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

rhody said:
You are wrong yet again DemiLion.

One Google click and they were there.

A cursory glance was all that was needed to confirm these are firmly in the "seaside pervert" category.

Your wild assumption that I "studied them in detail" is again totally incorrect and laughable - but it is the sort of allegation that would appear in the gutter press to create a wrong impression and smoke screen to disguise the real issue - the invasion of privacy.
Click to expand...



rhody said:
In some of the shots she is nearly naked, with her bikini bottom pulled down as sun cream is being applied to her back with her back to the camera.
Click to expand...

You had to have been searching very hard and looking very closely to find shots that show what you've described.

You still don't get the point that I'm making.

As soon as you decide to search for the photos and view them, you are part of the market. You add to the Google stats and rankings of the sites hosting the photos, which are subsequently analysed to show a desire to view the photographs. That, along with circulation and sales figures for the magazine, combined to drive the desire to get shots like this.

Whether your motive is for titillation or disapproval matters not. Google doesn't record why people search-just that they do so.

You can argue the purity of your actions until you are blue in the face, the end result is the same. Just ask Peter Townshend.
 
Going to the lengths of getting a shot from a 1km distance is no different than zooming in through a window, i.e. really going out of your way to get the shot.

Are the people who don't have an issue with it okay with people taking shots when you are in your house or is that invasion of privacy in that case?
 
Diamond hell said:
The photos would have been worthless if she'd kept her top on
Click to expand...

Well sorry but that's where you are wrong but there was a woman photographer who took photos of her in her swimsuit and sold them on the same balcony. Valerie suau. She says she didn't take the topless ones, she sold her photos to la provenance paper
 
This was the point I made a few pages back. The fact she was topless or not has no bearing on invasion of privacy. It either is invasion or it isn't and it is not based on how much clothes you are or are not wearing.

However, there would have clearly been little to no fuss if she was fully clothed so what exactly is the issue?
 
DemiLion said:
You had to have been searching very hard and looking very closely to find shots that show what you've described.

You still don't get the point that I'm making..
Click to expand...

Once again DemiLion - you could not be more wrong and you are making wild illogical assumptions and allegations.

One click brought up the "Kate" images freely available on the internet.

Be very careful likening my behaviour to that of Mr Townsend - you will not find I appreciate that comparison or take it lightly.

Topless pictures of an attractive woman compared to child porn - you cannot be serious? That sort of comparison may well suit the low life gutter press but you cannot make that sort of comparison on a public forum and not expect it to be challenged.

I will report your silly post to the Mods as damaging and unsubstantiated.

I have made copies of your statements in case I need them in future.
 
rhody said:
Once again DemiLion - you could not be more wrong and you are making wild illogical assumptions and allegations.

One click brought up the "Kate" images freely available on the internet.

Be very careful likening my behaviour to that of Mr Townsend - you will not find I appreciate that comparison or take it lightly.

Topless pictures of an attractive woman compared to child porn - you cannot be serious? That sort of comparison may well suit the low life gutter press but you cannot make that sort of comparison on a public forum and not expect it to be challenged.

I will report your silly post to the Mods as damaging and unsubstantiated.

I have made copies of your statements in case I need them in future.
Click to expand...

Sorry but there is no need to censor the post or remove any of it. Noone has compared you to anyone, nor insinuated anything at all. Mark is NOT likening the 2 which you have concluded, I suggest you read his post again as clearly the point is that the search engine wont know why you are searching, only that you have searched for whatever you are looking for, and that the search adds a +1 to the views, which makes them more valuable, which encourages more people to try and get that sort of photo.

Why not everyone just go and grab some air and chill out.
 
that elephant was dispelled a few pages back and it is totally irrelevant as a sniper could always take a shot from 1 km away wherever she is. She doesn't need to be topless on a balcony for a sniper to get her....
 
interesting opinions on the last six pages, public interest?....hmm, it is sort of, for the public that crave "celeb" gossip but then i have no time for those people.
should media publications have limits on what they can publish, based on privacy and decency? (which is a subjective thing) then the "paps" will have no one to sell to and less likely to take the photos?
was the tog a pervert? probably not, just after money like the rest of us, just went about it a different way.
should the royals have special treatment re this type of photo?...not in my eyes but then i think topless/nude pics of "celebs" when they are unaware is not of interest to anyone with a life :)
just my humble opinion.
 
one of the things that strikes me about this is whether the ammount of outrage is because its kate or whether it really is about the morals of invasion of privacy - if the subject were someone much less popular or photogenic would people still be this upset ?

