back to article Hapless Kate topless, toothless law useless

I rush back from town mid-afternoon in order to participate in an online conference, or what they prefer me to call a "webinar". At home, I discover that my son is sitting at his computer. It’s a school day. This might not be such a bad thing: since his school doesn’t teach about computers any more - see 'Emotional Baggage' - it …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Anonymous Coward

WTF

Have you been paid by Kingston Technologies to advertise their memory card?

Whats the point of the article, after all?

Agreed, the royal jubblies are no great shakes and she has dark nipples. You see better ones on a European beach.

3
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: WTF

Well, there's only one reason most people would want to view them and the quality is so poor (of the imagery and the actual norkage) that they're not really going to induce a boner.

0
0

Great Ass

She's got a great ass, but I've seen better spaniels' ears at Crufts.

0
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: WTF BOGOF

If you scroll down you get to Kate Moss.

Buy one get one free. Or should that be buy two get two free?

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: WTF

>Have you been paid by Kingston Technologies to advertise their memory card?

Good to hear from another person raised on Blue Peter and their use of 'sticky tape' instead of Sellotape, and Pritt-Stick with the label covered. But that was a children's programme on a non-commercial channel; this is The Register viewed by adults (I think).

It is hard to find a photo of an SDcard that doesn't show its branding. Generic photos of the blank belly of cards look as if they have been taken by professionals, and presumably belong to a photo library. If Mr Dabbs were advertising it, it would be the latest and greatest card, not a Class 4.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Having seen the pictures (for research reasons obviously).....

.....the only reason I know that is Kate Middleton is because the papers have said it is. Looking at the pictures purely as they are, the qulity is so low it could be bleeding anybody.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Having seen the pictures (for research reasons obviously).....

except William or Harry

0
0
Silver badge

Given that the original photographer may not want to be associated with the images due to legal reasons, does this mean that the images are now officially "orphan works"?

2
0
Anonymous Coward

I for one congratulate our princess on her modern attitude towards an all over tan!

and anyone criticising her boobies should be shot as a traitor to the crown!

7
0
Anonymous Coward

Whilst I am appalled at this hideous invasion of privacy

I thought they were really quite wonderful, perfect size, shape and pointiness.

4
0
Anonymous Coward

Well you can line me up against the wall

I'd be quite happy never to see another Royal photo, clothed or otherwise.

Aren't there any rich Texans who could buy the Royal Family from us?

10
3
Silver badge
Joke

Re: Well you can line me up against the wall

They tried that with Fergie, and it (toe) sucked.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Well you can line me up against the wall

"Aren't there any rich Texans who could buy the Royal Family from us?"

Aren't there any rich Chinese who could buy the Royal Family from us? - FIXED

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Well you can line me up against the wall

Aren't there any rich (Martian) Chinese Texans who could buy the Royal Family from us?

...getting into Futurama territory.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

The point...

The point of the court case is not to stop the movement of the images entirely but to prevent them becoming a trade-able commodity and more specifically to set a precedent for future attempts to publish similar photographs. By legally attacking and asserting the rights of the individual to their privacy they are establishing the case law needed to attack further attempts at invasion. They've requested the originals only as a function of making the magazine accountable for further distribution, because if all copies are 'handed over' then if more come out then the couple have grounds to get the mag for breach of the terms of the court case. They should also pursue other papers just to make sure their precedent is set in enough countries.

I don't think many a person will be knocking one out over those pictures and more attractive pictures of her lordship are already available, but this isn't about that, it is about the right of her to get them out in private without fear of the telephoto lens.

5
0
Gold badge

Re: The point...

"The point of the court case is not to stop the movement of the images entirely but to prevent them becoming a trade-able commodity and more specifically to set a precedent for future attempts to publish similar photographs."

Quite. If the original photographer had not broken local laws to obtain the images in the first place then he (I will assume it was a bloke) wouldn't have minded putting his name on every copy and *he* could now be the one chasing loads of foreign publications through the courts for, er, "royalties".

3
0

Re: The point...

I agree.. the deed is done and it's all about breach of privacy and someoen makiing dosh from it. Hopefully some smartass pap will get a good fine or a week in jail and think twice the next time. I'm no great fan of royalty but Kate has an air of dignity, youth, and good looks. She should feel free to do what she wants, and expect a degree of privacy. Once you make an effort to get a picture viia long lens; camera through a hedge; on top of ladders etc, you have breached their space. I wish them well and hope any fines go to charity.

1
0
Paris Hilton

Reg online standards converter

So what is Kate in Reg units ? I'm guessing 2/3 Bulgarian airbag ...

