Was it just a daft thing to do?

[Guest fountainhall]

I admit to some confusion! There is a huge fuss going on in Europe about topless photos taken of the Duchess of Cambridge, Prince William’s wife. The couple were on holiday at a chateau in Provence owned by the Prince’s uncle. A paparazzo standing – we are led to believe – on public property and armed with a huge telephoto lens snapped fuzzy pics which show a topless Duchess. These have been published in a French magazine and now an Irish newspaper. An Italian magazine is about to publish more.

 

Yesterday, the Royal Family initiated action in the French courts for the magazine to cease distribution of the offending issue. A separate criminal action will be lodged later.

 

Prince William’s determination to protect his wife is perfectly understandable, especially in light of the hounding of his mother which almost certainly was one cause of her untimely death.

 

But I don’t understand one thing. The Royal Family more than most know all about the antics of paparazzi. However much they may dislike them, they are not going to go away. The Royals always travel with a security detail who, in this case, surely fell down badly on the job. Why was the area surrounding the chateau not examined with a fine tooth-comb to determine if there could be areas where photographs could be taken? What if it had been a sniper there? (Surely Prince Harry’s security people in Afghanistan treble-check every inch around his person?) And surely every female member of the Royal Family is 110% aware that if they choose to take off a bikini top, there is always the possibility of someone – perhaps even a friend – snapping a pic? If they wish to sunbathe semi-naked, why not erect a windbreaker around the pool area if they want greater assurance of privacy?

 

I appreciate that personal privacy is a sensitive subject. And where the line is drawn in the case of public figures remains distinctly indistinct! But Royals, again whether they like it or not, invite media scrutiny. That’s part of the game. And choosing to strip off will always be a risky business. So why on earth do it?

 

The subject in the UK may be clouded somewhat by the recent Murdoch media phone hacking scandals. In those cases, though, the law is very clear. In England, phone-hacking is a criminal offense. In law, privacy is a different matter, for the British House of Lords has ruled that there is no cause for action under English law for “invasion of privacy,” (although that has since been qualified, only marginally, by European law).

 

Yet, it is interesting reading the moral outrage being printed by the UK tabloid hacks – “repugnant invasion of privacy”, “a media Wild West”. Are these not the selfsame guardians of the public interest who gleefully printed nude photos of President Sarkozy’s wife just before a State visit to Britain four years ago?

[Bob]

The fact Kate went topless on vacation is somewhat irrelevant to me as it just shows she's doing something that feels good/healthy; however, the creep that violated her privacy ought to be jailed and/or at least fined. What a slimeball.

 

The same goes for the creep within Harry's hotel room that not only took the photos but then acted like a total bastard and sold them to the media. Another slimeball (and, hopefully, ex-acquaintance).

 

Rather than simply taking the position that it's the royals' (or other celebrities') fault because they ought to know there are slimeball papparazi behind every tree, urinal, or wherever, it seems to me that the law ought to protect them a bit. A prohibition of taking photos of them except when engaged in public functions might be a start. And, come to think of it, a simple (and, in my view, very meritorious) law forbidding journalists of all stripes from following celebrities in automobiles might have allowed William and Harry to still have their mother around.

[Rogie]

Without looking it up I can't be absolutely certain, but my understanding is the British royal family allow, and probably encourage, photographers to snap them when involved in official functions at home (don't suppose they have much say in the matter when they're abroad), or at certain times when relaxing either on holiday or watching a game of polo or whatever, in order to show they are 'normal' people, and by happily allowing this 'official' access they hope photographers will leave them alone at other times. So it's a sort of self-regulation. It seems a pretty sensible idea but only works if all photographers abide by these 'rules'. When a respectable photographer sees a rogue one coining it owing to some sneaky snaps he took, how's he going to feel? It would be interesting to interview a few photographers to find out their views on their aberrant colleagues, and what they think should be done to rein them in - just calling them paparazzi as if they were Martians won't wash. How about knee-capping? (A rather nasty way of taking it out on those of a similar kind to yourself - popular amongst certain sectarian sects in Northern Ireland during the Troubles).

[Guest fountainhall]

You can call paparazzi slimeballs or whatever, but that's not going to make them go away. The root of the problem inevitably is money - and lots of it for the right pic of just about any celebrity caught in a situation which they'd prefer not to be caught in. Allied to that are the publishers, for without publication there's no money. So, as long as there are National Enquirers and all the other scandal rags out there making enough profits from their sleaze and stories with just a grain of truth to pay for a few lawsuits, paparazzi will not go away.

