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' - …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    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.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      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.

    2. Shagbag

      Great Ass

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

    3. Anonymous Coward
      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?

    4. Anonymous Coward
      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.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    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. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

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

      except William or Harry

  3. Alister

    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"?

  4. Anonymous Coward
    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!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Whilst I am appalled at this hideous invasion of privacy

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

    2. Anonymous Coward
      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?

      1. Anonymous Custard
        Joke

        Re: Well you can line me up against the wall

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

      2. Anonymous Coward
        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

        1. Dave 126 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.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    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.

    1. Ken Hagan 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".

    2. pj-mckay

      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.

  6. davemcwish
    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

    1. Robert Carnegie Silver badge

      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.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        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

      2. davemcwish

        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. Anonymous Coward
        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.

    2. jonathanb Silver badge

      Re: Reg online standards converter

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

    3. Fibbles

      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.

  7. Mad Mike

    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.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    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. wowfood

      Re: Star Wars holiday special

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

      1. Anonymous Coward
        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.

        1. Crisp

          Re: Star Wars holiday special

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

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Star Wars holiday special

            Hence the use of Google Translate. :)

          2. Vic

            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...

    2. Miek
      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!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Star Wars holiday special

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

    3. mickey mouse the fith

      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?

      1. Dave 126 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

  9. Lee Dowling 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?

    1. Brangdon

      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.

      1. Richard 12 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.

  10. craigj

    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

  11. Arthur 1

    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. Captain Save-a-ho
      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...

    2. Anonymous Coward
      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.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    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.

    1. Piro Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: Her Royal Boobness

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

    2. That Steve Guy

      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.

  13. moonface

    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.

    1. Mad Mike
      FAIL

      Re: In Royal News Today!

      Fourth in line.

      Charles.

      William.

      Harry.

      Harry's child......

      1. moonface

        Re: In Royal News Today!

        Sorry my mistake as forgot about Charles.

        1. spiny norman

          Re: In Royal News Today!

          >> Sorry my mistake as forgot about Charles.

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

          1. Dan 10

            Re: In Royal News Today!

            to quote Cartman:

            "You've warped my tiny little mind!"

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: In Royal News Today!

          "Sorry my mistake as forgot about Charles."

          Forgiven. That's an easy mistake to make.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Sorry my mistake as forgot about Charles.

          Easy to do, many of us want to...

    2. Muscleguy
      Boffin

      Re: In Royal News Today!

      Sorry to intrude some biological reality here but during pregnancy most women's breasts enlarge and change shape. This is because pre pregnancy female breasts contain about as much mammary gland tissue as male chests do (remember, us blokes can get breast cancer too). The rest is largely fat which is part of why full breasts are an advertisement that a woman is fertile, they deflate when food is scarce to the point of mostly absent as it was periodically for much of our evolution. Below a certain level of body fat the menstrual cycle ceases for the sensible reason that trying to carry a child to term when not enough food is present is wasteful.

      So during pregnancy the small amount of gland tissue needs to expand quite a lot so that it can secrete enough milk to feed junior. So you can be pretty much sure that royal junior, if not bottle fed, will not be suckling on those puppies as they now are.

      Again sorry to bring some reality into your life. This information was gleaned both from a physiology education and marrying a small breasted woman who then had two spawn.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: In Royal News Today!

        Wasn't it a dig at Harry's escapades, or did Harry and Kate get up to something behind William's back?

        Who needs soap operas with Reg comments.

  14. Field Marshal Von Krakenfart
    FAIL

    The elephant in the room

    In all this hu-ha about the photographs on the royal mammary glands, I've yet to see one news story or comment about how lucky they were that their security was breached by a paparazzi armed with Nikon and not by a nut-job armed with a Barrett .50 cal.

    There may be a few vacancies coming up soon in SO14 if anybody is interested.

    1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

      Re: The elephant in the room

      Since the snaps were apparently taken from about a mile away, the list of potential assassins would be fairly small.

      See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_recorded_sniper_kills for a list.

      1. Field Marshal Von Krakenfart
        Headmaster

        Re: The elephant in the room

        The photographs were taken from between 800 and 1,300 metres away, probably with a high end camera 600 millimetre lens and a 2x converter. Expensive kit at $20K+

        http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity/snapped-from-afar-topless-shots-spanned-1km-20120917-261a1.html

        Well within the range of a trained sniper, during WWII snipers were capable of making hits up to 1,000M.

        1. auburnman
          Meh

          Re: The elephant in the room

          If anyone with moderately deadly means (Rifle, bomb, maybe even a nutter with a pistol attending a big event like the Olympics) at their disposal gave a toss about killing the Royal Family, they'd be dead by now. Batman got onto the Palace balcony years ago. I think they're safe from assassination through sheer irrelevance

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I haven't seen these photos, mainly 'cause I don't give a crap about them one way or the other.

    But what with the lawsuits pending, I'm guessing the Royal Family must be strapped for cash.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Royals strapped for cash

    Depends on which poor suckers get caught holding the bill.

    Privatize the profits and socialize the costs seems to be today's preferred modus operandi.

  17. mickey mouse the fith

    Meh, come back to me when there are growler shots...

    Honestly, what a lot of fuss over nothing. And getting lawyered up will only make things worse for her as itl keep the story circulating in the gutter press and thus in the minds of the great unwashed.

    If she had just shrugged and ignored it, noone would give a toss by now and the photos would sink into the sediment of google images and be pretty much forgotten in a few months.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Meh, come back to me when there are growler shots...

      How do you know SHE did not shrug it off? all we hear about is what lawyers are doing? has there been a statement from her yet? and even then I bet it would be written by someone else...

  18. Ben Tasker

    What I always find interesting is the double standards of the media.

    Had the photographer got those shots, thought better of it and just archived them (personally I only ever delete the crap photos) but then been found with them at a later date we'd be looking at headlines about a creepy stalker, peeping tom etc.

    On the flip side, the behaviour is entirely 'acceptable' because he didn't have a crisis of conscience and allowed the images to be published. If anything, that makes his behaviour worse IMHO

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Celebrity backscatter

    Dot Com.

    AC, because he would have to purchase Brain Bleach (tm) if someone posted Lady Gaga's backscatter online in glorious 3-D.

  20. Boris S.

    You can't stop stupidity

    The photos are a clear invasion of privacy and the photog, media and all individuals who published/re-published these pictures should be held accountable. The best means to deter futher invasions of privacy is to fine and jail the photog and media execs who purchased and disseminated the photos. Those individuals who re-posted the pics should also be fined heavily.

    Since the photos were reportedly sold for $1 million, then a $3 million fine and 6 months in jail should be a good deterrent for the photog. The media that bought the photos for $1 M should be fined $100 million so they understand their lapse of good judgment and the executive blokes should be sent to jail for 18 months. I think they will have a much greater appreciation for privacy laws after their incarceration.

    You can't stop stupidity but you can make it very painful to violate someone else's privacy starting with very stiff fines and jail time.

    1. Steven Roper
      Stop

      No, you can't

      The flip side of your draconian judgement is that people end up terrified to take photographs at all just in case somebody happens to be in the shot and sues under your preferred legal system, which stops just shy of having them executed for it.

      Privacy is a vital component of freedom (I value mine immensely), but unfortunately of late it's being used as a weapon to erode the very freedom it's supposed to preserve.

      1. Richard 12 Silver badge

        Re: No, you can't

        600mm lens with 2x converter isn't something you accidentally take photos with!

        Neither do you accidentally get a topless woman a km away in shot, accidentally sell the photo (cropped to just that bit) to a magazine who accidentally published it with a huge accidental headline.

        So no, sending them to prison isn't an overreaction, and the line is fairly clear.

        If I knew that I had accidentally caught a semi-naked person in shot, I would not have made it public at all, let alone sold it to be published anywhere.

        If the rest of the photo was important, then I would crop or otherwise edit it.

        Quite simply, taking a photo of a naked person requires the permission of the subject. If it happens by accident, you don't publish it.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: No, you can't

        The suggested punishment is not draconian at all. Punishment is meant to be a deterrent. If it isn't then it's failed it's sole purpose for existing.

        As noted these photos were a malicious invasion of privacy. They didn't happen by accident, they are the work of stalkers who feel they are above the law. The media who printed them are willing to pay a fine to publish them. The solution is to punish all involved so they never, ever again believe that invading someone's privacy and then publishing personal photos is an acceptable act. These people are all social scum and they deserve to be severely punished.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: You can't stop stupidity

      Exactly I don't think the Royals are unduly bothered one bit about the fact this stuff is now on the internet, but suing the bejesus out of the photographer and magazine draws a line in the sand which would hopefully make the others back off or tone it down a bit, one thing we've learned about popular magazines and paparazzi is if uncontrolled they consider nothing off limits such are the financial rewards, a good slap now and again gets them back in line

  21. Purlieu

    From the road

    Have you seen the "view from the road" pics, it was on the BBC website. They used some google/streetview stuff and an actual pic. From that bend in the road you can see directly to the balcony, no ladders needed, no hedges to poke through at all. Since it's not illegal to take pictures from the public road, what's all the fuss about "illegal pictures" get a grip thate's real life going on outside this bubble

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: From the road

      Not so, I remember some group set up a webcam which looked into a politicians house from another building or public area (might have been Michael Portillo), they were made to take it down quite rightly as it was deemed an invasion of privacy, Google Street

      view blurs names and number plates for the same reason

      1. Purlieu

        Re: From the road

        Rubbish - take a look at photographer not a terrorist website for info about what you vcan and can't do in the street also big brother watch

        Google streetview blurs number plates because they were asked to by the plod, and blurs street name plates because the software can't tell the difference, while telling you the street name in text on the screen (doh !!) and not because it's an invasion of anyone's privacy.

        I still don't understand though, why the BBC blurs plates on the news, any criminal wanting a plate number only has to look out of the window surely ...

This topic is closed for new posts.