Harry and Meghan mess with the wrong Hollywood lawyer at the worst time
Sussexes "galling" demand for footage from that alleged car chase prompts a smackdown heard 'round the world—and serves as a rallying cry for paparazzi
Aux Features Harry
It may be the most notorious kinda-sorta car chase since O.J. Simpson soft-pedaled a Ford Bronco across the L.A. freeway nearly 30 years ago. Earlier this month, following a dinner in New York City honoring Meghan Markle for her advocacy work, the Duchess of Sussex and her gingersnap Prince Harry said they were involved in a “near catastrophic car chase” by paparazzi hell-bent on their money shot. But almost immediately the account was called into question. Even New York City Mayor Eric Adams, who described the incident to reporters as “reckless and irresponsible,” professed some doubt: “I would find it hard to believe there was a two-hour high-speed chase, but we will find out the exact duration of it.”
Yikes. Two days later, perhaps charred by the blowback, the couple, vis a vis their lawyers, ordered the California-based celebrity photo agency Backgrid to turn over its images from the alleged pursuit. It was a presumptuous ask, delivered with a kind of pomp more familiar to Buckingham footmen than Hollywood paps. (“We hereby demand … ,” it purportedly began.) Even in Hollywood, ground zero for do you know who I am? arm-twisting, it ranked right up there with the Beyoncé publicist who asked Buzzfeed to remove from the site unflattering photos of the star’s 2013 Super Bowl performance. Pfffft. As if.
Backgrid lawyers seized on the ridiculous ask. Only this was no regular “Dear Sir: Please be advised” kiss-off. Backgrid fired back with a singularly sneering response, dripping with icy satisfaction. Cue up the Hamilton soundtrack cuz Backgrid ain’t throwing away its shot on this one:
“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.”
In Hollywood, lawyers typically leave the theatrics to their clients, but the retort was so bombastic—so Al Pacino with a flame-thrower levels of histrionic—it naturally became its own story. Deadline politely called it a “blunt rejection,” while the British press practically sucked the gravy off its fingers. “US photo agency refuses to hand over pics of Harry & Meghan because America beat King George III in a war 250 years ago,” declared The Sun.
The Backgrid lawyer who actually penned the sick burn has remained anonymous. Until now.
“It was a galling request,” says Joanna “Jo” Ardalan, 40, a partner at One LLP, a Beverly Hills-based boutique firm specializing in intellectual property and copyright law, which has represented Backgrid for over five years. So galling, says Ardalan, who is also an adjunct professor at Loyola Law School, that she spent a solid two hours crafting a response she hoped would “put them in their place.” Mission accomplished.
“Do they really think they can do that to businesses just trying to do their work?” she snapped.
To be clear, Backgrid hasn’t heard from Team Sussex since the response. And the photos from that night? Ardalan says “they don’t show anything remotely representing a near catastrophe or a two-hour chase through the crowded streets of Manhattan.”
But whether they realized it or not, the Sussexes did more than just flex their self-perceived muscle against the press, their perennial foe, when they sent the missive. They also became an inadvertent billboard for a much, much bigger issue causing serious concern in the creative orbits of Hollywood and beyond: the rights of photographers and other creators to ownership over their work.
Two days after Backgrid flipped Team Sussex lawyers the proverbial bird, the Supreme Court ruled that, in effect, Andy Warhol had appropriated a photo of Prince by celebrity shutterbug Lynn Goldsmith to create one of his iconic silkscreens. She sued when Warhol’s estate later licensed an image of it to Condé Nast for use in one of its magazines. In siding with Goldsmith, the justices ruled that Warhol’s artistic interpretation of the photo didn’t trump Goldsmith’s copyright in it, a decision that sent a palpable shiver down the spine of creative communities around the world. “It strikes at the heart of the way artists today have been raised to make and understand art,” wrote the Brooklyn Museum in an amicus brief filed to the Supreme Court.
But for Ardalan, who also represents Backgrid in a suit against Twitter for not policing copyrighted photos on its platform, it was a validation of sorts, a win for much-maligned celebrity photographers. “We want to incentivize creators, like photographers. If people like Andy Warhol are free to create derivative works for competing uses, that undermines the photographers’ incentive to create in the first place,” she explained.
For Harry and Meghan, the case underscores the bald absurdity of not just their demand, but their attempts to rewrite the well-established quid pro quo between paparazzi and stars: we give you attention you want, and you let us pay our rent with the fruits of that labor. It also raised uncomfortable questions about the hypocrisy of their position if one is to believe the likes of Megyn Kelly and Piers Morgan, who say Markle alerts photographers when she wants to be snapped. A case of biting the hand that feeds you?
“I don’t know anything about that,” Ardalan said.
172 Comments
For Harry and Meghan, the case underscores the bald absurdity of not just their demand, but their attempts to rewrite the well-established quid pro quo between paparazzi and stars: we give you attention you want, and you let us pay our rent with the fruits of that labor. It also raised uncomfortable questions about the hypocrisy of their position if one is to believe the likes of Megyn Kelly and Piers Morgan, who say Markle alerts photographers when she wants to be snapped.I love how this article contradicts itself within a single paragraph. It sounds like Harry and Meghan very much understand the quid-pro-quo relationship between photographer and subject, hence Meghan alerting photographers when she wants to be photographed, hoping that they’ll be more deferential and less bloodthirsty when she doesn’t want to be. I also find it odd to reference the OJ Simpson car chase of all things but completely fail to mention the fact that Harry’s own mother died in a car crash while fleeing paparazzi three years after that chase. But that would make the unabashed defense of paparazzi here seem gross, right? It seems to me that Harry and Meghan demanded the footage from the incident not because they thought it was their God-given right as royals to have it, but because they felt unsafe and wanted to expose the people who put them in that position. I’m all for robust copyright laws to protect artists, but paparazzi photographers are perhaps not the best representative to make that case. They’re not artists so much as glorified vultures, continually punishing people for the horrible crime of being famous. As was noted, there can be some benefits to the celebrity. But more often than not, it’s a burden that no one, even the rich and famous, should have to bear.