 

But publish and be damned only works if the law permits it. The UK media, perhaps still chastened by the massive criticism surrounding their antics re Princess Di as well as the more recent phone hacking scandals, has not published the offending photos this time around, despite the law being "opaque". Other countries have. Yet, as soon as such photos see the light of day, they are up on the internet for most to see. So can any law effectively stop publication? And if so, at what point does this infringe on another serious topic on another thread - freedom of speech? It would seems a bit odd to me if on the one hand some group of morons has a right to call the Prophet Mohammed a child molester and a homosexual, yet they cannot publish a photo of a pretty young lady's naked breasts!

[Rogie]

as long as there are National Enquirers and all the other scandal rags out there making enough profits from their sleaze and stories with just a grain of truth to pay for a few lawsuits, paparazzi will not go away.

 

I am often curious about what sort of person buys these magazines and newpapers - the ones that peddle smut and scandal. I feel like a bit like a Martian myself sometimes, coming from a place where everybody reads broadsheet newspapers, and landing in what seems strange territory where everyone else is ogling page 3 in the 'Red Top' tabloids, before flicking idly through until page 6 where they can discover exactly what the organist did to the choirboy in the sacristy or why the verger ran off with the parson's wife.

 

Similarly, who are these people who are prepared to fork out for a glossy magazine in order to gaze at a topless young lady snapped by a slimeball (good one Bob)?

 

The audience for this kind of thing remind me of the baying mobs in the colliseum, floundering in decadence.So we have an unholy alliance between:

1. desperate and unprincipalled Paparazzi*
   
2. avaricious and unprincipalled media*
   
3. a public eager to lap up a diet of tittle-tattle*
   

As already mentioned, in order for #1 and 2 to whither, #3 must change their mind-set. Not very likely is it? Human nature hasn't changed much, if at all, since watching young men hack each other to pieces or being 'eaten' by lions was provided as a spectacle for their enjoyment.

 

NB. There is a problem with the software. I itemised the points marked * as items 1,2 and 3. The numbers do not appear in the final post, making my reference to them look a bit daft.

[Bob]

It would seems a bit odd to me if on the one hand some group of morons has a right to call the Prophet Mohammed a child molester and a homosexual, yet they cannot publish a photo of a pretty young lady's naked breasts!

 

Huh? Let's see, using your logic, what I say that I think about Mitt Romney is the same as taking photos of his wife through her bathroom window and then publishing them for the world to see? Just a bit difficult to equate freedom of speech with privacy rights as they're quite different animals.

 

My comments were aimed at the bastards who invaded the privacy rights of both Harry and Kate, not at the boneheads who bought/published the pictures (although I think purchasers/publishers ought to be liable for heavy civil penalties if they had reason to know that the photos were obtained via an invasion of privacy).

 

And, yes, I think some reasonably crafted laws (aimed at the persons taking the photos, aggressively sticking a camera an inch from somebody's face, following somebody in a car, etc.) would deter a fair amount of this crap. I personally don't see where somebody's rights of speech trumps another person's right to privacy.

 

[please substitute "exp ression" for "speech"....the software won't let me write that one word!]

[Rogie]

And, yes, I think some reasonably crafted laws (aimed at the persons taking the photos, aggressively sticking a camera an inch from somebody's face, following somebody in a car, etc.) would deter a fair amount of this crap.

 

Which is easier I wonder - to stop the paparazzi in the first place, or to muzzle the media? The current situation is clearly a French farce.

 

It has been reported that the Duchess is bringing legal action in France. Closer is likely to be convicted, to pay the modest fine and to continue as before. In recent years the French press have realised that such a course is not only possible but makes commercial sense. The tough privacy laws (in France) are not sufficient to protect against trespassing photographers with long range lenses.

 

What about media regulation? France does not have a system of statutory regulation. Furthermore, as Lara Fielden points out in her recent study Regulating the Press: A comparative study of international press councils France does not have a press council. There is a code of conduct for the press as a whole, but it contains no means of enforcement or penalties. It could be argued that, even against the backdrop of strong and clear privacy laws, cynical media manipulation means that a comprehensive and effective system of media regulation is also required.

 

http://www.legalweek.com/legal-week/blog-post/2205817/french-privacy-law-media-cynicism-and-the-likely-penalties-for-publishing-the-kate-middleton-pics

 

But, doing as Bob suggests (short of draconian punishment such as my flippant comment in post #3), is is likely to be just as ineffective. A papparazzi could take photos, and unless he is caught red-handed, disappear into the shady underworld these people inhabit. Any approaches to the media to see if they will bite would be done via equally shady third parties.

 

[please substitute "exp ression" for "speech"....the software won't let me write that one word!]

 

That's terrible when freedom of 'expression' is denied one of us!

[Bob]

That's terrible when freedom of 'exp<b></b>ressi&amp;amp;amp;amp;#111;n' is denied one of us!

 

For whatever reason, it's the editing software that's screwing up the word.....looked what it did to Rogie's 'expression' above.

[Rogie]

Just how sneaky can you get?

