Kate Middleton topless photos: with camera phones and drone technology, soon no one w

On the Huh

On the Huh

Little Ball of Fur
Messages
4,404
Name
Zulfi
Edit My Images
Yes
Sadly, it's the general public at fault, without them clamouring for "gossip" from every a, b to z-lister "celeb", the magazines wouldn't be publishing and therefore not requiring paparazzi to get their cameras out.
 
What a strange way to report that story, it reads from the headline that she was filmed by a camera phone on a drone, but the actual report is made up of 2 completely different stories, one about her being papped, the other about how small cameras have become and how you can fit them to drones

Also, why would you say a line has been crossed, how is papping Kate any different to papping anyone else (not that i agree with it), but what makes one right and the other wrong
 
I personally think that the magazine has crossed the line of decency, but Kate has to share some of the responsibility as well. I don't think sunbathing topless is becomming of a future monarch's wife where she could possibly be photographed in the first place. If she does it she knows there is a possibility of being snapped.

I feel the same for anyone, whether they are a celebrity or not, if they do not want photos taken of them topless or whatever then don't do it in the first place. She really has only herself to blame.
 
so are you suggesting she should use sun beds to get an all over tan then :LOL:

modchild said:
I personally think that the magazine has crossed the line of decency, but Kate has to share some of the responsibility as well. I don't think sunbathing topless is becomming of a future monarch's wife where she could possibly be photographed in the first place. If she does it she knows there is a possibility of being snapped.

I feel the same for anyone, whether they are a celebrity or not, if they do not want photos taken of them topless or whatever then don't do it in the first place. She really has only herself to blame.
Click to expand...
 
paps used to mean breasts up ere... quite ironic being papped topless then :)
 
It's just sad really that anyone cares, they're just a pair of boobs.

I'd be interested to know if the photographer was shooting from within the private estate, if he was, and given France has some of the strictest privacy laws, I'm surprised they can be published.
 
treeman said:
It's just sad really that anyone cares, they're just a pair of boobs.
Click to expand...

I agree, all the media frenzy and everything around it is a bit OTT, if you ask me.

Unfortunately this won't be the last time something like this happens, it wasn't that long ago with the press going mad over Harry etc too.
 
treeman said:
It's just sad really that anyone cares, they're just a pair of boobs.
Click to expand...

mine are bigger TBF lol

if the public did not have such an appetite for this kind of crap we'd not see photographers paid for such trash.

on the other hand if you go topless on a balcony in full view of anyone its your own fault.
 
One of these days all photographers will get the laws that some of them deserve, and they won't concern the rights of those with the camera. As we all know, photographers currently have no specific rights, and some have no responsibilities.
 
The photographer who took the photos must be a pervert at the very least, more than likely a sex pest as well. He should be exposed then publicly flogged.

Realspeed
 
So a public flogging & a media frenzy branding photographers as sex pests would be a good thing ??
 
TBH you'd have thought that she'd have learnt from Sarah Fergusson :shrug:
 
So, you're relaxing on the balcony of a house out in the country and the weather is kinda good so you decide to take your top off to sunbathe in the belief that your privacy is guaranteed by the law. Some low-life chancer gets lucky (in his eyes) and gets a photo of you which he then sells to a magazine, who subsequently publish it. At which point is this NOT an invasion of privacy? What does it matter who the subject is? Do famous people not have the same rights as everyone else? When on private property and away from the (normal) gaze of others outside of the property is it not right to expect that your privacy will be respected?

I despair at the "who cares" attitude expressed by some in this and the recent Harry thread. We should all care because this erosion of morals and respect effects us all as the trickle down will mean that eventually everyone will be fair game. If it was my wife in those pictures I'd hunt down the photographer responsible and gouge his eyes out so he couldn't do it anyone else ever again.

The Royal family have always been reluctant to instigate legal procedings in the past but I do hope they make an exception in this case just to make the point to others that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable. Unfortunately I suspect they won't and even if they did the fine that can be imposed on the magazine is paltry compared to the potential increase in sales this will bring them.

Society is going to hell in a hand basket :(
 
Tirpitz said:
So a public flogging & a media frenzy branding photographers as sex pests would be a good thing ??
Click to expand...

If the cap fits ...

If this photographer had been caught in the act he would almost certainly have been arrested as a Peeping Tom. If that's not a sex pest I don't know what is.
 
im no royalist and have no interest at all in the royal family what they do or do not do . . BUT . . you would think that after the whole Diana thing (in France !!!) a little more decorum would be shown. If she was out on the town or on a beach etc . .then i suppose her conduct would be a little suspect and rightly called into question . . but for all intents and purposes she was on a PRIVATE estate and royal or not she should be entitled to a little bit of privacy . . i mean come on . there has to be a line somewhere right . ? and the fall out for Photographers will mean once again that everyone with a camera is probably up to no good . . try walking around London with an SLR and large lens and having to put up with all the crap from joe public security guards etc . . i understand that if you choose to (or inherit) a public life you are gonna be photographed but surely there has to be a compromise ?
 
Did you not see the S on the back of the word Photographers I used earlier??

So you are OK with all phtographerS being branded as sex pests by the media because in just this one instance you decide that the guy must be a sex pest ?

Bit like the government knee jerk dangerous dogs act...
 
if you stand on the balcony of a house in plain view of anyone and everyone you are not being private. however if you are inside a room and someone uses a secret camera thats an invasion.

