Desmond sues Heat over Spears

Richard Desmond's OK magazine is launching a legal against Heat over chunks of an interview with Jamie Lynn Spears they maintain was lifted from their publication. It's about pride, rather than money:

"OK! magazine has established its reputation in the UK, the USA and throughout the world by the relationship of trust it builds with celebrities," said OK!'s group editorial director, Paul Ashford.

"We take pride in handling their stories and pictures in a positive and responsible way. We go to all possible lengths within the law to protect these exclusives and safeguard the interests of the celebrities and of our own readers."

Ah, yes. OK should be justly proud of its positive and responsible handling of stories and photos.

This would be the same OIK Magazine whose "positive and responsible" outing of a person attending Alcoholics Anonymous was this described by the Press Complaints Commission:

It was clear that the magazine had published private information about the complainant. Taken together, the photograph, its caption, and the information in the article constituted intrusive material about her attendance at an AA meeting. The fact of her treatment was not in the public domain, and there was no public interest reason for publishing references to it without her consent.
The defence advanced by the magazine – that there was no breach of the Code because readers might think the complainant was at the meeting only to provide moral support – was clearly without merit. The fact was that the magazine had stated that she had attended the meeting and published a photograph of her outside it. It did not know whether she had been there for treatment herself, and took no care in its presentation of the material to avoid a possible intrusion into her privacy. This was reckless in the circumstances, as shown by the subsequent revelation that she had indeed been at the clinic for treatment. It was also regrettable that the magazine had not engaged with the complainant’s solicitor when a complaint was made directly to the publication.

Yes. Breaching someone's privacy when they're vulnerable, making up spurious justifications and ignoring their victim when they try to seek an apology. You can see why OK would be rushing to court to protect their reputation for "positive and responsible" handling of stories, can't you?