For example as a hypothetical if someone got a shot of say caroline spellman with her baps out , would people react with the same degree of condemnation for the photographer ?

equally what if they caught something more 'news worthy' like say caroline spellman and david cameron having a tryst (hypothetically of course) - would that be okay , or would we still be concerned with their right to privacy ?
 
big soft moose said:
one of the things that strikes me about this is whether the ammount of outrage is because its kate or whether it really is about the morals of invasion of privacy - if the subject were someone much less popular or photogenic would people still be this upset ?

For example as a hypothetical if someone got a shot of say caroline spellman with her baps out , would people react with the same degree of condemnation for the photographer ?

equally what if they caught something more 'news worthy' like say caroline spellman and david cameron having a tryst (hypothetically of course) - would that be okay , or would we still be concerned with their right to privacy ?
Click to expand...

For me, it's the invasion of privacy. The subject (Duchess of Cambridge) is neither here nor there, I would apply the same 'reasonable expectation of privacy' test to anyone.
 
MartynK said:
For me, it's the invasion of privacy. The subject (Duchess of Cambridge) is neither here nor there, I would apply the same 'reasonable expectation of privacy' test to anyone.
Click to expand...

This^
There's an awful lot of needless blather on this thread. The simple fact is that the law was broken (in France) and that human beings should have a little more respect for each other than that.:)
 
Agree it was simple invasion of privacy. I still believe that if the shots were not topless nobody would have cared as they would have just been poor shots of Kate. Would have been interesting to see if it was dealt with the same way or if the invasion of privacy wouldn't have been seen as such an issue if fully clothed?
 
Apparently the publishers (photographer) must give the originals to the couple within 24 hours.

But as he took them and therefore he owns the copyright to them then why should he? From what I gather the images were took from a road that over looks the villa they were staying in so taken on a public highway, therefore taken legally? If I were in her position knowing that paps we bound to be close by wanting to get an exclusive and I knew that the villa garden over looked a main road then the last thing I would do is get topless !

I agree with the point raised above about what if it wasn't Kate Middleton, what if it was somebody else? This is so true. Every day celebs, Z listers etc go through this cat and game mouse with paparazzi taking images of them - we've seen everything over the years like affairs, celeb boobs, trouble at mill etc but yet nothing ever gets said about these invasions of privacy.

So we either have one rule for all or shut up and put up. I don't see why the royals should be any different to any of us. We can't have one rule for one and one rule for another. If this is an invasion of privacy then we need to look at the masses and not just for royalty.
 
cardiff_gareth said:
Apparently the publishers (photographer) must give the originals to the couple within 24 hours.

But as he took them and therefore he owns the copyright to them then why should he? From what I gather the images were took from a road that over looks the villa they were staying in so taken on a public highway, therefore taken legally? If I were in her position knowing that paps we bound to be close by wanting to get an exclusive and I knew that the villa garden over looked a main road then the last thing I would do is get topless !

I agree with the point raised above about what if it wasn't Kate Middleton, what if it was somebody else? This is so true. Every day celebs, Z listers etc go through this cat and game mouse with paparazzi taking images of them - we've seen everything over the years like affairs, celeb boobs, trouble at mill etc but yet nothing ever gets said about these invasions of privacy.

So we either have one rule for all or shut up and put up. I don't see why the royals should be any different to any of us. We can't have one rule for one and one rule for another. If this is an invasion of privacy then we need to look at the masses and not just for royalty.
Click to expand...

French privacy rules are different than ours in England.
 
cardiff_gareth said:
Apparently the publishers (photographer) must give the originals to the couple within 24 hours.

