to indulge the man if they think they'll get dinged for it and have to pay a fine. If it works, they will save themselves from years of this particular sort of harassment.
 

mag

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,933
I think it's really dangerous for anyone in this thread to speculate on Mr. Markle and Meghan's relationship, @PDilemma. When there is a complete breakdown of the relationship it's never just one person's fault. It's personal and Thomas Markle has repeatedly made the situation worse by publicizing beefs. But again, we don't know what happened in their family and I do know that complete estrangements are very painful for both sides involved so again, I don't think anyone should just say it's all Meghan's fault.

And also, she sent the letter to Mr. Markle and he chose to sell it to the tabloids without her consent. That is breaking copyright.
I am pretty sure there is blame on both sides of this. The People article where Meghan’s friends defend her was the first mention of the letter and paraphrases it’s content, so those friends certainly have some blame when it comes to this current problem. I am not sure, other than actually printing a couple of actual paragraphs of the letter, this is much different. Both instances show poor judgement. I read the Daily Mail article and they expressly state that he neither asked for nor received payment for the story about the letter, so he didn’t “sell” it to the tabloids.

Meghan was clearly on good enough terms with her Dad leading up to the wedding that she asked him to walk her down the aisle. So this is not a long term estrangement and appears to have been prompted by his poor judgement around that interview and photos he did, and then made worse by his children and her friend entering the argument.

I can understand how Mr. Markle must be feeling. The papers were brutal about him and his home prior to the wedding, and that People article, with the letter paraphrased by powerful Hollywood stars, was also quite brutal. He is feeling hurt and betrayed and probably embarrassed and wants to set the record straight.

I can also completely understand how Meghan would have been hurt by that initial interview he gave and the follow up with Piers Morgan, not to mention all the garbage spewed by her half siblings!

The whole thing is such a mess and both sides think they are the injured party! I think some face to face communication might have helped the situation. It was a huge mistake for Meghan not to visit her father prior to or immediately following the wedding. At the time I agreed with those who said the logistics would be too difficult, but her baby shower and trip to the US Open show that where there is a will there is a way. None of that absolves him of his exceedingly poor judgement in all of this.

One thing is for sure, both father and daughter are alike in that they are very concerned about how the world sees them. It might be more productive if they both worried more about how the other one is feeling and try to put themselves in the other one’s shoes rather than dwelling on their own grievances.
 

canbelto

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,130
I am pretty sure there is blame on both sides of this. The People article where Meghan’s friends defend her was the first mention of the letter and paraphrases it’s content, so those friends certainly have some blame when it comes to this current problem. I am not sure, other than actually printing a couple of actual paragraphs of the letter, this is much different. Both instances show poor judgement. I read the Daily Mail article and they expressly state that he neither asked for nor received payment for the story about the letter, so he didn’t “sell” it to the tabloids.

Meghan was clearly on good enough terms with her Dad leading up to the wedding that she asked him to walk her down the aisle. So this is not a long term estrangement and appears to have been prompted by his poor judgement around that interview and photos he did, and then made worse by his children and her friend entering the argument.

I can understand how Mr. Markle must be feeling. The papers were brutal about him and his home prior to the wedding, and that People article, with the letter paraphrased by powerful Hollywood stars, was also quite brutal. He is feeling hurt and betrayed and probably embarrassed and wants to set the record straight.

I can also completely understand how Meghan would have been hurt by that initial interview he gave and the follow up with Piers Morgan, not to mention all the garbage spewed by her half siblings!

The whole thing is such a mess and both sides think they are the injured party! I think some face to face communication might have helped the situation. It was a huge mistake for Meghan not to visit her father prior to or immediately following the wedding. At the time I agreed with those who said the logistics would be too difficult, but her baby shower and trip to the US Open show that where there is a will there is a way. None of that absolves him of his exceedingly poor judgement in all of this.

One thing is for sure, both father and daughter are alike in that they are very concerned about how the world sees them. It might be more productive if they both worried more about how the other one is feeling and try to put themselves in the other one’s shoes rather than dwelling on their own grievances.
I feel bad for both of them. Clearly there was a terrible breakdown in the relationship and I hope they can work it out. But I also think him going to the press is worsening everything.
 

taf2002

Fluff up your tutu & dance away.....
Messages
23,169
I can also completely understand how Meghan would have been hurt by that initial interview he gave and the follow up with Piers Morgan, not to mention all the garbage spewed by her half siblings!
Piers Morgan is a talentless snake. If Meghan wanted him in her life he would come running for sure. Creep!
 

mag

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,933
I feel bad for both of them. Clearly there was a terrible breakdown in the relationship and I hope they can work it out. But I also think him going to the press is worsening everything.
I agree. Her friends going to media also makes things worse. The media is going to print whatever they can get. Her friends should know better than to add fuel to the fire.
 

taf2002

Fluff up your tutu & dance away.....
Messages
23,169
I'm not for censorship but there should be some kind of limit what the media can do & print. And we can all do our part. Refuse to buy magazines or watch slime shows that get their info from paperrazis or just make it up.
 

canbelto

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,130
Wills and Kate take George and Charlotte to see Williams favourite footie team - Aston Villa - play - and they won 5-1

Anyone for Footie!!
Pass the smelling salts! I once knew a VERY upper crust Brit who said that he didn't allow his children to even mention "football" in his presence because he'd rather die than watch that "wretched common game." If he saw W&K at a football game I'm sure he'd die of horror.
 

Lorac

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,798
Pass the smelling salts! I once knew a VERY upper crust Brit who said that he didn't allow his children to even mention "football" in his presence because he'd rather die than watch that "wretched common game." If he saw W&K at a football game I'm sure he'd die of horror.
Well that 'wretched common game' is the most popular sport here in the UK and Will's goes to a fair number of games in his role as President of the FA!!
 

canbelto

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,130
Well that 'wretched common game' is the most popular sport here in the UK and Will's goes to a fair number of games in his role as President of the FA!!
Well this guy also claimed that he had lived in the U.S. but had no idea what "baseball" was and when I said "sort of like cricket" he said "Oh well my class wouldn't know about those sorts of games." He was a real prize.
 

Lorac

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,798
Well this guy also claimed that he had lived in the U.S. but had no idea what "baseball" was and when I said "sort of like cricket" he said "Oh well my class wouldn't know about those sorts of games." He was a real prize.
Well as cricket is played in every public (private) elite boys school which 'his class' would undoubtabley have attended I suspect he is talking through his ass :D
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 3, Guests: 2)

Top