duchess of cambridge sunbathing topless pics

chadwick

while sunbathing at a vacation home in the south of france, dutchess kate had photos being snapped of her by someone hundreds of yards away with a badass lens/camera. they snapped many topless photos of the princess. should they publish them or should they not? it's frickin on around the world as we speak.

Kat

They should not. I actually think it's criminal, isn't it? Peeping toms go to jail, don't they? Probation at least. They might be stalkers too. Just a few thoughts. I'm a big believer in privacy though and not everyone is. Each person deserves their own private space.

cincybearcat

Kat wrote:

They should not. I actually think it's criminal, isn't it? Peeping toms go to jail, don't they? Probation at least. They might be stalkers too. Just a few thoughts. I'm a big believer in privacy though and not everyone is. Each person deserves their own private space.

I agree. Although, peeping tom's are generally on someone's private property. Don;t think this was the case here.

As much as it sucks, public figures (no pun intended) need to be more vigilant about what they do and where they do it though.

hedonist

Big guy, big eye, watching me!

Legalities aside, it's just a shitty thing to do to someone else.

Anyway...have a drink, I'm buying

inlet13

This is actually an interesting thread and I was thinking about posting a similar one.

Here's the thing - Prior to this, I really - really liked her. I thought she was really smart and obviously very pretty too - she seemed with it. I also thought that Prince William was really with it too. After this, I still like them, but think they are a bit dumb.

So, my opinion - I think she's entitled to personal space, just like everyone. I do agree with most that paparazzi are complete and total scum. And the person who took these photos may have some issues... this list goes on regarding the scum that do this, but the prince and princess aren't the first to deal with this...


So... I think...

She's in line to be the queen of England - she should know better. She was outside. End of story. I blame her own stupidity for this. Would Michelle Obama be insulated from this if she did it? How about Ann Romney? Do you think the media wouldn't run this if it were Sarah Palin ? Truth is - I think all of the above are too smart to do this. They know the media is scum. That's why I lost a bit of respect for her - did she not know? Seriously? In this day and age?

So, I'll say it - yeh, they should be able to publish them - because she was not indoors. She was outside and was not really "hiding" this.

cincybearcat

inlet13 wrote:

This is actually an interesting thread and I was thinking about posting a similar one.

Here's the thing - Prior to this, I really - really liked her. I thought she was really smart and obviously very pretty too - she seemed with it. I also thought that Prince William was really with it too. After this, I still like them, but think they are a bit dumb.

So, my opinion - I think she's entitled to personal space, just like everyone. I do agree with most that paparazzi are complete and total scum. And the person who took these photos may have some issues... this list goes on regarding the scum that do this, but the prince and princess aren't the first to deal with this...


So... I think...

She's in line to be the queen of England - she should know better. She was outside. End of story. I blame her own stupidity for this. Would Michelle Obama be insulated from this if she did it? How about Ann Romney? Do you think the media wouldn't run this if it were Sarah Palin ? Truth is - I think all of the above are too smart to do this. They know the media is scum. That's why I lost a bit of respect for her - did she not know? Seriously? In this day and age?

So, I'll say it - yeh, they should be able to publish them - because she was not indoors. She was outside and was not really "hiding" this.

The difference between all those women you mentioned and Kate...age. I do think it was not the brightest choice to make, but it is sad that she can't feel unwatched from time to time.

Jason P

The guy that filmed Erin Andrews got 2 years. This photographer should get the same if not more.

cincybearcat

Jason P wrote:

The guy that filmed Erin Andrews got 2 years. This photographer should get the same if not more.

Erin Andrews was not outside.

inlet13

cincybearcat wrote:

The difference between all those women you mentioned and Kate...age. I do think it was not the brightest choice to make, but it is sad that she can't feel unwatched from time to time.

Ok. How about Lindsay Lohan? Or Brittany Spears? Or how about Obama or Bush or Clinton's kids? etc...

I don't feel sad at all for her. She can go indoors to enormous mansion if she wants to remove your top and not have it all over the press. She could also enjoy the sun without removing her top. The list is endless. She chose this and should know what it meant.

These people are sick and they are everywhere. All I'm saying is - recognize it.

Them - sick aholes. Her - really ditzy idiot.... unless - she wanted them to see if for some reason.

inlet13

Quick question : Should the topless chick who walks around NYC for shirtless rights never be photographed? If so, you could sue every single paper in the US.

josevolution

I feel bad for her but really C'mon man this 2012 she could of been topless on Mars and these scum would of gotten their shots has anyone from here seen the shots ...I bet they are Mosquito bites size

Godfather.

