Page 3 | H&M vs Backgrid

PicturesOfDogs · 2023-05-18T19:51:54+00:00

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

Original poster

PicturesOfDogs · 19/05/2023 08:01

notanotheroneagain · 19/05/2023 07:55

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.

Show quote history

What could they sue them for though?

From what it sounds like, NY privacy laws are very lax?

I would have thought they couldn’t sue for endangering others, that sounds like a criminal investigation, which would be dealt with by the police surely?

OP posts:

skullbabe · 19/05/2023 08:02

PicturesOfDogs · 19/05/2023 07:57

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

Show quote history

But the point is now Backgrid can’t make any money off the video because no one will buy it. The statement had the effect of making the Mail and Express withdraw articles with the pictures from that night. This action will have the same effect.

notanotheroneagain · 19/05/2023 08:04

skullbabe · 19/05/2023 07:56

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.

Yep, and now everyone has taken down the pictures. I also think they announced it as a deterrent for future pap chases.

It is also possible that H&M said give us the pictures and we won't take this any further.

RegainingTheWill2023 · 19/05/2023 08:08

notanotheroneagain · 19/05/2023 07:35

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.

I can understand that this scenario was potentially dangerous to other drivers / pedestrians as well as H M and D. But if that was the case, why on earth would the Sussexes agree to putting a member of the public - the taxi driver- at the very front of this dangerous situation? This makes no sense to me at. I understand the notion of using a decoy, but if this was in the middle of a 'near catastrophic ' series of events that action would be tantamount to reckless endangerment of that individual.
I don't believe anyone should be subjected to such distressing intrusion and for H it must have been immensely triggering. But I am also aware that past trauma can impact how we experience events. External, objective evaluation may differ from subjective, personal reactions.

Sarah2891 · 19/05/2023 08:13

These two and their ridiculous demands! They need to get a grip.

ClaireEclair · 19/05/2023 08:13

notanotheroneagain · 19/05/2023 07:42

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.

Show quote history

I’m loathe to admit to reading the Daily Mail but when Megan won the latest award it was headline news. And then the ‘car chase’ took over.

8roses · 19/05/2023 08:18

Jeez they’re an embarrassment - every single time

8roses · 19/05/2023 08:22

Their letter (no legal basis to make such a demand) We hereby demand that Backgrid immediately provide us with copies of all photos, videos, and/or films taken last night by the freelance photographers after the couple left their event and over the next several hours."
Good luck suing in New York 😂

notanotheroneagain · 19/05/2023 08:28

RegainingTheWill2023 · 19/05/2023 08:08

I can understand that this scenario was potentially dangerous to other drivers / pedestrians as well as H M and D. But if that was the case, why on earth would the Sussexes agree to putting a member of the public - the taxi driver- at the very front of this dangerous situation? This makes no sense to me at. I understand the notion of using a decoy, but if this was in the middle of a 'near catastrophic ' series of events that action would be tantamount to reckless endangerment of that individual.
I don't believe anyone should be subjected to such distressing intrusion and for H it must have been immensely triggering. But I am also aware that past trauma can impact how we experience events. External, objective evaluation may differ from subjective, personal reactions.

Show quote history

Which is why they only spent 10 minutes with him. The guy admits that initially, they had shaken them off, but they somehow found them and he dropped them off at a police precinct nearby.

Butitsnotfunnyisititsserious · 19/05/2023 08:30

Great response from Backgrid. At least they're telling them straight. Hopefully Backgrid will blacklist them now.

CosmosQueen · 19/05/2023 08:33

Butitsnotfunnyisititsserious · 19/05/2023 08:30

Great response from Backgrid. At least they're telling them straight. Hopefully Backgrid will blacklist them now.

And if Backgrid black list them I can’t imagine any other agency will want them!

skullbabe · 19/05/2023 08:40

smilesy · 19/05/2023 07:38

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.

Show quote history

I copy my comment from elsewhere to just clarify some things

H&M and Doria left an event when they were followed by paparazzi. They were being followed to find out where they were staying and perhaps to take pictures of their children. The economics of the industry are such that regular pictures don't really sell but an exclusive of them in a private setting, like exiting a friend's apartment building in casual clothes or with their children would be worth a fortune.