On topic though, I had a converstation last night about Royal pics and the summary is

Harry - No sympathy at all, compounded by Royal advisors/security (see below)

Kate - Should have realised long before now that's she's a public figure

Wills - Given his mother's experience should have known better

Royal advisors/security - Incompetent - Not doing their job with both Harry and Kate

Royal legal advisors - Arrogant for advising that any action would do any good/kill the story (it's done the exact opposite)

Paris - Is better at managing the media than all of the above

3
4

Re: Reg online standards converter

I'm not female and do not have breasts, but I'm aware that many people who are, and who do, are deeply disgusted by a tabloid press that considers every woman's body as a resource to exploit for money: if the Duchess of Cambridge is considered a legitimate object of such exploitation, then pretty much anybody is.

Some coverage has either thoughtfully pointed out or gleefully proclaimed, depending on who is speaking and what their intentions are, that the sewer press of the world is equally interested in, and liable to intrude into, Her Royal Highness's womb. And it's disgraceful.

If it was up to me, Prince Harry would be pulled out of Camp Bastion long enough to personally fly missile attacks on the French, Irish, Italian and every other newspaper and magazine office that are profitting from this filthy trade. Bomb them all to hell and leave the bodies buried in the rubble. I sincerely believe that it is a fair reprisal.

9
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: Reg online standards converter

Since it seems quite ok to kick off over a video and murder a few people, perhaps we should take great offence and dust off the Crusaders and have another crack, sorting out the French and Italian on the way.

Richard the Lionheart

5
0

Re: Reg online standards converter

@Robert Carnegie Unfortunately there are enough men and women in the world that are interested in The Royals and Celebrities to warrant the effort the photographers go to in order to get the pics. I doubt very much the demand perceived or otherwise will abate anytime soon. You only have to look at the example of the Daily Mail website that was redone to add the celebrity hooks resulting in traffic and revenues increasing substantially.

Celebrities also add to the problem as they need that exposure as it improves their negotiating position in securing fees for movies/appearances/endorsements/etc. I wouldn't be suprised if a high proportion of the 'paparazzi' shots are actually staged.

3
1
Silver badge

Re: Reg online standards converter

About 2 chicken's eggs. Honestly, they really are nothing to write home about.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: objects of exploitation

Depending on how impersonally-corporate-tinted your worldview has become, all anybody, or even anything, is a fair game for exploitation.

I do agree that tabloids are fucking disgusting though.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Reg online standards converter

As has to be pointed out every single f**king time something like this happens; public interest != what interests the public.

Just because somebody is a public figure does not mean that they don't have a right to privacy when they're on private property.

1
0
Silver badge

Have the royals not learnt anything.

The only way to make the images of Kate Middleton non-tradable and to keep the press away in future is to make them unremarkable. It's only the Royal Family and the UKs prudish attitude that makes them worth anything. Why are Royal breasts any different to non-royal breasts? Are they gold plated or something? Does she have diamond nipple piercings? The more fuss they make over them, the more intrusion it will cause in the future.

Prince Harry has actually played a blinder with his antics. If people I talk to are anything to go by, there's more comment about the cost of the hotel suite than about him frolicking naked with some women. He was a soldier about to go out on a tour, who was letting himself go on holiday beforehand. Bet plenty of others did the same. Difference is, they didn't do it in a £5k a night hotel suite!! But, in ignoring what's gone on, further pictures like that are going to be 'same again'. And each time, they'll get more and more unremarkable and less and less valuable; till in the end, it's not with the photographers time to take them.

1
1
Anonymous Coward

Star Wars holiday special

For those tempted, really, really, don't try to find a copy of the Star Wars Holiday Special. I did and I'll never forget it, my eyes still hurt. To paraphrase Simon Peg: The Star Wars holiday special makes the Ewoks look like fucking shaft.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Star Wars holiday special

The holiday special makes the ewoks look like shaft? Now I have to find it.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Star Wars holiday special

Shame the pirate bay is a Swedish site. But you can always use Google translate to read it.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Star Wars holiday special

Not only is it a Swedish site, but access to it has been completely blocked by UK ISPs.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Star Wars holiday special

Hence the use of Google Translate. :)

0
0
Facepalm

Re: Star Wars holiday special

It's right there on youtube, it's awful and I am now regretting the decision to seek it out!

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Star Wars holiday special

I told you, didn't I tell you? But you wouldn't listen, oh no...

1
0
Vic
Silver badge

Re: Star Wars holiday special

> access to it has been completely blocked by UK ISPs.

Not all UK ISPs. Mine seems to have been unable[1] to block it.

Vic.

[1] Which kinda matches their ability to do anything, really...

0
0

Re: Star Wars holiday special

Just watched a bit of it on youtube, its excruciatingly bad, the sort of bad that makes you embarrassed for all concerned. Chewys family is probably one of the worst insults to the franchise ever, and that includes the dreary prequels.

If I was Mr Lucas, I think I would try and sweep the whole sorry thing under the carpet as well.

Did he actually have any input on the script etc or was it just some tv producer?

0
0
Silver badge

On Star Wars:

“What’s that film that you love? The one about the hairdresser - the fucking space hairdresser and the cowboy. The guy, he’s got a tin-foil pal and a pedal bin. His father’s a robot and he’s fucking fucked his sister. Lego! They’re all made of fucking Lego.”

