Kate topless

Have you seen the topless shots of Kate Middleton, England's future queen?

I did.

Which means millions of others have as well.

A court in France has ordered that the mag CLOSER surrender all of the photos.

Too little, too late.

God save the (future) Queen.

I am curious why the Royals are not equally interested in removing all of the nude pics of Prince Harry?

My thought is that if one wishes not to be photographed topless, one should not go outside without one's top. Especially knowing full well that the paparazzi are at arms length.

That said, I was less than impressed by the crown rack.

Why is this one of the few threads without a link to the subject title ? SIGH

Quote: DrJohn

That said, I was less than impressed by the crown rack.

Where do we view said rack. Just for the purposes
of clarification..

Quote: EvenBob

Where do we view said rack. Just for the purposes
of clarification..

here

royal rack

Quote: MrV

here

royal rack

Yawn. Very disappointing. No wonder nobody would buy them.

I don't understand how European courts can suppress publication if the pix were taken in a public location. Maybe I am not understanding the full story. That and I really don't understand the obsession with 'the royals'

Quote: slyther

That and I really don't understand the obsession with 'the royals'

Thats because we don't have any. The Royals are the link
to the past. They're steeped in mystery and tradition, are
bigger than life, and are not only the biggest tourist attraction
in the UK, they're probably the biggest in the world. To
say they're history is fascinating doesn't begin to cover it.

Quote: slyther

I don't understand how European courts can suppress publication if the pix were taken in a public location. Maybe I am not understanding the full story. That and I really don't understand the obsession with 'the royals'

I haven't followed this story, but my impression is that the "public" location was a reasonably-concealed spot at a residence where she could be seen by a peeping Tom with an extremely long camera lens. The suggestion has been that the photographer committed a criminal act invading privacy, which could lead one to think of the publication that bought/published the photo as an accessory after the fact. IANAL, particularly a French one.

The news had a reporter at the location from which the pictures were taken. It was on a road !
It was quite a ways across some open fields to the house, but the balcony where Kate was sunbathing was facing the road.

What I find ironic is this is the very thing that has been going on against celebrities for years, with the UK papers being some of the worst offenders, and NO ONE ever stepped forward to decry it before. NOW that a royal is caught in the lens, holy crap, What an Invasion of Privacy! Talk about a double standard!

I have always felt that taking pictures of people from so far away they don't even know you are there, should be illegal. But then again, that would rule out all of our spy satellites, google earth, and a dozen more I don't even know about.

If she wanted to tan her breasts,
I am sure she could afford tanning salon or even her own UV bed.
This seems more premeditated for extra publicity and to make her into some sympathetic figure,
Not unlike her husbands mother.
Poor little rich girl, see what a victim she is.
Who cares

It was a telephoto lens from the side of a road quite distant from what was otherwise a zone in which ordinary people would expect privacy but movie stars and royals should not have expected privacy at all.

Under US law it used to be a rule of physical trespass so that a nail-microphone that did not intrude into the room physically did not constitute "eavesdropping" but this rule was changed to a subjective expectation. In California the Papparazzi are often such nuisances that statutes would make such photos illegal (the telephoto lens).

The FBI often does long distance surveillance of premises simply because people often forget about the possibility of a telephoto lens.

I'm surprised the royals were so off guard. Most movie stars would be alert is such circumstances even though often the stars themselves are involved in the sale of such photos.

Once snapped.... the journalistic excuse is there is a public purpose in exposing inadequate security measures ... though obviously the topless pictures are the real issue at stake.

Quote: FleaStiff

I'm surprised the royals were so off guard. Most movie stars would be alert is such circumstances even though often the stars themselves are involved in the sale of such photos.

The chateau was the property of Prince Charles's first cousin, the son of Princess Margaret. Princess Margaret was photographed in compromising situations as far back as the 1950's.

The royals must get a certain amount of respect in the UK, otherwise they would be more careful. It is difficult to believe that Prince Harry was not thinking of cell phone cameras when he began playing strip billiards with people he had just met, and he was only wearing one item of clothing.

Since Prince William and Kate lived together for years before becoming engaged, I must think the British Press was self censored (at least as far as photographs).

QEII only leaves the UK on official business. She vacations solely in Scotland. The rest of the clan seems happy to go to other countries frequently. As the magazine owner said, Kate is not our future queen, she's just another celebrity.

Methinks Prince Harry was slipped a Royal Mickey.

Kate Middleton simply got complacent. Or perhaps her security people did. I don't know.

This should be an easy one. Either it is legal or illegal in France to photograph someone from public property (a road) on private property (a chalet) and disseminate that photograph, under French law. If it is legal then tough luck for the Royals. And they need bigger fences. If it is illegal then go after all who perpetrated the crime. And those participating in distrubting the photos after the fact.
With all I've read I really haven't seen an opinion on the legality... just that the royals are going to sue...

French law might make the offense criminal but publication of the resulting photographs can at most lead to a statutory fine and the economic value of even one such photograph far exceeds any criminal fine that is going to be remote in time and remote in certainty.

Half a dozen photographers each claiming only the other photographers took the offending shots with a whole lot of middle men brokers to hide behind.

Difficult for a French court to puzzle over ... and its not really a matter that particularly offends the French even if French law was technically violated.