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.
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' - …
>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.
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.
"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".
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.
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
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.
@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.
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.
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?
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?
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
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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+
Well within the range of a trained sniper, during WWII snipers were capable of making hits up to 1,000M.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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 ...