“but because they felt unsafe and wanted to expose the people who put them in that position.”Or. The footage shows that H&M grossly exaggerated their claims. who knows.
Maybe! Though it seems like two people who are very much used to being in the public eye would have realized that the existing footage would disprove their story and they had no legal right to it before they made the claims that they made. I agree though. Who knows.
Why would Harry & Meg request footage that contradicts their account of a dangerous chase? More like they know what they experienced and want the footage made public to expose the truth of the paparazzi’s actions.
Yeah, the video or photos would pretty well show whether the photographer was behaving dangerously. I can understand Backgrid not wanting to share them either way, because it sets a precedent that if they ever decline to do so it’s a de facto admission of wrongdoing. So discovery it is, if they’re serious.
“Or. The footage shows that H&M grossly exaggerated their claims. who knows.”
You know that they were requesting *A COPY* of the footage, right?
What would be the benefit of them requesting the footage if they know that they were lying? Which of Harry and Meghan benefits from that, and HOW do they benefit from it?
Good thing the pap’s lawyer didn’t want to disprove H&M claims though by turning over any photos/videos. Which should be EXACTLY the response from H&M “in light of these useless fucking paps not surrendering any contradictory evidence, we can only assume that refusal is due to knowledge of illegal or unethical behavior on their client’s behalf”. Because, this useless blogger’s biased opinion notwithstanding, fuck paparazzi. Get a real job.
I don’t think anyone needs to be reminded about what happened to Di, nor about the major differences between what happened then and this instance.
That’s the thing though, isn’t it? We don’t know how close they came to a similar accident. They could be completely exaggerating the danger they were in or they very well could have been in legitimate peril or somewhere in between.I imagine that most people reading this know how Princess Diana died and that she was Harry’s mother, but it still seems like pretty important context to leave out when you’re providing a full-throated defense of the paparazzi in this not unrelated incident. Especially when you’ve found the space for random asides about OJ Simpson and Andy Warhol.
We kind of do though: From all reports it was a low speed circle around the building they had left for about an hour, then they went to a cop shop and got in a taxi, whose driver stated it was nothing like a chase and they were never in danger. No high speeds, no drunk driving, nothing like that situation.
Possibly even lies about how NYPD officers were put in danger, because if that was the case I am absolutely sure there would have been arrests.
That’s fair. I hadn’t dug into the updates about the case. Still not a fan of this one-sided article painting the paparazzi as heroes though.
“We kind of do though”
Except that we very much do not.
That’s the thing though, isn’t it? We don’t know how close they came to a similar accident.
Except we do know that they didn’t come anywhere close.
Diana died in a car accident caused by a drunk driver driving erratically for the situation and would have lived if she had bothered to wear a seatbelt. Let’s stop this whole “paps killed her” nonsense.
The paparazzi hounding her put her in a situation where she made some bad choices. The driver was fleeing from them when he crashed.
“Let’s stop this whole “paps killed her” nonsense.”
Right, because they had nothing to do with it. They were just trying to earn some money for their starving children, right?
Given the lack of it being mentioned, I assume the writer didn’t.
Princess Diana died because the car she was driving in was being driven recklessly. If they want to avoid a “similar accident,” they have the ability to do so in hand.
You really think in today’s age of everyone having a camera on them and in a city where someone is almost invariably always recording sometime somewhere, that noone managed to catch the so called “high speed” car chase over the course of the supposed 2 hours on camera?
This blogger that’s fellating paparazzi probably could use that reminder.
The paparazzi are not going to rest until Harry and Megan die in a car crash like Harry’s mum, and then everyone’s going to go, “Oh well, terrible wasn’t it”
Paparazzi have freaking cameras, not bazookas and uzis. Stop with the theatrics. Even Diana’s driver fucked up trying to outrace people with cameras. Cameras. Maybe the phrase shooting some pictures confuses you.
“but completely fail to mention the fact that Harry’s own mother died in a car crash while fleeing paparazzi three years after that chase”I think because it’s not relevant. The comparison to the OJ Simpson chase (which, the author should be correct, the car was driven by Cowlings, not Simpson), was because it was a slow-speed, hours-long chase, which is what the Sussexes claim happened here (though I guess they are claiming high-speed).Diana did die in a paparazzi chase. But that’s not even close to what happened here, and they invoked that thinking it would get them sympathy. I don’t actually dislike the Sussexes, but even I, a yogi of over 10 years, can stretch far enough to believe this story.“It seems to me that Harry and Meghan demanded the footage from the incident not because they thought it was their God-given right as royals to have it, but because they felt unsafe and wanted to expose the people who put them in that position.”Nahhhhh. Feeling unsafe (allegedly) doesn’t give you the right to demand people give you their shit. If they felt they wanted to “expose” someone, they should file a lawsuit and get the footage via the discovery process like normal people. What’s more likely is that they exaggerated a story, and instead of just letting it go they are insulted that anyone would question them, and they are doubling down. Their lawyer knew good and damn well they had no right to that footage, but they had him or her write the letter anyway so that then they could say “look, look! they’re hiding something!” It’s smoke and mirrors. If there were a 2-hour high-speed chase through the streets of Manhattan (have you ever been to Manhattan? How Sway??), the mayor and the police department would have known about it and would have said so, but both the mayor and the police have questioned this story and said it doesn’t match what they know about what happened.And it’s fine to hate paparazzi. I know they cause trouble and are invasive. But they take photographs and they have rights to those photographs, and saying they shouldn’t have those rights because they’re gross just means the non-gross photographers lose those rights too. That’s the thing about rights. Everyone gets them, even if they’re gross.