Bristolian said:
So, you're relaxing on the balcony of a house out in the country and the weather is kinda good so you decide to take your top off to sunbathe in the belief that your privacy is guaranteed by the law. Some low-life chancer gets lucky (in his eyes) and gets a photo of you which he then sells to a magazine, who subsequently publish it. At which point is this NOT an invasion of privacy? What does it matter who the subject is? Do famous people not have the same rights as everyone else? When on private property and away from the (normal) gaze of others outside of the property is it not right to expect that your privacy will be respected?

I despair at the "who cares" attitude expressed by some in this and the recent Harry thread. We should all care because this erosion of morals and respect effects us all as the trickle down will mean that eventually everyone will be fair game. If it was my wife in those pictures I'd hunt down the photographer responsible and gouge his eyes out so he couldn't do it anyone else ever again.

The Royal family have always been reluctant to instigate legal procedings in the past but I do hope they make an exception in this case just to make the point to others that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable. Unfortunately I suspect they won't and even if they did the fine that can be imposed on the magazine is paltry compared to the potential increase in sales this will bring them.

Society is going to hell in a hand basket :(
Click to expand...
 
I think it's an invasion of privacy, she wasn't in a public place, after Di things should've changed, however i agree its hardly approppriate royal behaviour! I would expect it from a few of the royals but Kate has suprised most here
 
No sympathy from me I'm afraid, she knows the press are following them around, watching their every move, so she goes topless and wonders why she gets photographed?

Besides the rest of us have no privacy, we are filmed all the time everywhere we go, why should the royal family be any different.
 
just a shame it wasn't Pippa's bum cheeks instead.. now THAT would be worth arguing the toss over :eek:
 
hang on, breasts are not genitals

so any photo of anyone topless or not (taken lets presume from a public location) if found to be a criminal offence, will have huge consequences

it impacts on all of us.
 
POAH said:
if you stand on the balcony of a house in plain view of anyone and everyone you are not being private. however if you are inside a room and someone uses a secret camera thats an invasion.
Click to expand...

I think the point here is where does privacy begin? What is your definition of "in plain view"? If I can stand at the boundary to your property and see you clearly with my bare eyes can I take your picture? What if I'm hundreds of metres away, hiding in a tree and using a long lens? Can I still take your picture without invading your privacy?

Using you arguement; if you're in a room with the windows open - is that okay? What if the windows are closed but the curtains are open? How about the curtains are closed but there's a crack in them? These degrees of definition simply fog the issue which is that morals and respect are heading down the toilet.
 
I would imagine with a threat of "eyes being gouged out" the person in question would more than likely want to be at some kind of safe distance .....
 
I'm surprised the ever popular Sun hasn't gone for it:

"Pap Snaps Kat's Baps"
 
Bristolian said:
So, you're relaxing on the balcony of a house out in the country and the weather is kinda good so you decide to take your top off to sunbathe in the belief that your privacy is guaranteed by the law. Some low-life chancer gets lucky (in his eyes) and gets a photo of you which he then sells to a magazine, who subsequently publish it. At which point is this NOT an invasion of privacy? What does it matter who the subject is? Do famous people not have the same rights as everyone else? When on private property and away from the (normal) gaze of others outside of the property is it not right to expect that your privacy will be respected?

I despair at the "who cares" attitude expressed by some in this and the recent Harry thread. We should all care because this erosion of morals and respect effects us all as the trickle down will mean that eventually everyone will be fair game. If it was my wife in those pictures I'd hunt down the photographer responsible and gouge his eyes out so he couldn't do it anyone else ever again.

The Royal family have always been reluctant to instigate legal procedings in the past but I do hope they make an exception in this case just to make the point to others that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable. Unfortunately I suspect they won't and even if they did the fine that can be imposed on the magazine is paltry compared to the potential increase in sales this will bring them.

Society is going to hell in a hand basket :(
Click to expand...

Well said Steve, I think that there are very few "keyboard warriors" on here who would like it if it was there OH who was filmed, and then had the pictures plastered all over some magazine.
Trying to blame it all on a greedy public doesn't wash either. It is the media (scum media) who do this in order to attract the attention of the consumer (scum consumer).
 
On the Huh said:
There's always a lot of talk about Rights a photographe has, but should the Princess or anyone for that matter, have a bit more privacy?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/techno...nd-drone-technology-soon-no-one-will-be-safe/
Click to expand...

Does anyone else find the Telegraph journalists ignorance quite staggering?

Only the other day, Apple unveiled an 8 megapixel camera that comes as standard on the iPhone 5.

To get that kind of picture quality before, a pap would need a huge, bulky piece of kit. Now, it's the size of a thumbnail and the weight of an anorexic wasp. .
Click to expand...

So before the iPhone 5 there weren't any 8MP compacts or camera phones? And the lens has no bearing on long range shots?

What an idiot.
 
andy700 said:
Well said Steve, I think that there are very few "keyboard warriors" on here who would like it if it was there OH who was filmed, and then had the pictures plastered all over some magazine.
Trying to blame it all on a greedy public doesn't wash either. It is the media (scum media) who do this in order to attract the attention of the consumer (scum consumer).
Click to expand...

if she was it would be her own fault - If I was to stand naked in front of my front window and get snapped from outside it would be my own fault.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top