This is easy

The lawyer said damages for the breach of privacy could be as high as £300,000 but that the award for the infringement of copyright could far exceed that because the Duchess is entitled to seek “an account of profits” – that is any profit made by Associated Newspapers as a result of articles using her letter to her father.

A hearing would have to assess what profits were made by the publisher’s as a result but could potentially be huge.

In the year ending September 2019, covering the period when the letter was published in February, Associated Newspapers made a pre-tax profit of £59 million and after tax of £47 million. A court would have to decide the extent of the profits the newspaper and website made from publishing its articles on the letter.


One media law expert, who declined to be named, said the costs of the case were likely to be in the region of £5m.

A fairly large loss then……

8 thoughts on “This is easy”

  1. I haven’t seen it documented but I’m guessing Thomas Markle sold the letter to the press. Perhaps it’s time for the press to sue him to recover the damages. He can’t afford it, but perhaps his “loving” daughter would step in to help out.

  2. Daily Mail must have some pretty terrible lawyers. I really couldn’t see how the Sussexes had a leg to stand on in this case, especially with the copyright issue. The whole thing just smacked of vanity. Shows you how much I ( and most of the population ) know.

  3. OK, now what Associated Newspapers should do is spike any and all news about her and the Ginger Whinger, no stories about or containing them under any circumstances. Grant the silly bitch her wish, see how she likes it!

  4. A hearing would have to assess what profits were made by the publisher’s

    The publisher’s what?

    Will this be the first cash earned by Sussexes Inc.?

  5. As I understand it, Megan wrote a letter to her father who, allegedly, sold it to the Daily Mail. Shirley, once he received that letter, it became his property and, unless the letter contained a codicil that it, and the contents, remained the property of his daughter, he could do with it what he wanted. Perhaps I’m over-simplifying the incident and American law is different, in which case, why is this being heard in the UK?

  6. @Penseivat
    The letter as an item became his property.
    That which was written on it would still belong to the Disney Princess™ given the vagaries of copyright and privacy, and could well not have been used by third parties without prior consent of the author.

    Even if the papers in question bought the physical letter off Dad (which is legal) they still would not have been able to legally publish any of the contents without getting permission of the Disney Princess™, because the letter was not a public article/publication, and as such would fall under whatever privacy laws are applicable in the jurisdiction, and definitely under copyright (globally), which has to be formally waived or transferred to whoever wanted to use the contents.

    That codicil you talk about is implied when you put pen to paper ( or keyboard to screen..). The entire entertainment industry ( books, movies, music ) depends on it for their profits…

    Whatever anyone’s opinion on the Disney Princess™ herself, she is entitled to the same protections of her “intellectual rights” as us hoi-polloi. More so because there obviously is substantial money to be made off them.

    So the verdict does not surprise me one bit.

  7. ” Penseivat
    February 12, 2021 at 12:10 pm”

    Because under American law they don’t have a case.

    1. The letter is his. She can’t even have added a codicil to it forbidding it’s disclosure without his prior agreement.

    2. It’s pretty seed law here that it doesn’t matter if the person who discloses has authorization to do so – once it’s disclosed people (anyone, not just news) can do what they want with it. This extends even to state secrets.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *