Read on Twitter
MoS defence to the Markle claim includes argument that because in her letter she was stating pre-exisiting facts, her letter cannot qualify for copyright protection as an "original" work, see @Inforrm at https://inforrm.org/2020/01/23/the-mail-on-sundays-markle-defence-a-study-in-poverty-part-2-paul-wragg/
Quite remarkable submission for a news organisation
Quite remarkable submission for a news organisation
If the MoS submission on this is correct then presumably no news organisation - or non-fiction writer - can enjoy copyright protection for their work
A bold and spirited submission which may suggest desperation in opposing Markle's copyright claim
A bold and spirited submission which may suggest desperation in opposing Markle's copyright claim
Whatever the editorial and news merits of publishing the Markle letter, on which views can legitimately differ, the extraordinary MoS legal defence is now becoming legendary
Another submission is that Markle's neat handwriting proved she wanted the letter to be published
Another submission is that Markle's neat handwriting proved she wanted the letter to be published
Part of me wants the MoS to win on these points just to show there is a place for such sheer imagination and wonder in media law litigation
I think this paragraph may be the most extraordinary submission I have ever seen in any media law case, and it deserves a prize for its audacity https://twitter.com/LeeFisher_BM/status/1220283866654683137