I think because it’s not relevant. It is though. Even if what they’re claiming happened didn’t happen, it’s clearly what they were trying to evoke and still way more relevant than the OJ chase. Feeling unsafe (allegedly) doesn’t give you the right to demand people give you their shit.Oh sure. I’m not saying that they had a legal leg to stand on. But there’s a moral justification for wanting the footage if it would prove that the photographers put them in danger. But they take photographs and they have rights to those photographs, and saying they shouldn’t have those rights because they’re gross just means the non-gross photographers lose those rights too. Of course. Who’s arguing that they shouldn’t have the same rights as other photographers? Certainly not me. But I still find it more than a little tone deaf to make them out to be heroes and public servants nobly resisting the unwarranted attacks from a guy whose mother they killed. And all because some lawyer sent a snarky email that sounds like it was written by some MAGA chud.
“it’s clearly what they were trying to evoke and still way more relevant than the OJ chase.”They, the Sussexes? That’s absolutely what they were trying to evoke, which is manipulative and unfair, since the “chase” was nothing like that.“But there’s a moral justification for wanting the footage if it would prove that the photographers put them in danger.”I mean, kind of, but there are ways to do that. Legal ways that don’t involve the words “We hereby demand.” They could have just said publicly “we know what happened, and we know their footage proves it, and if they are claiming differently we call upon them to prove it by producing the footage.” Or, as I said, suing them, but they aren’t suing them because then the burden would be on the Sussexes to prove what they say happened happened, and since it didn’t, they’d have a hard time, so they have to hereby demand.“Who’s arguing that they shouldn’t have the same rights as other photographers?”I kind of felt like you were! You drew a distinction between regular photographers and these photographers who are merely “not artists so much as glorified vultures, continually punishing people for the horrible crime of being famous.” That read to me as saying they are not real photographers deserving of artist’s rights, but I’m willing to hear that I misunderstood.
They, the Sussexes? That’s absolutely what they were trying to evoke, which is manipulative and unfair, since the “chase” was nothing like that.Yes. That they. If you don’t think that what happened to them is at all similar to what happened to their mother, say so in the article. Much better than pretending it’s not at all germaine to the conversation. “We hereby demand.” Tone-deaf phrasing for sure. That read to me as saying they are not real photographers deserving of artist’s rights, but I’m willing to hear that I misunderstood.But right before that I said that they’re not the best representatives to use if you want to make a case for artists’ rights. Meaning that while they do fit under the broad banner of “creator” and therefore should have the same legal protections as anyone else, you’d be better off picking a less scummy group to make your case that copyright protections are important.
“If you don’t think that what happened to them is at all similar to what happened to their mother, say so in the article.”But why? If I’m writing an article I don’t know that I should have to also talk about all the things that I don’t think are relevant… The author here was making an off-hand joke about notable slow-speed car chases. That’s the Simpson car chase, not the Diana car chase. She wasn’t talking about what the Sussexes were *trying to* evoke. She was talking about what the car “chase” *actually* evoked.“Tone-deaf phrasing for sure.”Agree!“But right before that I said that they’re not the best representatives to use if you want to make a case for artists’ rights.”Fair enough, but I’ll tell you what. As a lawyer I learned you deal with the client that comes in your door. If it’s right it’s right, no matter how scummy the client.
If I’m writing an article I don’t know that I should have to also talk about all the things that I don’t think are relevantBut again, it’s not a question of relevance. When a man is claiming that paparazzi photographers caused him to get into a dangerous high-speed chase, the fact this his very famous mother famously died in that same situation when he was a small child is completely relevant. It’s either relevant because it gives his fears credibility or it’s relevant because you think he’s callously using it to gain sympathy for a situation that was a minor annoyance at best. Very relevant regardless. As a lawyer I learned you deal with the client that comes in your door.Absolutely. We’re not talking about the lawyer though. We’re talking about a blogger penning a story in which they make a case for robust copyright protections. Not the best example to pick if you’re trying to win people to your side.
“It’s either relevant because it gives his fears credibility or it’s relevant because you think he’s callously using it to gain sympathy for a situation that was a minor annoyance at best.”Okay but none of that is what this article is about. All of that was discussed in the articles about the allegations and about the chase. This article is specifically about the demand for photographs and the lawyer’s response. There was absolutely no need to go into whether their fears were well-founded or not. It wasn’t about the chase. It was about the conversation between the lawyers. The Simpson chase quip was just that, a quip. A joke. About it being a lengthy, notorious, kind of insane chase that dominated the news cycle for a long time. It was supposed to be funny. “Harry’s mother gruesomely died in a not-so similar chase” not only wasn’t relevant to the topic of the article, it also wouldn’t have been funny in the least. They were specifically talking about a “kinda-sorta car chase.” No one can reasonably believe that this was actually a two-hour, high-speed car chase. We all know it was a “kinda-sorta car chase.” Diana’s was a real car chase. This one and the Simpson one were “kinda-sorta car chases.” Whether their fears were well-founded or not (they weren’t), the chases were nowhere near alike, and thus the comparison to the Simpson chase was appropriate.“We’re talking about a blogger penning a story in which they make a case for robust copyright protections.”It’s the same thing. This is the case at hand. This is the newsworthy case that’s happening. So this is the case they’re dealing with. It may not be the best example that exist, but it’s the best example that is newsworthy in the moment.
“which is manipulative and unfair, since the “chase” was nothing like that.”
Hey, feel free to upload ALLLLLLLLLLL the evidence that YOU have.
