Meghan’s reputation is in the gutter, and it’s not the Daily Mail’s fault. If it’s anyone’s fault, it’s Instagram and Omid Scobie’s. I am confused why everyone is rooting for the Daily Mail to stop posting untrue stories about Meghan, this lawsuit doesn’t come close to encompassing those issues. Instead, this lawsuit is about when/if a paper may publish a private letter, and how that implicates a royal’s privacy.
After more research into UK laws, I think Meghan *might* win her copyright infringement claim against the Daily Mail. Except, and this is where it gets interesting, it was her friends that brought up the letter in the first place. Let’s go back to the beginning of the lawsuit, in February 2019 Meghan sued the Daily Mail (and the Mail on Sunday and the parent corporation, the Associated Newspapers, but to save myself some typing I will continue to refer to it as the Daily Mail.) She sued because they had published excerpts of a handwritten letter that she sent to her Father prior to her wedding in August 2018. Normally, she would win automatically. Under UK law as the author of a private letter she is the owner and any subsequent publication must be done with her consent. Her father, as the named recipient is the owner of the physical copy of the letter, but the words are Meghan’s property.
This is where it gets interesting, because Thomas Markle had held onto this letter from October to February and had made no mention of it, nor had he brought any attention to its existence. However, in an article from People Magazine (an American publication which writes only nice things about celebs) five of Meghan’s friends had referenced a letter that Meghan sent her father. This complicates things, because People arguably would not have published this without permission from Meghan.
Thus, she likely consented to her friends mentioning this letter to People magazine. Why is this important? Well, you can imply consent to publish because she brought up the letter in the media first. There is also an argument that she always intended this letter to go public with how she wrote it. I don’t think that argument carries any weight, especially as an American myself I do not like handwriting analysis; it’s a bit of a pseudoscience. But, having her friends mention the letter is problematic for Meghan.
Thomas Markle only gave the letter to the Daily Mail to clear his name, and to prove, in his words that Meghan’s letter was not as kind as she made it out to be. I also think in light of the texts that we have that this could very well be the case. Harry’s texts in particular to Thomas Markle seemed a little threatening to me, but everything is subjective. So please read through the texts and come to your own conclusion. Anyway, I do believe that these “friends” will be called to testify at trial. So it will get interesting!
The next thing I want to talk about is Meghan’s reputation. I got a lot of questions on Instagram about when Meghan would drop her defamation claim and was confused. Meghan is not suing for defamation. She’s suing in intellectual property court. None of her claims have to do with defamation. Although I can understand why some people were a little confused. Meghan’s barrister (in the UK, lawyers are split up into barristers and solicitors; Barristers appear in court) mentioned that the Daily Mail was damaging Meghan’s reputation with their salacious stories. I am a little confused about why he was talking about her reputation as well, because that’s not what this case is about. Ultimately, I think her Barrister brought it up to further her case that the Daily Mail has ruined her reputation and her relationship with her father.
The hearing on Friday was a hearing to decide whether to strike portions of Meghan’s claims. Part of her claim includes several articles that the Daily Mail authored, one titled “Meghan Markle’s favorite avocado toast linked to Human Rights abuses” or something of the sort. I don’t see how this article can stay part of the suit. Meghan’s case is not about defamation, and if it were this article did nothing to slander her character. Instead, it highlighted how a western luxury food, avocados, are associated with human rights violations. I don’t know about England, but here in America avocados are mainly picked by illegal immigrants from Mexico and other South American countries. It’s no secret that as these workers are not citizens and do not have the protections the rest of the US enjoys. This information is not meant to shame anyone who eats avocados, but it is good to have this information so that you know where your money is going at the supermarket. I don’t think this article changed anyone’s opinion of Markle. And I don’t think it has anything to do with her privacy or any of her copyrights, so I don’t think it’s relevant to the suit.
Either way, we should have some rulings on this in the next few days. I look forward to reading about what happens next in this trial.
After more research into UK laws, I think Meghan *might* win her copyright infringement claim against the Daily Mail. Except, and this is where it gets interesting, it was her friends that brought up the letter in the first place. Let’s go back to the beginning of the lawsuit, in February 2019 Meghan sued the Daily Mail (and the Mail on Sunday and the parent corporation, the Associated Newspapers, but to save myself some typing I will continue to refer to it as the Daily Mail.) She sued because they had published excerpts of a handwritten letter that she sent to her Father prior to her wedding in August 2018. Normally, she would win automatically. Under UK law as the author of a private letter she is the owner and any subsequent publication must be done with her consent. Her father, as the named recipient is the owner of the physical copy of the letter, but the words are Meghan’s property.
This is where it gets interesting, because Thomas Markle had held onto this letter from October to February and had made no mention of it, nor had he brought any attention to its existence. However, in an article from People Magazine (an American publication which writes only nice things about celebs) five of Meghan’s friends had referenced a letter that Meghan sent her father. This complicates things, because People arguably would not have published this without permission from Meghan.
Thus, she likely consented to her friends mentioning this letter to People magazine. Why is this important? Well, you can imply consent to publish because she brought up the letter in the media first. There is also an argument that she always intended this letter to go public with how she wrote it. I don’t think that argument carries any weight, especially as an American myself I do not like handwriting analysis; it’s a bit of a pseudoscience. But, having her friends mention the letter is problematic for Meghan.
Thomas Markle only gave the letter to the Daily Mail to clear his name, and to prove, in his words that Meghan’s letter was not as kind as she made it out to be. I also think in light of the texts that we have that this could very well be the case. Harry’s texts in particular to Thomas Markle seemed a little threatening to me, but everything is subjective. So please read through the texts and come to your own conclusion. Anyway, I do believe that these “friends” will be called to testify at trial. So it will get interesting!
The next thing I want to talk about is Meghan’s reputation. I got a lot of questions on Instagram about when Meghan would drop her defamation claim and was confused. Meghan is not suing for defamation. She’s suing in intellectual property court. None of her claims have to do with defamation. Although I can understand why some people were a little confused. Meghan’s barrister (in the UK, lawyers are split up into barristers and solicitors; Barristers appear in court) mentioned that the Daily Mail was damaging Meghan’s reputation with their salacious stories. I am a little confused about why he was talking about her reputation as well, because that’s not what this case is about. Ultimately, I think her Barrister brought it up to further her case that the Daily Mail has ruined her reputation and her relationship with her father.
The hearing on Friday was a hearing to decide whether to strike portions of Meghan’s claims. Part of her claim includes several articles that the Daily Mail authored, one titled “Meghan Markle’s favorite avocado toast linked to Human Rights abuses” or something of the sort. I don’t see how this article can stay part of the suit. Meghan’s case is not about defamation, and if it were this article did nothing to slander her character. Instead, it highlighted how a western luxury food, avocados, are associated with human rights violations. I don’t know about England, but here in America avocados are mainly picked by illegal immigrants from Mexico and other South American countries. It’s no secret that as these workers are not citizens and do not have the protections the rest of the US enjoys. This information is not meant to shame anyone who eats avocados, but it is good to have this information so that you know where your money is going at the supermarket. I don’t think this article changed anyone’s opinion of Markle. And I don’t think it has anything to do with her privacy or any of her copyrights, so I don’t think it’s relevant to the suit.
Either way, we should have some rulings on this in the next few days. I look forward to reading about what happens next in this trial.
Comments
Post a Comment