.
Click to expand...

so he hands over the raw file - BFD , how's that going to acheive anything with millions of copies of the jpeg circulating on the internet - strikes me that whoever handed that judgement down doesnt really understand the digital age
 
Huge invasion of privacy - but then again, I can't help feeling that a lot of street photography comes under that banner (MY opinion, not a criticism of anyone in particular. I just remember seeing a shot in a magazine of a poor girl sitting on the plinth of a memorial crying her eyes out...). She should be able to get 'em out without worrying that some lowlife has his beady lens out, hoping for a shot thsat he can crop to hell and back I presume - not seen the pics and have no interest in doing so. Yes, she was a little silly - if you can see the road, they can see you but humans shouldn't behave like that.
And tbh, the person I have the most sympathy in this affair is Prince William, who saw his own mother hounded to her death by the press/paparazzi (paps aren't press, they're scum) and must be terrified that his wife will get the same treatment, although she's far less highly strung.

In conclusion, I hope that she and Will suffer no long term worries and that the pap gets a well hung boyfriend if he gets jail time (which I hope he does, not sure how draconian French privacy laws are but I do know that they're tighter than British ones) and never gets another commision or buyer for any of his work. Harsh? Maybe so but I did manage to stop short of hoping that some of her brother in law's colleagues educated him in manners.
 
big soft moose said:
one of the things that strikes me about this is whether the ammount of outrage is because its kate or whether it really is about the morals of invasion of privacy - if the subject were someone much less popular or photogenic would people still be this upset ?

For example as a hypothetical if someone got a shot of say caroline spellman with her baps out , would people react with the same degree of condemnation for the photographer ?

equally what if they caught something more 'news worthy' like say caroline spellman and david cameron having a tryst (hypothetically of course) - would that be okay , or would we still be concerned with their right to privacy ?
Click to expand...

I don't like the people, but I think the same standards apply, they deserve their privacy like anyone else.
Fortunately most decent people try to apply rules evenly, irrespective of whether they like or dislike someone.
Do unto others as you would have them do to you - it is all about consideration.
 
tiler65 said:
French privacy rules are different than ours in England.
Click to expand...

And even with our (don't actually exist) Privacy laws...
The PCC won't allow 'long range' lenses used to spy into private property.
So although it's not illegal to do, it's against the rules under which our press work.

But certainly in France - this is illegal and the photographer should be prosecuted.
 
but where do we draw the line between what is prurient and what is news ? - if we took the following examples would any of them be appropriate to shoot with a long lens and publish or are they all an invasion of privacy

Future queen sunbathes topless in own garden- I think we all know the answer to this one

Unpopular minister sunbathes topless in own garden

previously convicted murderess sunbathes topless in her own garden

footballer has affair with team mates wife

prime minister has affair with member of his cabinet

prime minister meets with suspected criminal in the private place

prime minister meets with known criminal in private place

prime minister taking wad of £20 notes from said criminal in private place

Most people would consider the last one to be legitimate news , but where does the line lie amongst the others ?
 
big soft moose said:
but where do we draw the line between what is prurient and what is news ? - if we took the following examples would any of them be appropriate to shoot with a long lens and publish or are they all an invasion of privacy

Future queen sunbathes topless in own garden- I think we all know the answer to this one

Unpopular minister sunbathes topless in own garden

previously convicted murderess sunbathes topless in her own garden

footballer has affair with team mates wife

prime minister has affair with member of his cabinet

prime minister meets with suspected criminal in the private place

prime minister meets with known criminal in private place

prime minister taking wad of £20 notes from said criminal in private place

Most people would consider the last one to be legitimate news , but where does the line lie amongst the others ?
Click to expand...

In exactly the same place. None of anyone else's business, including the last scenario.
 
really :thinking:

would it make any difference if it was a police officer taking cash from a criminal in the last example ?
 
So if a dirty cop is taking cash from the local criminals rather than arresting them , its no ones concern but his own so long as he does it in private ?

and if a press photographer gets photographic evidence of such with a long lens shot he shouldnt publish it ?

seriously :shrug:

Imo thats taking the concept of 'right to privacy' far too far - I only included that example to give an example at the other end of the spectrum , and was more thinking the shades of grey for debate would fall between the two extremes
 
big soft moose said:
So if a dirty cop is taking cash from the local criminals rather than arresting them , its no ones concern but his own so long as he does it in private ?

and if a press photographer gets photographic evidence of such with a long lens shot he shouldnt publish it ?

seriously :shrug:

Imo thats taking the concept of 'right to privacy' far too far - I only included that example to give an example at the other end of the spectrum , and was more thinking the shades of grey for debate would fall between the two extremes
Click to expand...