“Legal ways that don’t involve the words “We hereby demand.””
So we’re just believing the bracketed “it purportedly began”, are we?
Oh sure. I’m not saying that they had a legal leg to stand on. But there’s a moral justification for wanting the footage if it would prove that the photographers put them in danger.Fuck the paparazzi, but how can they put someone in danger? Taking someone’s photo when they don’t want you to is a shitty thing to do, but it’s not lethal. The person is in no danger until they order their driver to drive recklessly. At which point they’re putting other people in danger as well. I don’t know what happened here, but the idea that the prince would direct his driver to speed away from photographers after what happened to his mom is insane to me.
Sure, photographs aren’t lethal. But they can absolutely be harmful. Not only reputationally but there’s a mental toll taken by being constantly hounded by people trying to catch you looking grump or picking your nose or whatever. That frustration and exhaustion can cause people to make bad choices. If I were chasing after you to do something that wouldn’t physically harm you but I knew would annoy you greatly and you ran out into traffic to escape me and were killed, I would absolutely shoulder a good amount of the blame for that. In the case of Diana’s death, there were multiple photographers following her and driving recklessly, which caused her own driver to drive more recklessly. It should be pretty easy to understand how someone driving poorly around you could put you into danger as a driver on the same road even if they don’t actually hit you.
I’m not saying they aren’t harmful, but you have to weigh that harm against driving recklessly to avoid it. The two harms don’t compare, in my opinion. If I were chasing after you to do something that wouldn’t physically harm you but I knew would annoy you greatly and you ran out into traffic to escape me and were killed, I would absolutely shoulder a good amount of the blame for that. I don’t agree! If I were the agressor I’d feel terrible, just as I would if someone committed suicide after we had an argument or something. But I wouldn’t be resposible. Ultimatly people are responsible for how they respond to things. If someone’s running from a fire or a guy with a knife or a huge snake, that’s a different story. Lots of things take a mental toll on people. The correct response is almost never endangering yourself and those around you. In the case of Diana’s death, there were multiple photographers following her and driving recklessly, which caused her own driver to drive more recklessly.I’d say a much bigger factor was that the driver was drunk. He never should have been driving let alone racing to avoid people. I’m sure if we could someone ask Diana she’d agree she’d rather have just let them take their pictures than die. A really stupid decision was made where major harm was risked to avoid a very minor harm.
“Fuck the paparazzi, but how can they put someone in danger?”
How honestly fucking stupid are you?
When you have an expensive lawyer on retainer, you absolutely have the “right” to demand whatever the fuck you want. Mine’s not even expensive but I have the “right” to tell them to send you a letter demanding you change your screen name because I don’t like it…you have every right to tell me to fuck off like the pap’s lawyer did, but H&M can demand whatever. Furthermore, starting with written request is pretty much always the way to go BEFORE a lawsuit or civil action.And lastly, fuck paparazzi…they are not the same as regular photographers and if they were to be lumped together for legal/copyright purposes, that’s the fault of people that represent real photographers or the courts to figure out. It’s analogous to union representation problems: having to protect everyone equally means a bad apple that shouldn’t receive protection reflects negatively on everyone else.
Well sure, anyone has the right to demand anything at any time. You don’t even need to have an expensive lawyer on retainer to do it. What I should have said is that you don’t have the right to get it. So if you’re exercising your right to demand, you better be prepared for them exercising their right to tell you to go to hell.I don’t care about paparazzi. I’m not defending them, so you are free to fuck them all you like, with my blessing.
Fair enough, I went a little hard due to my pet peeve over semantics around “rights” and the implication that H&M were, in any real way, wrong for “demanding” the photos and videos. The pap’s lawyer equally wasn’t wrong to clap back of course as right to ask doesn’t equal entitled to receive…it’s just the snarky response was in defense of a useless profession populated by people who can’t get/don’t have real jobs.
They’re not artists so much as glorified vultures, continually punishing people for the horrible crime of being famous.They’re not even this. They’re the human embodiment of our shitty values. The fact that someone can pay their rent with a photograph of someone else; but an elementary school teacher working 40+ hours a week raising future citizens can’t.Truly wouldn’t have cared if everyone involved in this had died in an accident because of this “chase.” Would arguably be a net gain for society.
Harry’s own mother died in a car crash while fleeing paparazziHarry’s mother died in a car crash because she wasn’t weating a seat belt, and the driver had 3X the legal alcohol limit.
The crash would not have occured if the paparazzi weren’t chasing her. They were the direct cause. The seat belt and driver were secondary causes, but no paps/no crash.
Sure. But she never would have been in that situation to begin with if she wasn’t trying to escape the paparazzi who were hounding her constantly.
“Harry’s mother died in a car crash because she wasn’t weating a seat belt, and the driver had 3X the legal alcohol limit.”
WHILE. FLEEING. PAPARAZZI.
Fuck you, you victim-blaming piece of absolute shit. If there is a Hell, I feel confident you’ll end up there.
I don’t drink and drive and I always wear seatbelts. So no, I will never, ever end up in that situation. Oh yeah, I also am familiar with the notion of public space. So I don’t spaz out when somebody looks at me or points a camera at me in public.
Agreed. And calling what THEY do art is a huge stretch. Harassment maybe.
“It seems to me that Harry and Meghan demanded the footage from the incident not because they thought it was their God-given right as royals to have it, but because they felt unsafe and wanted to expose the people who put them in that position.”
Sure but it was stupid of them to send a letter insisting on it. If you want the footage, you have to sue and get it in discovery. Making demands you can’t enforce just makes you look stupid and weak.
What’s gross to me is that Harry and Meghan tried to severely mischaracterize the incident as a blatant attempt to bring comparisons to Diana’s car crash. Fuck these two privileged morons.