Kat wrote:

They should not. I actually think it's criminal, isn't it? Peeping toms go to jail, don't they? Probation at least. They might be stalkers too. Just a few thoughts. I'm a big believer in privacy though and not everyone is. Each person deserves their own private space.

agreed.

Godfather.

cincybearcat

That was fast!

Godfather.

:( I miss her....
that was one of the funniest derailments I 've seen on the train,com'on Kat you didn't laugh a little bit ?

Godfather.

Jason P

cincybearcat wrote:

Jason P wrote:

The guy that filmed Erin Andrews got 2 years. This photographer should get the same if not more.

Erin Andrews was not outside.

It was my understanding that she was not visible to the outside and the pictures was taken by someone on private grounds.

No different then staying at a hotel and someone takes video through a peephole. You don't expect it.

BinauralJam

I stepped away for a few and came back confused.

To answer your question Kat, i don't believe it was photo shopped, don't know for sure.

josevolution

Whoa Palin derails duchess thread can't blame us guys if that pict is real those are perfect ...

polaris_x

it's just sad that everything has to be sexualized ... our hang ups on nudity generally is what makes this thing bigger than it should ... the reality is that at some point she is gonna be somewhere where she's gonna wear a skimpy bikini ... it's pretty much for the world to see anyways ...

Godfather.

Jason P wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Jason P wrote:

The guy that filmed Erin Andrews got 2 years. This photographer should get the same if not more.

Erin Andrews was not outside.

It was my understanding that she was not visible to the outside and the pictures was taken by someone on private grounds.

No different then staying at a hotel and someone takes video through a peephole. You don't expect it.

just out of courisity....what do you guy's think will happen when a celeb like the Duchess leaves for holiday ?
this is what happens when you sell your soul to the public...if your fame and fortune are given to you by the public..you are public property, I know that sounds horrible but really that's the bottom line, the public will pay $ millions to see those photos, in this case their fortune is given by the public right ? tax's etc right ? as wrong as it is that same public will pay to see the Duchess naked.

Godfather.

Jason P

Godfather. wrote:

just out of courisity....what do you guy's think will happen when a celeb like the Duchess leaves for holiday ?
this is what happens when you sell your soul to the public...if your fame and fortune are given to you by the public..you are public property, I know that sounds horrible but really that's the bottom line, the public will pay $ millions to see those photos, in this case their fortune is given by the public right ? tax's etc right ? as wrong as it is that same public will pay to see the Duchess naked.

That way of thinking blows my mind. OK, here are two scenarios ....

1) Tag-Heuer uses a picture of Yankee Alex Rodriguez in US magazine ad to sell its product and profit without getting his permission.

2) US Weekly uses a picture of Yankee Alex Rodriguez picking his nose to sell its product and profit without getting his permission.

Same magazine. Same unauthorized pictures. Same profiteering.

Who can A-Rod sue? Who have we given a free pass to? Where is the logic?

:fp:

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Jason P wrote:

It was my understanding that she was not visible to the outside and the pictures was taken by someone on private grounds.

No different then staying at a hotel and someone takes video through a peephole. You don't expect it.

she was outside. no expectation of privacy.

PJ_Soul

Kat wrote:

They should not. I actually think it's criminal, isn't it? Peeping toms go to jail, don't they? Probation at least. They might be stalkers too. Just a few thoughts. I'm a big believer in privacy though and not everyone is. Each person deserves their own private space.

That's what I thought. That perv who filmed that hit female sportscaster through the peephole in a hotel room got charged. What's the difference here??

Also, why do people care if a she was topless in her own hotel room, as though it's scandalous? And as though it's something they should get joy from looking at? Looking at the violation of a woman and being happy about it? I find this whole thing annoying . And considering how William lost his mom, I also find it horrible and cruel.

PJ_Soul

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Jason P wrote:

It was my understanding that she was not visible to the outside and the pictures was taken by someone on private grounds.

No different then staying at a hotel and someone takes video through a peephole. You don't expect it.

she was outside. no expectation of privacy.

Really? In an enclosed compound? Well, if so, still disgusting. I am very irritated - such a violation. Way too many people don't seem very human anymore.

Jason P

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Jason P wrote:

It was my understanding that she was not visible to the outside and the pictures was taken by someone on private grounds.

No different then staying at a hotel and someone takes video through a peephole. You don't expect it.

she was outside. no expectation of privacy.

Erin Andrews had a hole in her door. No expectation of privacy. :?

This wasn't on a boat or a beach, it was inside a private compound.

I would think the resort would sue this photographer as well. It's going to hurt their business immensely due to security concerns.

Godfather.

