Meghan wins ruling in Mail on Sunday privacy fight

I wish people stopped calling her by royalty, she is no royalty, she gave that up long ago. Meghan is a vile woman that ironically accuses others of lies when she has many of her own lies to hide.

I wish people stopped calling her by royalty, she is no royalty, she gave that up long ago. Meghan is a vile woman that ironically accuses others of lies when she has many of her own lies to hide.

You don't really know that she's 'vile' do you, you are just basing your opinions on whatever distorted media outlets you get your information from.

She loves defaming others and loves being the centre of attention with the constant, endless drama she produces. Her history isn't bright either. I stand by my fact that she is vile.

I wish people stopped calling her by royalty, she is no royalty, she gave that up long ago. Meghan is a vile woman that ironically accuses others of lies when she has many of her own lies to hide.

does anyone actually want to talk about the article or the judgment or the right to privacy and how it was wrong for the paper to publish a personal letter and what precedent it sets in UK law or we just want to take the opportunity to ***** about how we don't like Meghan Markle

Ridiculous judgement. Why does she consider a letter that she sent to someone else to be her property and she can dictate what happens to the content?

because it's her property as she wrote the letter. what makes it public property

She keeps the letter, it's her property. She sends the letter to her father, it's then his to do with what he chooses.

She keeps the letter, it's her property. She sends the letter to her father, it's then his to do with what he chooses.

She keeps the letter, it's her property. She sends the letter to her father, it's then his to do with what he chooses.

Agreed. Severe case of narcissism imo.

She keeps the letter, it's her property. She sends the letter to her father, it's then his to do with what he chooses.

So if you're slandered in public you can't provide evidence in public to the contrary? NO
What about the article in 'People' magazine to which Thomas Markle said he was responding? The court saw through that. The Mail didn't need to reproduce half the entire document to rebut the People article. One sentence would have done it. The court saw that the Mail was simplying pirating the letter for commercial reasons.

Isn't it also double standards to complain about the letter when you then reveal the content of private conversations on a chat show with Oprah Winfrey? So what? If any of the people with whom Meghan was conversing thought that their privacy was infringed, they could sue if they were minded to.

That isn't right.

If this letter was sent hard copy, then the piece of paper belongs to father.

That doesn't give him (or any third party) copyright in the letter, so neither he nor anyone else can publish the contents, unless it falls within an exception, without Meghan's consent.

The law of copyright doesn't stop father putting the piece of paper up for sale at Sothebys. Plenty of unpublished literary manuscripts are sold without copyright as collectors' items.

However, separately Meghan asserts that the letter was subject to a duty of confidentality which prevents father from disseminating the contents of the letter. If so that prevents him from passing on the contents even in the form of the piece of paper. Like copyright there are exceptiions and the court has said that the relevant exceptions are the same. Father can use relevant material from the letter to show that what had been said about him was untrue. But the right to publish is limited to that which is necessary to rebut the allegation. It doesn't give you the right to pirate the whole work.

Jeffrey Archer is a convicted perjurer. It doesn't mean you can pirate any of his books or reveal his sweet nothings to Mary.