I have to think anyone who has ever been to NYC is wondering where exactly they were that a high-speed chase is even possible. Even if you were to hit something like the west side highway it’s only a few miles long. The whole thing sounded like bullshit from the jump.
Minor point, perhaps, but OJ Simpson was not soft-pedaling anything, as he was the passenger- making phone calls and threatening suicide. AC Cowlings was the driver.
I didn’t sit through all that Channel 1 in school for nothing!
That’s Al ‘AC’ Cowlings. I can’t find any gifs or videos of Tim Meadows playing him on SNL but hot damn was that funny. ‘You know what DNA is I’m AC damnit!’
God I forgot all about that. He was incensed that no one knew who he was.
Wait wait wait, AC was on the phone while Orenthal the Double Murderer was in the back seat upset he got busted trying to leave the country.
I remember because I was really interested in the NBA finals and it was a postage stamp sized feed in the bottom corner of the screen.
Also to make it extra weird, it wasn’t OJ’s Bronco. AC had a matching white Bronco of his own.
Yes! That was just wild. I didn’t learn that until the TV show with Cuba Gooding Jr. Great show, btw.
O.J. Simpson soft-pedaled a Ford Bronco across the L.A. freeway nearly 30 years ago-
Give us this day our daily “Don’t forget: you’re OLD!”
Nah if you were really old you’re know it was Cowlings. Ya damn diaper baby.
I did know it. I just saw everybody else already said it and didn’t need to be the ninth one.
I said it three times, so that makes me 9-12, I guess.
When did the collective Left-leaning blogosphere decide to turn on these two from the original narrative of “interracial couple mistreated by horrible racist British press”? And do you even know why you turned?
You didn’t get the memo?
Fuck. I’m always out of the loop!
When the things they did and said undermined our lines of argument with the reactionary cap-doffers we’ve been arguing with for the last few years. Their self-entitlement does not make the press less racist, and the press’s racism does not make them innocent victims. Anybody would think hereditary monarchy is an unnatural system that leads to its insiders losing any sense of perspective.
They are an interracial couple who was horribly mistreated by the British press. And they also exaggerated this story. Both things can be true.
Thats completely false. Meghan was loved and her true colors led people to turn on her
Her true color being Black, yes, we know.
Let’s be honest, the only reason Americans give a shit about this and are working the angle is because it finally allows them to feel smug and claim there’s a country out there that hates African-Americans more than America. I mean, as far as I can tell, she’s just lucky she’s being shot with equipment made by Nikon, and not Smith & Wesson.
I’m not sure who you think you’re talking to here, but as a Black American I don’t know what interest you think I have in proving that there’s a country out there that hates Black people more than the US.
Assuages the guilt.
And I, a Black American, have “guilt” about what, exactly?
Being American.
What “guilt” would I, a Black American, possibly own about being American specifically related to “claim[ing] there’s a country out there that hates African-Americans more than America”?And follow-up, do you think that I, a Black American, think the UK hates “African Americans” more than Americans do? Think long and hard before you answer that, and as a hint, you can feel free to ask me before you hazard another stupid guess.
“Thats completely false. Meghan was loved and her true colors led people to turn on her”
You don’t even believe that.
Agreed, but it still doesn’t make me like paparazzi or lawyers. And for the lawyer to get all high falutin’ and babble about the Constitution is ridiculous. Can’t we just agree that all parties in this affair (including Adams and Lea Goldman) kinda suck?
Okay? I’m not on the Paparazzi and Lawyers Publicity Council. I don’t see why we all have to agree on anything. We can also all just go on having our own opinions and learn to live with the fact that others have different ones.
When did the collective Left-leaning blogosphere decide to turn on these two
When they chose to become attention whores.
The only difference between “sympathetic people who get lots of press” and “attention whores” is just spin.
No, it’s not just spin. These are the same people who made a big deal about not wanting the spotlight, then went on a massive book tour immediately after. They’re making a mountain out of a molehill with this chase. They’re textbook attention whores.
Going on a tour to sell a book isn’t the same thing as wanting to be stalked, you absolute asshole.
Who spun Harry into writing a sob story about being the Spare prince?
And kept going on and on about how hard her life is, what with being on a successful tv show and now married to the goddam Prince of England. I remember noticing her on Suits but had exactly no idea of her race. You could tell me she’s from about half a dozen different backgrounds and I’d believe you.
Because unlike the collective right-wing blogosphere, the supposed left-leaning blogosphere basis their opinion of them on their actions and not the color of their skin.
And do you even know why you turned? Probably when it got to the point when their worldwide privacy tour got bad enough that it prompted an entire episode of South Park.
Ah yes, South Park, the ultimate Bothsiderists
But they generally pick their targets pretty well.
Thank you. It’s very disturbing to see people on this side of the pond parroting the British media’s anti-Harry and Meghan rhetoric. I mean, what did H&M do to piss people off? Get married? Yeah, sometimes a family member marries someone you don’t particularly like. But most of us learn to suck it up and at least be polite and cordial. After all, it’s their life. Leave the Royal Family? Lots of kids quit the family business, but you don’t see them being trashed for it. Become public figures? Many people are famous and get paid big money for reasons that seem baffling (Kardashians anyone?), but in most cases we say “whatever” and go about our day, so I don’t get why H&M are considered especially deserving of scorn and vitriol. Reveal family secrets? If I had my country’s media printing exaggerated and untrue crap about me and I suspected that my own family was at minimum complicit, you better believe I’d drop the dirt on them. IMO Harry was a lot more restrained in Spare than I would’ve been.IIRC, H&M’s team didn’t use the term “high speed.” They described it as a “near-catastrophic car chase.” Granted, most of us associate “chase” with speed, but even though this was much slower, the fact that they were pursued by paparazzi relentlessly for 2 hours despite multiple attempts to shake them off (switching direction, changing cars, stopping at a police station) certainly qualifies it as a chase. “Near-catastrophic” refers to the paps reportedly hitting several parked cars, driving on the sidewalk, and driving down streets in reverse; any of these actions could’ve resulted in serious injury or even death. Just because you’re a public figure doesn’t give people the right to be that aggressively intrusive, especially since H&M obliged the paps by exiting the front door of the awards venue so they could get their “money shot.” They should’ve been allowed to get in their car and leave, period.