Jason P wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

just out of courisity....what do you guy's think will happen when a celeb like the Duchess leaves for holiday ?
this is what happens when you sell your soul to the public...if your fame and fortune are given to you by the public..you are public property, I know that sounds horrible but really that's the bottom line, the public will pay $ millions to see those photos, in this case their fortune is given by the public right ? tax's etc right ? as wrong as it is that same public will pay to see the Duchess naked.

That way of thinking blows my mind. OK, here are two scenarios ....

1) Tag-Heuer uses a picture of Yankee Alex Rodriguez in US magazine ad to sell its product and profit without getting his permission.

2) US Weekly uses a picture of Yankee Alex Rodriguez picking his nose to sell its product and profit without getting his permission.

Same magazine. Same unauthorized pictures. Same profiteering.

Who can A-Rod sue? Who have we given a free pass to? Where is the logic?

:fp:

really man think about it , I didn't say it was right I said that is how it works, if a rods picture is used in a advertisement without his or his managers aprovel that's legally different but if he is in a public place and someone gets a pic of him naked he is open game for the potographer to sell those pic's to any magazine or paper and under those circumstances and it's legal.
look at all the pic's of Brittany Spears with her ..privates showing as she gets out out of the limo or Janet Jacksons boob hanging out during the super bowl, I think it's cheesey and low but it's legal to sell those pic's and use them in a mag or paper as long as they are censored for public display and logic has nothing to do with it,a celeb has sold their image to the public clothed or not.

Godfather.

Godfather.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/18/world/eur ... ?hpt=hp_c1

this should make thing's better.....don't mess with the queen

Godfather.

redrock

Jason P wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Jason P wrote:

It was my understanding that she was not visible to the outside and the pictures was taken by someone on private grounds.

No different then staying at a hotel and someone takes video through a peephole. You don't expect it.

she was outside. no expectation of privacy.

Erin Andrews had a hole in her door. No expectation of privacy. :?

This wasn't on a boat or a beach, it was inside a private compound.

I would think the resort would sue this photographer as well. It's going to hurt their business immensely due to security concerns.

It's not a resort. The chateau is secluded privately owned by a member of the royal family (Queen's nephew) and surrounded by acres and acres of privately owned land. It's someone's 'home' - private property. It would seem these photos were taken from over 1.5km away. The photos below give a bit of perspective on distance, etc.

I don't care who Kate is - anyone should be able to expect privacy when in one's home (or any other private property). We are not talking about someone being able to snap this photos with a regular camera after having spotted someone 'famous' (or not) doing something that one may find 'newsworthy'. We are talking massive, intrusive lenses and sometimes photographers climbing trees, going on roofs, etc. to take a shot. Not right.

This photo shows one of the places the photographer could have stood:
http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2012/09/15/1226474/693621-chateau-d-039-autet.jpg

This view has where the couple were in red and possible 'vantage points' for the photographer in red. Not just passing by and noticing something, is it?
http://static1.purepeople.com/articles/9/10/69/69/@/936158--637x0-2.jpg

lukin2006

He must of ha one bad ass lens. Unfortunately for her its a hard lesson to learn but, just like Diana she will get no privacy and the paparazzi will photograph her at will no matter where she is.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Jason P wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Jason P wrote:

It was my understanding that she was not visible to the outside and the pictures was taken by someone on private grounds.

No different then staying at a hotel and someone takes video through a peephole. You don't expect it.

she was outside. no expectation of privacy.

Erin Andrews had a hole in her door. No expectation of privacy. :?

This wasn't on a boat or a beach, it was inside a private compound.

I would think the resort would sue this photographer as well. It's going to hurt their business immensely due to security concerns.

inside and outside are different. If I say I'm inside the walls of an outdoor compound=still outside.

I never said it's not right, either. I'm not defending the photographer, I'm just saying that if someone wants to go topless with nothing between herself and the sky, then that shit CAN happen, whethere we like it or not.

Godfather.

HFD agreed, it ain't right but it's what happens.

Godfather.

chadwick

Kat wrote:

They should not. I actually think it's criminal, isn't it? Peeping toms go to jail, don't they? Probation at least. They might be stalkers too. Just a few thoughts. I'm a big believer in privacy though and not everyone is. Each person deserves their own private space.

finally we agree on something!

just kidding... we agree on almost every single thing except penile jokes & ted nugent
i even have agreed with you once out of seven times when i was banned

princess whatever her name is sure is nice. the photographer who snapped the pictures might should have his ass kicked up to his/her shoulders.

99.9% chance the photographer is male. do women even do this kinda scumbag paparazzi bullshit? i highly doubt it