 

We all know there's a huge market for celebrity snaps – and especially for nude or racy celeb pictures. What I didn't realise before writing on this topic was just how much money is available for intimate pictures of the famous. While the photographers can make hundreds of thousands, there is a vast ecology of sites – places like TMZ – who will report and repost any new images, then sit back and let the traffic and the money roll in. Closer magazine may have paid for the pictures, but it's others who have made the real money from them.

 

With the amounts of money ramping up, the lengths people will go to get these pictures are also increasing in sophistication. As I mentioned in the original article, I'd heard reports of paps using radio controlled drones to get snaps on private beaches, in hotel penthouses and the like. Since then, I've been sent links to footage shot by an Australian doc crew who went to Cannes with some paps, who were using drones to get pictures of Paris Hilton as early as 2008.

 

If you click on the link below there's a short video that shows this wretched snooping drone speculatively hoping to take some candid photos of the 'celebrity'.

 

There are other methods, too. Many famous women – Christina Hendricks, Carly Rae Jepsen, Rihanna – have had their phones hacked and intimate nude pictures that were stored in the phone memory or on email accounts have been sold. Others, like Tulisa Constavalos, have suffered the indignity of former lovers releasing stills or video taken during relationships. Even those who have never taken nude snaps of themselves are vulnerable – there's a thriving online trade in fake nude pics. These fake nudes often play into particular fetish scenes and include of the sort of celebrities you'd never guess would command a premium: female BBC newsreaders or prominent feminists are a particular favourite for this treatment.

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/willardfoxton2/100007870/how-those-kate-middleton-topless-photos-make-a-fortune-for-online-porn-sites/

[Guest fountainhall]

the creep that violated her privacy ought to be jailed and/or at least fined. What a slimeball.

 

I've been thinking abut this. You are undoubtedly correct, but it surely goes further than that. As I said, royals, celebrities and others are in the public eye, whether they like it or not. When they go out anywhere, someone will recognise them. That's just a part of the 'job'. Even in what is supposedly a private residence, they 'know' the papazzi' are out to get them. They know telephoto lenses are getting longer and longer. And that's why I think in this case the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were just a tad reckless. If you choose to sunbathe topless, you know you are running a risk. And you know it's a risk that can have very unfortunate consequences. So why on earth do it?

 

As for the slimeballs, they are just one end of a rather lucrative food chain. If the public did not 'want' this sort of intrusion into private lives and pay money for it, publishers would not print it, editors would not commission it and paparazzi would be out of a job. Resort to the law, as we have seen in this case, may result in cessation of publication in one country. It may even work in several. But some organ somewhere will publish, and of that one surely would have thought of all people the son of Princess Diana would have been 100% sure.

[Bob]

It's always been a crime to "window-peep" and perhaps it's an appropriate time to strengthen the privacy laws to match existing technology. One's fenced-off backyard or gathering ought to be beyond limits for snooping whether by drone, peeking through a hole in the fence, or via pre-planted cameras. Privacy for everyone is important and the laws ought to reflect that. No different in my eyes than making phone or computer hacking a crime.

[Guest fountainhall]

Privacy for everyone is important and the laws ought to reflect that

I agree, but to enforce that you need the laws of a great many countries to be changed to reflect it. Until then, it has to be up to each person to ensure their own privacy.

[Bob]

I agree, but to enforce that you need the laws of a great many countries to be changed to reflect it. Until then, it has to be up to each person to ensure their own privacy.

 

We agree for the most part but I don't agree with the notion.....which sometimes seems to be what you're arguing....that it's the celebrity who is at fault for allowing any of this to happen. Their public lives ought to be scrutinized minutely but their private lives ought to be protected just as much as yours or mine. Whether it's you or me (god forbid) or the Duchess of whatever sunbathing nude behind a high-fenced yard, nobody ought to be allowed to either take photos through a knothole or via a drone let alone publish them publicly for the world to see.

[Guest fountainhall]

In an ideal world, yes I agree with you 100%. Everyone should be entitled to and to enjoy privacy in their private lives. In the world we inhabit, though, I believe celebrities have to bear at least some of the consequences of their actions. We have all seen how the media using the paparazzi as their tools have tried to get photos of celebrity weddings, for example. Some celebrities have foiled these attempts through use of a whole host of special security measures, including use of marquees and awnings to prevent helicopter shots.

 

We may not approve and we may raise our hands in horror that the security around Prince William's wife should be necessary and in this case failed. I still maintain, though, that purely because it is a fact of life and because the law is not going to protect their privacy in a great many countries, they - as the future King and Queen of Britain - should have been more careful. For those photos will remain around in the public domain when they do ascend the throne. And that is when further damage may be done - unless laws around the world are changed or people no longer wish to buy these grainy titillating photos (no, I have not seen them).