A lot of people in the West seem to have changed their tune on Harry and Meghan after mistaking South Park for a documentary series.
They’re an interracial couple mistreated by horrible racist British press, but they’re also kind of vapid and hypocritical, THEREFORE THEY SHOULD BE FUCKING EATEN ALIVE! GO PAPARAZZI! GET ‘EM! WOOOOOOO!
When they decided to become professional whiners.
Ah, you’ve answered your own question: British pressSee, the British press is a pack of vile, bottom-feeding, drama-farming paparazzi parasites who should all be pushed into a trench and have dirt bulldozed on top of them, then have their families charged for the cost of diesel that was used to full the bulldozers.The American press, however, is a noble bastion of stalwart truth-seekers who only operate in the best public interest.At least according to the American press. Of which The AV Club is a part.
this is a gawker site. read up on how gawker started.paps are THEIR PEOPLE.
For two people who claim they don’t want publicity, they keep seeking the spotlight every chance they get.Just go away already.
“Hey! ….Hey!…. HEY! “You — yes you, the one in the — you! …Stop looking at me!”
South Park to the rescue!!
“For two people who claim they don’t want publicity, they keep seeking the spotlight every chance they get.
Yes, their lawyer requesting footage of a terrifying experience and the lawyer of the photographers publicly responding SURE is Harry and Meghan seeking the spotlight.
Can’t you just admit you hate women and Black people and then just fuck off?
Lol since when do we consider paparazzi a real profession? They’re leeches and creeps 99 times out of 100. I genuinely don’t give a shit about the royal couple or whatever, but the idea that an entire article was written to somehow justify the existence of…glorified stalkers who can’t be bothered to learn real skills or have a real job? like, wtf?
The modern world is full of scenarios where it is perfectly OK to hate on both sides of a dispute. For example, if it weren’t so serious I’d be getting my dumpster sized popcorn bucket ready for Trump v De Santis.
That’s not what this article is doing though. It paints the paparazzi in a uniformly positive light.
I know – I was agreeing with Ac slater.
Not the same thing when the people in question hired the paps to begin with
Oh no, working class folks who have the temerity to take pictures of celebrities in public. Those fucking MONSTERS
‘Oh no, working class folks who have the temerity to sell psychotherapeutic drugs to willing customers. Those fucking MONSTERS’ – Milligna000 on crack dealers
I always loved George Bernard Shaw’s play about the true heroes of the working class: paparazzi.
“Oh no, working class folks who have the temerity to take pictures of celebrities in public.”
Yeah, working class folks just trying to make an honest living bothering, harassing and stalking celebs, hiding in bushes, trying to get pictures of famous people at their most vulnerable.
Honestly, is there a more beautiful and wonderful profession than paparazzi??
I for one insist that Gyllenhaal was the hero of Nightcrawler.
My hobby is to photograph cars, preferably on the street. I was out in the Hamptons with a large camera, photographing a parked Porsche and a somewhat creepy guy came up to me and started talking about how “Seinfeld is out and about today” and giving me tips on where I might be able to catch him. Since Seinfeld is a car guy it took me a while to realize that the guy wasn’t on my side but presumed I was a fellow paparazzo; I felt quite dirty.
Correct but so is true for any form of gossip journalism including the existence of this very blog. It’s all parasitism at the end of day.
“O.J. Simpson soft-pedaled a Ford Bronco across the L.A. freeway nearly 30 years ago”That was Al Cowlings.
Finally, someone standing up for the paparazzi. Thanks, Lea
Fuck the parasitic paparazzo. Full stop.
Anyone can request security video. Seems a bunch of entertainment attorneys would have more to do than weigh in on something that happened 3,000 miles away and doesn’t involve them. Saying they “demanded it”, is pretty strong. More than likely their attorney requested it. The company can comply or not, if they get a judge to issue a subpoena in the event there is a lawsuit, that’s another story. When did we start believing Megan Kelly and Piers Morgan? You’re now siding with those assholes?
I don’t know entirely how i feel about all of this, but… our intrepid AVC columnist didn’t pull the word demand out of their butt:
(“We hereby demand … ,” it purportedly began.)
“but… our intrepid AVC columnist didn’t pull the word demand out of their butt:”
She didn’t? I certainly don’t see any citation for it. I mean sure, who could argue with “purpotedly”, but it would be nice if she used a word whose definition doesn’t include “though not necessarily so”.
“pur·port·ed·lyadverbas appears or is stated to be true, though not necessarily so; allegedly.”
Uh, of course it “involves” them. The lawyer quoted in the article is the lawyer for the company who owns the photos. Responding to demand letters is her job.And of course the lawyer is going to be extra snarky in her response. It was a bullshit demand, and no lawyer is going to pass up that opportunity to dunk on opposing counsel.
Yep, that demand was the opening salvo. Now that the response has been given, it’s up to Meghan and Harry’s lawyers to determine whether to file the lawsuit and request discovery.
“More than likely their attorney requested it.”
But didn’t you read the part where, with nothing to back it up at all, the author said they said “WE HEREBY DEMAND” the footage?
