Legality of Kate Middleton photos

Alex53 · 18 Sep 2012 at 15:22

I am not in any way advocating that magazines and newspapers should be publishing photos of Kate Middleton topless, I think its tasteless and a waste of time and resources and people should pay money to read National Geographic or something worthwhile, not this rubbish, however, I am quite surprised that an injunction on the photos has been successful.

I'm not into taking photos of people who might not want their photo taken, but I had always understood the law to be that what you can see from the public highway is fair game, whether it is in that public highway itself or it is in a private place that you can see from the public highway. It is up to the person in that public place to conceal it from the public highway i.e. draw curtains, etc. If I stood on my terrace naked, I would only blame myself if someone took a photo and showed to it other people.

The guy took the snapshots from a road, from which you could see the chateau's terrace. What law has he broken?

Maybe we have a lawyer among us who could clarify.

jorzeh · 18 Sep 2012 at 15:34

I Believe it will fall into arguying Human Rights, Ofcourse if it was any of us who had pictures taken, We wouldn't have a leg to stand on, Money Talks BullSugar Walks.

King Damager · 18 Sep 2012 at 15:41

Your interpretation would be correct if it was in England. I have no idea what the law is in France. That said, I expect an injunction would still be granted here due to it being an invasion of privacy.

As a side point, the person hardly took the snapshots from a close point... It was supposed to be like half a mile..

kd

James J · 18 Sep 2012 at 15:51

Privacy laws in france are the strongest in europe so its taken very seriously. If the couple was in a public place (say a beach) and she was topless, she would be fair game as an editorial shot to be sold for profit. However, because she was in a private residence and the photographer knew this, they immediately stepped over the line when it comes to confidentiality. The fact the images where then sold afterwards by the photographer obviously for profit (as editorial no less) then gives the prosecutor a motive for the photographer to breach confidentiality in the first place.

At the very least, the photographer doesn't own the copyright to the photos so can't sell them anyway. Its like taking a photo of the Eiffel tower at night when its lights are on. French law states that you can take as many photos as you want of it during the day but night time shots aren't allowed. If you try and sell a photo of the Eiffel tower you automatically break copyright law as you don't have a property release form from the french government. Theres so many ways the photographers actions where ultimately wrong, from a moral point of view to a legal one also.

I hope the companies that bought the images AFTER it was known how they where obtained get sued into the floor by the royal family.

D.P. · 18 Sep 2012 at 17:00

As above, France have different laws- she was on private property so there no legal basis for taking the photos.

Nexus · 18 Sep 2012 at 17:04

It's going after the Photographer that might make the difference here. The magazines/newspapers have the budgets to cover legal bills and probably still make a profit. If they can sue the Photographer in France it might make others think, as most Paps won't have that kind of money to lose.

D.P. · 18 Sep 2012 at 18:02

Nexus said:
It's going after the Photographer that might make the difference here. The magazines/newspapers have the budgets to cover legal bills and probably still make a profit. If they can sue the Photographer in France it might make others think, as most Paps won't have that kind of money to lose.

The photographer broke the french laws, and was certainly knowledgeable of the laws when he broke them.

Nexus · 18 Sep 2012 at 18:11

Yes, but it's a question of how well the law is enforced when it's not a high profile case like this. The ramifications could change the minds of those who think they can get away with it.

Rojin · 18 Sep 2012 at 19:08

If you're using a zoom to peak into private property it will still get you into trouble here as well.

greedy123 · 18 Sep 2012 at 20:07

The injunction was against the re-publishing or distributing of the photographs, not against the photographer - not sure if this was pointed out yet. The injunction doesn't claim the photos were taken illegally.

Rojin · 18 Sep 2012 at 20:23

The editor and photographer may yet face charges though, at least that's what bbc news reported. The editor has already hinted that she has more shots to bring out as well!

Nexus · 18 Sep 2012 at 20:30

greedy123 said:
The injunction was against the re-publishing or distributing of the photographs, not against the photographer - not sure if this was pointed out yet. The injunction doesn't claim the photos were taken illegally.

That's just the injunction though, which is the important and necessary first victory. As has already been said in this thread, in France those photos were taken illegally.

Vertigo · 18 Sep 2012 at 20:48

What lengths are you supposed to go to in order to conceal yourself from view from a public vantage point though?

Someone could ensure that their garden was completely surrounded by solid ten foot fences through which no-one could see. If they then decided to sunbathe topless in their garden, and someone attached a camera to a long pole and poked it over the fence to take photos, would that be "ok"?

I won't pretend to know the legalities of it but surely, if you've taken reasonable steps to ensure your privacy, then shouldn't there be an expectation of privacy?

Rojin · 18 Sep 2012 at 20:53

It's the European human rights and the right to privacy. If you are in an area where you would expect a right to privacy, then someone using a telephoto lens to invade that privacy is in trouble. It's all got to be sorted in the courts though...