duchess of cambridge sunbathing topless pics

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

inlet13

I do have to say again,...

should the woman in NYC that walks around topless every day (for topless women rights) be able to sue every paper in the US that put out pictures of her? She's everywhere.

She was also outside, like the princess.

redrock

If she's walking around NY, she's in a public place, amongst people. Obviously, this woman is making a statement and, I would have therefore thought, seeking the attention (or, if not seeking, surely not trying to be 'private').

The Duchess was on a secluded, private property, going about private business.

Difference.

inlet13

redrock wrote:

If she's walking around NY, she's in a public place, amongst people. Obviously, this woman is making a statement and, I would have therefore thought, seeking the attention (or, if not seeking, surely not trying to be 'private').

The Duchess was on a secluded, private property, going about private business.

Difference.

From what I read this was several hundred meters from a public road. At the very least, she should have known better. It's not like they went into her house. She was outside - in public view. These people will take pictures of anything. She should know better - and if she didn't someone who works for her should have told her. She's a fucking princess, evidently a pretty stupid one "if" she didn't want these out.

I continue to say - she shouldn't be treated differently than any other celebrity. In fact, she's luckier that the court ruled against it - I think we all know if this was a typical celeb it wouldn't have gotten there.

brianlux

I don't think it's right to take a photograph of anyone without their permission- clothed or naked, public or private. To me it's just that simple.

hedonist

I mentioned this thread to Danny...he rolled his eyes at me and said, "THIS is what people are worrying about? Royal fuckin TITS?"

Uh huh.

Close to top-breaking-news here this morning!

BinauralJam

Aren't we making a mountain out of molehills?

brianlux

BinauralJam wrote:

Aren't we making a mountain out of molehills?

Isn't that what we're here for?

JonnyPistachio

I hear boobs are not a big deal in Europe. I for one, couldnt care less. I have nipples and they are useless, and nobody cares to see pictures of them whatsoever.

cincybearcat

hedonist wrote:

I mentioned this thread to Danny...he rolled his eyes at me and said, "THIS is what people are worrying about? Royal fuckin TITS?"

Uh huh.

Close to top-breaking-news here this morning!

You might want to watch out. Danny doesn't seem to like boobies. Perhaps a thread about the Royal family jewels would interest him more?

lukin2006

Criminal investigation opened, injunction granted over topless photos of Kate

http://thestar.blogs.com/royals/2012/09 ... -kate.html