That’s unimpeachable testimony right there!
They literally did “demand” it though. They literally started their statement with “we hereby demand”.
Perhaps neither side is worth siding with.
Believing someone isn’t the same as siding with them. Even assholes can manage to be correct from time to time.
While anyone can request anything, including security footage, that doesn’t mean they’re entitled to it. Certainly, the ‘demand’ was a bald faced intimidation tactic.
Good to see you’re in the “defending the paparazzi” phase of being an absolute piece of shit waste of life and skin.
Yup
Shut up, Megh!
This article is fucking gross. Are you auditioning for a spot at the Daily Mail?
I’m sure it WAS a two hour chase. It took the paparazzi TWO HOURS to escape Harry & Meghan! LOL
I really great work using racist, xenophobes with grudges like Piers “if I can’t be racist I quit” Morgan and Megyn “Santa is White” Kelley to support your points. Really outstanding journalism. I wonder if those two very white, very racist people are a good source of information? Hmm 🤔.
Sussexes “galling” demand for footage from that alleged car chaseI’m pretty sure you need an apostrophe in there somewhere.
NYPD entered the discussion and pretty much confirmed what H&M’s rep said. You don’t have to be a Sussex fan to know this would be frightening as hell, considering what happened to Harry’s mom. And Meghan’s mom was with them.
No, they really didn’t. They said it was bicycles following the car, and that they were home within 20 minutes of leaving the event, apparently including a stop at a police station, where they transferred to a taxi. A taxi whose driver says yeah there were some photographers following, but it wasn’t a chase. There were also apparently NYPD detectives driving along with them who would have seen this, and chosen to do nothing about it. Source: https://abc7ny.com/meghan-markle-paparazzi-nyc-nypd-prince-harry-midtown/13264664/Meanwhile, their claims are 2 hours, paparrazi doing crazy stuff like driving on sidewalks nearly hitting people, etc. If this happened, in NYC, involving the royals, you don’t think we’d have heard from every eyewitness who was almost hit by this point? Probably be a book in the works already if it happened anywhere near how they claimed, which it clearly did not. Growing up around there, and working in Manhattan for years, also this: at that time of night? In that area? Ain’t no chasing happening. Literally logistically impossible. And if someone drove onto the sidewalk? They’re hitting people. Not coming close to hitting people, they are hitting and likely severely injuring/killing multiple people.
Oh, well, if COPS said something, you know THEY never exaggerate or outright fabricate.
That one image says it all. Plus I can’t stop laughing at the forehead.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/18/world/harry-meghan-new-york-car-chase-intl-cmd-scli/index.html
Seems weird how much sucking up you’re doing to the paps.
The whole thing is weird, by which I mean the very concept of a royal family and how f’n weird people act over them. You have to defend somebody’s right to stalk somebody back to a private residence?
Here’s a thought: these people don’t matter unless you insist on never not talking about them …
How horrible of a human being do you have to be to write a full article defending the paparazzi. The same paparazzi that took photos of Diana while she was dying in her car. Thankfully, those were confiscated by police. If they had not, then “property rights” would have allowed them to exploit the very scenario they caused for monetary gain. F’ing disgusting. Reevaluate your morals. Harry is right to be distrustful of the paps – they have hounded him all his life.
Isn’t this the sort of tabloid shit that belongs on Jezebel or, ideally, nowhere?
Meghan
and Harry could film a sex tape, personally upload it to PornHub, advertise it at the Superbowl and then
do a full press tour blaming everyone for watching it, and I’d still
side with them over the fucking paparazzi.
Just because a celebrity is
an attention whore, does publicity stunts or organizes press coverage,
does not give anyone the moral right to stalk and harass them at all
hours of the day, blinding them with camera flashes, getting up in their
space and shouting intrusive questions at them (or trying to take upskirt shots, or trying to provoke them into a reaction so they can cry: ‘AsSaUlT!’ and sue while simultaneously selling the footage). Kinda like how just
because someone has a job, doesn’t mean their boss can chain them to a
fucking desk all day or call them up in the middle of the night to write a report.That this article treats them as free-speech crusaders is insane to me.
I don’t really have a winner in this one. Yes the paparazzi are trash. But these two have managed to turn their pleas for privacy into a major publicity tour. Take a step back and live your lives, quit giving these soul-baring interviews, and people will lose interest and the paparazzi will find people of greater interest to photograph. Especially in the U.S. where Royal-watching isn’t such a major sport.
That’s all definitely true as a matter of practicality, but the morality of it doesn’t cancel out. Harry and Meghan being annoying attention-seekers doesn’t make the paparazzi more right for doing what they do.It’s the same principle as sexual assault. Women might be advised not to accept drinks from strangers at a club, but even if they do, it’s still not their fault if something bad happens.
No, not their fault in either scenario. But there’s the way things should be, and there’s the way they are. Taking proper precautions in your life and not exacerbating situations (e.g. H&M’s exhibitionism) are simple acknowledgements of that fact.
Comparing a celebrity couple being entirely legally photographed in public to a woman being raped is uhhhh a really fucking terrible analogy.
Actually, I think it’s a pretty simple analogy that you uhhhh appear to have missed the point of. Just because you consent to certain things being done to you in uhhhh some situations (e.g. sex), doesn’t mean you uhhhh consent to them in every situation, nor does it given anyone else a license to do those things to you as and when they choose.Saying ‘this person consents to some people doing [x] to them at certain times, therefore they automatically consent to all people doing [x] to them at all times,’ is the same logic that rape apologists use, and the logic is wrong in both cases.I am not saying that unwanted photography is equivalent in severity to rape. I did not honestly think I would have to clarify that, and I think – being realistic – you could probably have come to that conclusion yourself if you’d thought about it for more than two seconds. So uhhhh yeah
This is a really long-winded way of doubling down on a terrible, misogynistic analogy while (I can only assume) mansplaining it to the woman who told you how inappropriate it is.