In an attempt to lose the paparazzi the couple’s security drive around the city taking one way streets and driving occasionally on the highway. The paparazzi, in an attempt to not lose them, drove through red lights (almost causing accidents), drove on the pavement (high potential of colliding with pedestrians) and overall drove around dangerously in their attempt not to lose a potentially lucrative shot/shots almost crashing into other traffic. There was no mention of high speeds by the couple but they have reported by the paparazzi themselves (in an attempt to distance themselves from the dangerous driving criticism).

In an attempt to lose the paparazzi they went to the police - at this point they caught a taxi to try and blend in. Unfortunately they were blocked in by a truck and they were found by the paparazzi who took more pictures. They returned to the police station after 10 -15 minutes in the taxi and finally figured out a way to lose the paparazzi.

The mayor, the police, the taxi driver and even the paparazzi themselves agree with this sequence of events of the night.

How would you describe the behaviour of the paparazzi towards the general public and other traffic?

RegainingTheWill2023 · 19/05/2023 08:40

notanotheroneagain · 19/05/2023 08:28

Which is why they only spent 10 minutes with him. The guy admits that initially, they had shaken them off, but they somehow found them and he dropped them off at a police precinct nearby.

Show quote history

That doesn't explain it at all. If they believed they were in a potentially life threatening situation (for them or members of the public) why would they opt to put a member of the public (literally) in the driving seat?
The 2 positions are contradictory. The fact that the driver had to turn back after 10 mins because their route was blocked by a truck is irrelevant. The driver said he never felt in danger.
I know nothing about the laws in NY so it will be interesting for me to see what transpires on the criminal front and whether the Sussexes have a basis to sue.

RegainingTheWill2023 · 19/05/2023 08:46

skullbabe · 19/05/2023 08:40

I copy my comment from elsewhere to just clarify some things

H&M and Doria left an event when they were followed by paparazzi. They were being followed to find out where they were staying and perhaps to take pictures of their children. The economics of the industry are such that regular pictures don't really sell but an exclusive of them in a private setting, like exiting a friend's apartment building in casual clothes or with their children would be worth a fortune.

In an attempt to lose the paparazzi the couple’s security drive around the city taking one way streets and driving occasionally on the highway. The paparazzi, in an attempt to not lose them, drove through red lights (almost causing accidents), drove on the pavement (high potential of colliding with pedestrians) and overall drove around dangerously in their attempt not to lose a potentially lucrative shot/shots almost crashing into other traffic. There was no mention of high speeds by the couple but they have reported by the paparazzi themselves (in an attempt to distance themselves from the dangerous driving criticism).

In an attempt to lose the paparazzi they went to the police - at this point they caught a taxi to try and blend in. Unfortunately they were blocked in by a truck and they were found by the paparazzi who took more pictures. They returned to the police station after 10 -15 minutes in the taxi and finally figured out a way to lose the paparazzi.

The mayor, the police, the taxi driver and even the paparazzi themselves agree with this sequence of events of the night.

How would you describe the behaviour of the paparazzi towards the general public and other traffic?

Show quote history

I don't understand why the police did not act on the repeated dangerous driving actions of the paparazzi

RightWhereYouLeftMe · 19/05/2023 08:46

H&M and Doria left an event when they were followed by paparazzi. They were being followed to find out where they were staying and perhaps to take pictures of their children. The economics of the industry are such that regular pictures don't really sell but an exclusive of them in a private setting, like exiting a friend's apartment building in casual clothes or with their children would be worth a fortune.

That makes sense. Do you know, are the laws in California different? Because I don't think I've ever seen a paparazzi picture of them with their children (admittedly it could have passed me by). Do they not get paparazzi on the drive to nursery, for example?

skullbabe · 19/05/2023 08:47

Meghan successfully sued an agency who took pictures of Archie.

skullbabe · 19/05/2023 08:49

RegainingTheWill2023 · 19/05/2023 08:46

I don't understand why the police did not act on the repeated dangerous driving actions of the paparazzi

Show quote history

The police were with them for about 20 minutes and therefore were not present for the worst of it - that’s why they had to go to the police station for help. The paparazzi themselves corroborate that there was some questionable driving going on - you don’t have to take H&M’s word for it.

smilesy · 19/05/2023 08:57

skullbabe · 19/05/2023 08:40

I copy my comment from elsewhere to just clarify some things

H&M and Doria left an event when they were followed by paparazzi. They were being followed to find out where they were staying and perhaps to take pictures of their children. The economics of the industry are such that regular pictures don't really sell but an exclusive of them in a private setting, like exiting a friend's apartment building in casual clothes or with their children would be worth a fortune.