Looking at the list of "options which you have given, then I would have said that the last three would be "in the public interest", but the others would be purely for public "titilation" (forgive the pun:D couldn't resist it).
It should be the last two really, because a "suspected" criminal is still innocent.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How can you prove with a long lens camera that it is 'dirty' money said police officer is accepting?....again it is a scenario which you will have to show proof other than a photograph. Then the actual news would not need to contain a photograph.

Why shouldn't a Pm meet with a convicted crinimal?
 
its certainly a scenario that would raise questions though - and the media isnt a court of law
 
tiler65 said:
How can you prove with a long lens camera that it is 'dirty' money said police officer is accepting?....again it is a scenario which you will have to show proof other than a photograph. Then the actual news would not need to contain a photograph.

Why shouldn't a Pm meet with a convicted crinimal?
Click to expand...

It was bound to happen, this^

When I first read the scenarios, I was thinking about the stories, and that there was a limit to 'privacy' but there isn't. Stories need investigation, and showing a long lens photo isn't often really necessary. the stories would stand without it.

For me the news story starts with the PM's affair. But long lens photography would probably still be an unnecessary intrusion.
 
Nod said:
Huge invasion of privacy - but then again, I can't help feeling that a lot of street photography comes under that banner (MY opinion, not a criticism of anyone in particular. I just remember seeing a shot in a magazine of a poor girl sitting on the plinth of a memorial crying her eyes out...). She should be able to get 'em out without worrying that some lowlife has his beady lens out, hoping for a shot thsat he can crop to hell and back I presume - not seen the pics and have no interest in doing so. Yes, she was a little silly - if you can see the road, they can see you but humans shouldn't behave like that.
And tbh, the person I have the most sympathy in this affair is Prince William, who saw his own mother hounded to her death by the press/paparazzi (paps aren't press, they're scum) and must be terrified that his wife will get the same treatment, although she's far less highly strung.

In conclusion, I hope that she and Will suffer no long term worries and that the pap gets a well hung boyfriend if he gets jail time (which I hope he does, not sure how draconian French privacy laws are but I do know that they're tighter than British ones) and never gets another commision or buyer for any of his work. Harsh? Maybe so but I did manage to stop short of hoping that some of her brother in law's colleagues educated him in manners.
Click to expand...

So how does street Photographty have anything to do with this,the same as not all paps are scum,sometime when it suit them, includeing the royal family,they will use the press.
Plus street photographs have been part of the history of photographer since its early days.
As for Diana,wasn't one her big problem with the royal family,the way they try to control her,her husband having an mistress etc,the press did not hound her to death,she was killed by a driver,who was under the influence of drink and drug,
and again she new how to use the paps & press when she needer to.

:(
 
simonblue said:
So how does street Photographty have anything to do with this,
Click to expand...

I suspect that Nod was thinking of the sort of street photography that takes pictures of couples kissing, people crying at graves, war memorials etc - it may be legitimate in that its in a public place , but it could still be argued to be an invasion of someones privacy - ie taking their private moments and publishing them on the internet
 
big soft moose said:
I suspect that Nod was thinking of the sort of street photography that takes pictures of couples kissing, people crying at graves, war memorials etc - it may be legitimate in that its in a public place , but it could still be argued to be an invasion of someones privacy - ie taking their private moments and publishing them on the internet
Click to expand...

So again the question is raised - how far does invasion of privacy go? Looking back at iconic images - the child running from the napalm bomb dropped on Hiroshima was it, Victor Jorgensen's sailor iconic kiss, Vietnam execution, vulture stalking child etc. These are images we call 'Iconic' but were they really an invasion of their privacy ?

Also Vivian Maier - half her work must be an invasion or privacy !
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
so he hands over the raw file - BFD , how's that going to acheive anything with millions of copies of the jpeg circulating on the internet - strikes me that whoever handed that judgement down doesnt really understand the digital age
Click to expand...

Hum, I wonder what you could find out from the original file...

... perhaps something useful from the exif maybe, such as the photographer (which is still being denied by the obvious subject even though she's gone into hiding), possibly the exact location, plus no doubt not all the images were published.
 
if he/she has any sense (s)he'll delete the exif before handing anything over
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top