If only there was someone around who could explain why it is terrible or misogynistic. Then maybe I’d be less inclined to ‘double down.’
Lea, do you think you were born this dumb or did you become that way once you started writing for AV Club?
“if one is to believe the likes of Megyn Kelly and Piers Morgan” I mean I wouldn’t, but you do you
I know they are just people working a job, but the job of the paparazzi is trash. Also, that response was amazing until the end…“We stand by our founding fathers.”Yeah, no thanks. Those guys were horrible.
“We stand by our founding fathers with regard to the rights of photographers.” – A professional lawyer
Well, thank God someone is finally taking the side of *looks up* the fucking paparazzi??
Jesus fucking Christ…
“O.J. Simpson soft-pedaled a Ford Bronco across the L.A. freeway nearly 30 years ago.”To soft-pedal something means to de-emphasize, restrain, or play-down something.What the ACTUAL FUCK did you think you were saying?
“It also raised uncomfortable questions about the hypocrisy of their position if one is to believe the likes of Megyn Kelly and Piers Morgan, who say Markle alerts photographers when she wants to be snapped. A case of biting the hand that feeds you?” Define good journalism: treating the words of two known racists (at least on who has demonstrated that racism against Meghan) as credibly sourced info. Fucking hack.
The writer misspelling “vis à vis” and confusing it with “via”? *CHEF’S KISS!* This is prime late-period AV Club content.
“if one is to believe the likes of Megyn Kelly and Piers Morgan, who say Markle alerts photographers when she wants to be snapped. A case of biting the hand that feeds you”ummmm, that’s a lot to unpack right there.For the record, we dont believe the likes of Megyn Kelly and Piers Morgan.politcs makes for strange bedfellows, doesnt it? If disliking some attention seekers is enough for you to start think that Morgan and Kelly are reliable sources of information, you should get your head checked.
What kind of awful tabloid shit is this?
JFCScrounge up a bit of self-respect, Lea.
Another point to consider are the civilians who work for celebs. Having been small part of that world you cannot imagine how horrific paparazzi actually are! Most are desperate free lancers with no limits. Trying to take a 7year old to an airport bathroom and watching them lay on the floor inserting their super cameras under the door while you as chaperone kicking fighting trying to protect terrified child. Seriously private jets are essential for safet
Meghan and Harry could live in privacy if they wanted it. Plenty of stars live in SoCal and they go about their business without being hounded by media. Face it, those two are addicted to publicity. Their search for media exposure is endless. This manufactured “car chase” story is just more of that.
The argument needs to be steered to the fact that the people who take these photos are not directly “working” at any point in time, they run to places and take pictures and then later piece together whether they even did anything that could be valuable. This isn’t work, this is taking pictures… and why can individuals on behalf of organizations take pictures of them and monetize them without their consent, but if I took a picture of them and monetized it I would be held legally liable for using their likeness without consent?
Never happened. Miss Wokidokie loses again. Like, always.
Weird to cape up for a bunch of leeches whose sole purpose is to feed the meth like addiction humanity has for information about famous people.
I don’t understand why we’re still unclear on what happened. New York City is full of surveillance cameras. They could see the whole incident and definitively give us an answer. And fuck Eric Adams. And Megyn Kelly. And Piers Morgan.
“A rallying cry for paparazzi”? I eagerly await your eloquent defense of NAMBLA, the only group I can think of that sinks lower than paparazzi….
I’ve enjoyed reading a lot of books about the history of the royal family since The Crown came out on Netflix. While the history has been interesting, the sad truth about this family is that most of them just aren’t all that bright. Harry is one of them, all right.
I’m sure it’s been pointed out, but if they gave away most of their money, bought a split-level house in the Midwest in a good school district, no one would ever bother Harry and Meghan again.
They claimed they wanted a quiet life in Canada until they realized Canadians don’t want to pay for their private security.
How much could their security cost? They’re multi-millionaires. Just build like a wall around your house and put a guy at the entrance. Or don’t even bother if it’s the Midwest. Once they stop being interesting the paparazzi are gonna stop hounding them anyway. There’d be a public interest piece in the New York Times ten years from now: “The prince who owns a hardware store in Iowa.”
Multimillionaires who don’t seem to quite understand what it means to be a private citizen yet, though I don’t understand why Meghan doesn’t. The real problem seems to be that they don’t want to stop being “interesting”.
I mean, Harry claims that he does. He really enjoyed the army because he was treated “just like everyone else” and he was always going to Botswana after to live on a farm where he just did farm work all day. His ideal life is watering the fields. He does have two kids now, and I can understand why he would want to give them a good education, so he wants to be near a school, but that’s basically the ONLY requirement here that’s real about not living a simple life.
They could live a quiet life as just another D list nepo-baby in LA if that’s what they wanted.The press would forget about them soon enough if they’d just shut up.
On the one hand, freedom of the press. On the other, fucking awful paparazzi.
We got a really AvP scenario here. Everyone fucking sucks here. Fuck Prince Frozen Dick and his wife, who just SO want to be out of the public spotlight so much so they only keep signing entertainment deals and other shit to tell “their side” of every story, Fuck the Paparazzi for all the shit they do, and fuck these IP lawyers, they aren’t protecting artists they are just getting corporations richer and in more control of any and all aspects of art. Everyone sucks here.
And here I’d somehow forgotten about Harry’s story about dreaming of mum as he rubs her lotion into his frostbit todger.My mum used that on her lips. You want me to put that on my todger?Just take a listen. “Frostnipistan”. This guy’s a hoot.