In an attempt to lose the paparazzi the couple’s security drive around the city taking one way streets and driving occasionally on the highway. The paparazzi, in an attempt to not lose them, drove through red lights (almost causing accidents), drove on the pavement (high potential of colliding with pedestrians) and overall drove around dangerously in their attempt not to lose a potentially lucrative shot/shots almost crashing into other traffic. There was no mention of high speeds by the couple but they have reported by the paparazzi themselves (in an attempt to distance themselves from the dangerous driving criticism).

In an attempt to lose the paparazzi they went to the police - at this point they caught a taxi to try and blend in. Unfortunately they were blocked in by a truck and they were found by the paparazzi who took more pictures. They returned to the police station after 10 -15 minutes in the taxi and finally figured out a way to lose the paparazzi.

The mayor, the police, the taxi driver and even the paparazzi themselves agree with this sequence of events of the night.

How would you describe the behaviour of the paparazzi towards the general public and other traffic?

Show quote history

I’m not saying that it was a safe way to carry on, my dispute is with the “near catastrophic” hyperbole, as no one has said they came close to being in that sort of situation. And also we have conflicting reports as to who was behaving more dangerously, the paps or the security detail. Maybe we will get more details in the fullness of time. Who knows.

RegainingTheWill2023 · 19/05/2023 08:57

skullbabe · 19/05/2023 08:49

The police were with them for about 20 minutes and therefore were not present for the worst of it - that’s why they had to go to the police station for help. The paparazzi themselves corroborate that there was some questionable driving going on - you don’t have to take H&M’s word for it.

Show quote history

I was questioning the lack of action by police not suggesting that the paparazzi didn't violate traffic laws.

MrsFinkelstein · 19/05/2023 08:58

Not read the full thread, but I'm reminded of the comments made to the RF about them asking for a full copy of the Anderson Cooper interview with Harry before it aired (it had much less sark, but similar sentiments IMO).

"Lawyers of the crown also did that with Good Morning America when Prince Harry was interviewed by them. And again, Good Morning America refused.

"We received a response from the law firm representing Buckingham Palace this morning, while we were on the air, saying that the Palace needed to 'consider exactly what is said in the interview, in the context in which it appears' and asked that we supply them immediately with a copy of the entire interview, which we do not do as a news organization, as a matter of our policy," the morning show said in a statement."

Anderson Cooper made a comment on air about how things are done differently in the US (as they don't have a Monarchy being the unspoken shade was the interpretation many took).

Haywirecity · 19/05/2023 08:59

notanotheroneagain · 19/05/2023 07:35

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.

I'm sympathetic to Harry et al over this. I think paps' behaviour is out of control. But Harry's security team are professionals. If they genuinely felt that the 'chase' was endangering peoples lives with a serious possibility of a catastrophic outcome, they should have pulled to the pavement and stopped it. And then requested assistance from the police. As soon as they knew there was danger to life and they continued with the chase, they lost any moral high ground and became equally culpable.

Booklover40 · 19/05/2023 09:00

They deserve snarkiness - utter, utter arseholes the pair of them.

Butitsnotfunnyisititsserious · 19/05/2023 09:00

And if Backgrid black list them I can’t imagine any other agency will want them!

Definitely not. This could be a great thing!

8roses · 19/05/2023 09:11

😂

MrsFinkelstein · 19/05/2023 09:13

RegainingTheWill2023 · 19/05/2023 08:46

I don't understand why the police did not act on the repeated dangerous driving actions of the paparazzi

Show quote history

From the type of driving described in the post you're quoting, I suspect its because its nothing different from usual traffic in NYC.

That's what the taxi driver said - he's used to NYC, it didn't scare him.

And as for the claim the videos and photos are no longer available - they're still all over US media.