— Malcolm Tucker

0
0
Silver badge

Let's not even get into just how much worse of something "private" I can post online can be for you, and just start with this example:

So if I take photos of your bank statements, or credit card, and post them online, they "are now effectively in the public domain" so you shouldn't take action against me?

No. The fact is that that document cannot be "revoked" from the Internet - correct. But it's also true that you should be punished for publishing it in the first place, knowing that it was illegal and damaging to me, and that you should be punished to discourage a) future reoccurrences by yourself and b) future reoccurrences by others. Otherwise, everything we do will be in the "public domain", grey-market or not, and privacy dies a death.

If these photos were taken illegally, and it's proved so in court, there's going to be a HUGE slap to those who published them online or offline should they be identified. And it will have enormous knock-on effects, one of which will be that photographers and editors will be MUCH more careful about ever taking such snaps in the first place, let alone publish them (and I've heard one quote that he was "just a photographer, the editor decides what to publish" which shows an inherently shaky understanding of privacy and the law around who's responsible for actually permanently recording that image in the first place).

Nobody's stupid enough at the Royal lawyers to think they can suck those pictures out of thousands of personal hard drives across the globe. But they might well be able to put the fear of law back into the journalism industry and safeguard their (and other's) future privacy.

If I'd taken a photo of the next door neighbour sunbathing and plastered it over the net, I'd expect to be arrested if caught. Especially if I'd then sold those pictures to publications abroad. Why does journalism get a free-ride in these things that puts them above ordinary mortals?

6
0

I agree with your sentiment, but in practice I doubt the fine will be large enough to discourage future transgressions. The magazine will have made a lot of money from this.

0
0
Silver badge

Then lock up the editor.

That will work, and French law allows a six month sentence for invasion of privacy.

Hence the huge surprise at it being a French mag that published first - in most of the EU it'd just be be a civil penalty.

1
0

I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of the article was?

But If the free newspaper on the bus is to be believed, the photographer didn't get paid anything for them anyway, except his usual wages from the Magazine who he works for.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/912713-kate-middleton-topless-photographer-is-british-says-french-paparazzo

0
0

Streisand Effect

I know it's probably unimaginable to the British and West Euro readers, but this is also a Streisand thing. The royals are generally only known in the world at large when there's a super-mega-huge event, and this would have been pretty much under the radar for most of the planet had she not sued. I know I'd never have bothered to search for topless photos of Kate, even if they were 'going around', other than wanting to know what the lawsuit fuss was about.

As for the actual photos: meh. You'd think a woman whose only purpose in life is to loaf around and look good could do so much better. The one where she's bending over her belly fat has a larger cup size than her jubblies, which in Reg units can't be more than 1/4 Vietnamese Vespa Airbag.

1
8
Coat

Re: Streisand Effect

"The one where she's bending over her belly fat has a larger cup size than her jubblies"

Jealous? I believe Dr. Freud had some interesting things to say on the topic...

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Streisand Effect

If you weren't interested, then why did you look?

These photos were taken illegally of someone who didn't want to be photographed and yet you just *had* to go search for them?

*YOU* are what's wrong with the world. Yes you.

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Her Royal Boobness

The really important question, I think, is, 'are the pics any good?' - to which the answer is a resounding 'no, they are measly grainy crap.'

Looking at Kate Middleton clothed, I reckon she would look good topless, and would like to suggest the Cambridges take a step towards a 21st Century monarchy by commissioning a suitable photographer to do a high quality shoot. The nation deserves it.

5
1
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Re: Her Royal Boobness

Now that might be good value for our money! I like the way you think.

0
0

Re: Her Royal Boobness

"The really important question, I think, is, 'are the pics any good?' - to which the answer is a resounding 'no, they are measly grainy crap.'"

If the pictures taken in such a situation are so awful and grainy makes you wonder why a magazine editor would bother paying for them.

0
0

In Royal News Today!

Despite the establishments attempts to cover them up. We have photographic evidence, that the future royal monarch is to be suckled on some, rather small, but perfectly normal tits. There are no sign's of blue blood or lizard features. Which leaves experts contemplating the fact that the royal family, may not actually be anything special and they may indeed have a shared 200,000 year evolution history with the rest of humanity.

The are also reports that the third in the line, to the throne of England, may presently be gestating in some bikini clad floozy, located somewhere in Nevada.

0
0
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: In Royal News Today!

Fourth in line.

Charles.

William.

Harry.

Harry's child......

0
0

Re: In Royal News Today!

Sorry my mistake as forgot about Charles.

0
0

Re: In Royal News Today!

>> Sorry my mistake as forgot about Charles.

Exclusive!! Those Camilla Topless pics in full!!!

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: In Royal News Today!

"Sorry my mistake as forgot about Charles."

Forgiven. That's an easy mistake to make.

1
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums