Meghan beats the Mail

Well done to her. Have nothing but admiration for her.

Anniebach.
As you have said'why not sue her friends'?.

I don't think you can draw a parallel between private letters about private matters and letters between ministers which, regardless of if they are publicly or privately sent, contain matters which might be of public interest.
As for "why not sue her friends?" did they publish her letters?

Friends ? They tell lies about her father which is made public ,
and she has no problem with this .

Gosh you must know Meghan far better than the rest of us Annie

I’m relieved that Meghan Markle prevailed over the Daily Mail. That paper has published endless negative articles about MM and Prince Harry.
I agree with trisher, this outcome helps privacy for all of us and won’t impact on investigating and reporting on political shenanigans

It seems to be less widely publicised than one would expect.

Well it was all over the news last night and this morning extended too.

No need for that reply trisher. her friends told lies, she has won the case of private mail being published but it does not change the fact she had no problem with lies about her father
being published

They're estranged, aren't they?
Why would she take on his problems? She has enough of her own, with her life being picked over, I would think.

The actual physical letter is the property of the person who receives it. What’s written in it is the copyright of the person who wrote. It’s like having a book - you own it but are very limited as to what you can reproduce from it by copyright laws. It’s incredibly easy to understand regardless of your feelings about MM.

Has she taken on his problems? her friends lied and he proved
they lied,

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-prince-harry-wins-substantial-23420878

Oh look it’s the Mail again losing in court

Thank you callistemon and suziewoozie. The copyright issue is clear to me now.

It does seem unfair though, that the person who writes the letter can use the media to broadcast its contents, but the person who receives it cannot, not even to disprove.

It’s about time that the newspapers were exposed for what they are, they have contributed to the wrecking of Prince Harry and his wife’s reputation and tried to manipulate public opinion.

I do not reach my opinions on them from the press but by their own words and actions.

The Mail broke the law when they published the letter but the
letter told the truth which her friends didn’t do

Anniebach Through what medium do you know their words and actions?

Unless you know them personally, then you must read their own words and reports of their actions somewhere. How can you be sure of the accuracy of the reporting?

I believe only the privacy legal question was ruled on, the copyright legal question can go on to trial. It may not be over, as it may go to appeal.

When they were in S.A. She gave a tv interview, her concern ?
no one had asked her when she was pregnant if she was ok .

His performance when their son was born, it was private , he
made announcement that there would be no announcement then called the press to Windsor to film them .

As long as they had a healthy baby that was all I was concerned
with but they dismissed many members of the public who cared, those who sent gifts, stood on pavements ,

They were then working royals, it’s a two way thing , always has been.

I'm very happy for Meghan and Harry. It's one in the eye for the tabloids and all those sanctimonious columnists in the "quality" newspapers who took part in the massive feeding frenzy that helped drive them out of this country.

And I have never stood on a pavement to see any member of
the royals.never would.

suziewoozie

The actual physical letter is the property of the person who receives it. What’s written in it is the copyright of the person who wrote. It’s like having a book - you own it but are very limited as to what you can reproduce from it by copyright laws. It’s incredibly easy to understand regardless of your feelings about MM.

Wasn't Jeremy Thorpe convicted because of things he wrote in a letter to Norman Scott? The letter was produced by Norman Scott and the wording was made public and analysed.

Chestnut

suziewoozie

The actual physical letter is the property of the person who receives it. What’s written in it is the copyright of the person who wrote. It’s like having a book - you own it but are very limited as to what you can reproduce from it by copyright laws. It’s incredibly easy to understand regardless of your feelings about MM.

Wasn't Jeremy Thorpe convicted because of things he wrote in a letter to Norman Scott? The letter was produced by Norman Scott and the wording was made public and analysed.

Is that equivalent? I don’t think so

If what is written is the copyright f the person who wrote it then the words belonged to Jeremy Thorpe and they infringed his copyright.

I’m glad she’s won and can now go back to her private life in US with no further intrusions into her privacy......oh wait ?