H&M vs Backgrid

[PicturesOfDogs]

H&M have apparently ’demanded’ pap footage from Backgrid, according to TMZ.

Their lawyer has replied with the following:

In America, as I'm sure you know, property belongs to the owner of it: Third parties cannot just demand it be given to them, as perhaps Kings can do. Perhaps you should sit down with your client and advise them that his English rules of royal prerogative to demand that the citizenry hand over their property to the Crown were rejected by this country long ago. We stand by our founding fathers

Court case #6 incoming?

https://amp.tmz.com/2023/05/18/prince-harry-meghan-markle-demand-photo-agency-give-them-footage-of-chase/

The only footage I’ve seen is stills of Harry, Meghan and Doria sitting in the back seat of as stationary yellow cab. Is there other footage?

Yep!
Ironic isn’t it?! 😄

Very funny reply in fairness.

Near catastrophic, who knows. There's a weird crossover going on with Meghan channelling Diana re the paps and Harry in the middle of that. Good timing with the upcoming Met case in the UK too.

Either way, just go live your lives, stop fighting everything, particularly the media, you just won't win.

I’m a bit confused here.

It appears no one in NYC has a mobile phone with a camera, otherwise there would be hundreds of video clips documenting the two hour long chase across the city.

are American phone’s different?

As others have said, it’s pretty common for celebs to do a covert hotel transport switch in order to keep their actual accommodation private. Being followed by the press to your doorstep for more photos/stories is sadly a fact of life for anyone in the public eye, including normal people who become newsworthy for some other reason. Either the security wasn’t very professional and didn’t plan for this possibility, or perhaps the circumstances on the ground were triggering for H&M and so the orders became panicked and erratic. The poor man was probably having a panic attack in the back of the car. Their/his perception of what happened may not hold with objective evidence/footage of how it played out, as it could have triggered a very emotional response.

It does, however, make language like “near-catastrophic” sound a bit hyperbolic and attention seeking after the event. They could have said “intimidating, stressful, frightening” etc which could be more accurate for their actual experience rather than claiming some kind of near miss. It would also be much harder for the photographers to use footage to discredit their subjective experience.

I do actually think it’s a shame that once again, this is over-shadowing the award that Meghan received… rather than continuing with her post RF projects and not dwelling on the past, as she seems now to be, this whole thing just brings the conversation back onto their victim status and how the nasty RF/home office don’t provide specialist security(as Harry is currently fighting in court). I almost feel they are pulling in different directions, Meghan wants a glittering celeb career and to be taken seriously in her field, Harry seems mostly to want to settle scores.

phones. hate misplaced apostrophes.

This lawyer is stupid.

They should just give H&M the pics if they feel they did nothing wrong.

My feeling is that H&M are working with NYPD to show that people's lives were in danger. People who work in the area say the paps had cars and ebikes following them, zigzagging, circling round and bumping off packed cars. Even if Backgrid erases the evidence, I hope the police have CCTV of the areas.

Meanwhile, I would back off if I was Backgrid because last time MM sued the paps, she bankrupted them to shutdown.

I do actually think it’s a shame that once again, this is over-shadowing the award that Meghan received

Absolutely. They seem stuck in the dramatic victim narrative and are unable to move on and move on they must if they want to stay relevant. I think the award was supposed to be just that, but it get all dragged back into the familiar overdramatising whinge.

It does, however, make language like “near-catastrophic” sound a bit hyperbolic and attention seeking after the event. They could have said “intimidating, stressful, frightening” etc which could be more accurate for their actual experience rather than claiming some kind of near miss. It would also be much harder for the photographers to use footage to discredit their subjective experience.

You seem to be confusing things, it was near catastrophic to others, not to H&M.

It's a sarcastic response to a preposterous demand

Yep. And pretty funny.

It may also be an indication of how Americans are getting a bit fed up of the Sussexes?

My feeling is that H&M are working with NYPD to show that people's lives were in danger.

Why would they need to work with the police on this? Why not just leave it to the police? Obviously provide statements but there's no need for them to be demanding photos when the police could presumably do that. And the Backgrid lawyer wouldn't get the chance to be oh so hilarious with the police.

It wasn’t though, was it? There were no accidents or injuries. No one has even reported a “near miss” (apart from the photographers saying that they felt that the security driver was behaving dangerously according to them). It doesn’t appear that high speeds were involved at any time. No shots were fired and the taxi driver says that he never felt any danger.

That's exactly what I was thinking 🤔

They did! Read it again and use your comprehension skills.

" royal prerogative to demand that the citizenry hand over their property to the Crown were rejected by this country long ago" = the rejection referred to was the American war of independence.

"we stand by our founding fathers" = another reference to the rebellion and the Act of independence.

As if British media ever reports on anything positive about H&M.

They never report on any awards they win, and they have won plenty. They never report on their successful talks nor any other event or charity they do. So no loss there really.

Hell, GMB went and took the word of one of the paparazzi, who played the whole thing down, even though they were leaning on H&M car. The irony of him wearing and hoodie and not wanting to be identified is funny.

The fail had the pics up and took them down after the statement.

This chase was particularly aggressive though, pics were eerily like Diana. Super sus. Glad they told the world.

Mmmm my understanding is that in the UK the RF pretty much control what the press publish with lots of stuff hidden from public view.

I really don't understand the issue here. I get that they want to keep where they are staying private but they should have planned better. It's just some photographs, they are just so full of their own self importance. I like the response from Backgrid, it shows us what they think of H&M.

Sorry it was meant to be an answer to this quote.

They don't care about positive coverage in the UK. That ship's sailed.

They need to reinvent themselves in the US, but they are not able to move on form the familiar narrative.

I'm awaiting the press release from the Sussex's about their "collaboration" with NYPD on road safety.
I presume it'll be released a day or two before they tell the NYPD about their plan.

I disagree that the RF control the press. I think deals are done and access given in some areas if withdrawn in others. So you don't get the press photographing the kids at school everyday, in exchange for photos at specific events.
We do have laws which mean the press have to adhere to certain codes of conduct. Which they've brought on themselves, since self regulation was abused (phone hacking scandal) and the press can't just print rumours. As I understand it, if called upon they would need to substantiate a printed story, which is why they allude to rumour but don't outright print it. That seems fair enough to me.

Celebrities often have deals with the press - they release one story to quash another. What does need looking at is this injunction business, that seems to keep celebrities mucky personal lives out of the press. I don't understand how these are granted. While some celebs extra marital affair might not be our business, if it's probably true, then I don't see how a celebrity gets to keep that secret by using injunctions. I thought they were for protecting information that would cause damage to the public if released.

Gosh, it would take time and resources to go through CCTV by the police.

I'm thinking it's probably even quicker to just sue Backgrid - because with a lawsuit, they would be obliged to hand over the footage. lol.

I think that H&M have rendered the footage worthless by doing this - no reputable news agency will buy it now especially after Meghan bankrupted the last paparazzi agency she took to court. And I think that is the point.

'Probably' should say provable

I don’t think what you’re saying makes sense. At all.

Why do you feel they are ‘working with the police’ when the police most certainly do not require H&Ms lawyers to make demands on their behalf.

The police can demand footage, H&M lawyers cannot. They couldn’t demand it in the UK either.

Also the case Meghan won was due to the paper using her property/copyright.

I can’t see how she bring a successful case to Backgrid, when they own the copyright?

This demand seems really heavy handed and ill advised