Catherine & William: 'Closer' Magazine and Breach of Privacy - September 2012

[Curryong]

How I read it is that the complainants, ie the Cambridges, are the ones asking for this money as they are the ones that have suffered the humiliation of the photos appearing in the magazine.

Incidentally I've no wish to be controversial here but aren't the RPOs supposed to be near the royals they're protecting at all times in case something untoward or threatening occurs? Wouldn't they, or other guards, have been patrolling at ground level near that balcony at some point? Are any domestic staff, gardeners etc, liable to walk by? What if they saw the nude Kate, even inadvertently?

I don't really think a balcony high up on a building is the wisest location if you want to do some nude sun baking, for the above reasons, even if photographers and their long range lenses are completely unacceptable.

 

[cepe]

How I read it is that the complainants, ie the Cambridges, are the ones asking for this money as they are the ones that have suffered the humiliation of the photos appearing in the magazine.

Incidentally I've no wish to be controversial here but aren't the RPOs supposed to be near the royals they're protecting at all times in case something untoward or threatening occurs? Wouldn't they, or other guards, have been patrolling at ground level near that balcony at some point? Are any domestic staff, gardeners etc, liable to walk by? What if they saw the nude Kate, even inadvertently?

I don't really think a balcony high up on a building is the wisest location if you want to do some nude sun baking, for the above reasons, even if photographers and their long range lenses are completely unacceptable.

the photographers were a very long distance away - someone with a better memory than me will tell us - but definitely not something one would automatically consider.


The debate isn't whether or not an individual should sun bath topless or whatever - it is whether people are entitled to privacy in their lives.

And the answer has to be yes they do.

The two debates have been muddled through this entire process.

 

[Curryong]

So if a member of staff like a gardener, or an RPO, should glimpse a nude sunbathing Kate on a balcony, that wouldn't really matter then, (not that we would ever be likely to know about it, anyway.) ?

I'm not a prude and have seen beaches on continental Europe where topless and nude sunbathing is very much accepted and people don't mind being photographed there. However, you have to choose your locales in my view and, holiday or not, a high balcony on a private villa with RPOs and staff around isn't a particularly appropriate location, even if the couple were relaxing.

Diana herself was often photographed with very long range camera lenses, so it's not as if this was a completely unknown phenomenon as far as William was concerned.

 

[Muhler]

I am confused. Isn't this criminal trial? Would not the government be the prosecuting party? Not the Cambridges. The Cambridges would be just the victims. So this money request is the government asking for it?

According to the Danish press this is a criminal trial. Basically France vs. the magazines and photographers.
If found guilty they will be fined for breach of the privacy legislation and W&K will be awarded damages.

The magazines for publishing illegal material, the photographers for directly breaching W&K's privacy and for profit.

It is according to the prosecutor extra serious because of the trauma William in particular suffered due to the circumstances of his mother's death. - Which is something the magazines should have taken into consideration, even if claiming freedom of speech and public interest.

 

[hel]

So if a member of staff like a gardener, or an RPO, should glimpse a nude sunbathing Kate on a balcony, that wouldn't really matter then, (not that we would ever be likely to know about it, anyway.) ?

I'm not a prude and have seen beaches on continental Europe where topless and nude sunbathing is very much accepted and people don't mind being photographed there. However, you have to choose your locales in my view and, holiday or not, a high balcony on a private villa with RPOs and staff around isn't a particularly appropriate location, even if the couple were relaxing.

Diana herself was often photographed with very long range camera lenses, so it's not as if this was a completely unknown phenomenon as far as William was concerned.

I'm not convinced that in the context of a private estate, sunbathing is any different from Catherine and Will having "mommy and daddy time" at Anmer or even KP. The perimeter needs to be protected; the couple doesn't have to be in view all the time, surely, or I doubt we'd have George and Charlotte.

There are two theories of where the photographer was -- one about half a kilometer away on the D22 (though there is only one very short stretch of the D22 from which you can see the chateau according to google maps, and it's a very exposed stretch of road), which is slightly below the chateau in elevation. The other is a kilometer away on the D33, which is a better vantage point in some ways -- it's at a higher elevation and has a fair amount of tree cover.

To put the distances into real world terms, imagine W&C were standing on the Buckingham palace balcony. If the photographer were on the D22, that would be as if s/he were standing in the middle of the Mall at roughly where Marlborough house is. If the photographer were on the D33, it would be as if s/he were on top of the Admiralty Arch.

 

[Countessmeout]

According to the Danish press this is a criminal trial. Basically France vs. the magazines and photographers.
If found guilty they will be fined for breach of the privacy legislation and W&K will be awarded damages.

The magazines for publishing illegal material, the photographers for directly breaching W&K's privacy and for profit.

It is according to the prosecutor extra serious because of the trauma William in particular suffered due to the circumstances of his mother's death. - Which is something the magazines should have taken into consideration, even if claiming freedom of speech and public interest.

Different here I guess. Here that would be two different courts.

Criminal trial would not award any money to the victims. They would inflict fines but normally that money would go to state. If the victims wanted to be compensated, they would have to sue civilly.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Prince William is accused of 'hypocrisy' and cashing in on celebrity status by lawyer after demanding £1.3MILLION over topless Kate photos which he branded 'all the more painful' because of memories of his mother Diana

William and Kate demand £1.3m for topless pictures | Daily Mail Online

​

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

This is just so stupid that I don't bother reading it.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

From Reuters Practical Law:

"It is important to note that the right to privacy in France, however strict, is not absolute, in particular when it conflicts with freedom of expression and freedom of the press. Substantive case law (strongly influenced by the European Court of Human Rights) has laid down a series of criteria aimed at finding a balance between these rights. Typically, French courts will assess the:

• Contribution to the public interest debate.
• Notoriety of the public figure.
• Previous behaviour of the public figure concerned.
• Way the information has been obtained and its truth.
• Content, form and consequences of the publication of the information in litigation.

Therefore, conflicting rights are usually resolved through the conditions of necessity (general interest, journalistic goals and current events) and the proportionality of the infringement (scale of the infringement of each right)"

This means that the French justice will see:
- was it a contribution to the public debate to expose a privately sunbathing Catherine?
- is Catherine famous for being on the edge and so obtaining celeb status? (Notority of the public figure)
- is there a precedent of the same against which Catherine did not protest (Previous behaviour)
- how were these pictures obtained and how did de media handle it?

 

[Muhler]

It's basically a question of: Is the publication of Kate's naked breasts so important and newsworthy for the society as a whole that it outweighs the right to privacy? Especially when taken with a 6.000 mm lens.

The magazines and photographers have a pretty poor case IMO!

It would be a completely different matter if W&K were photographed rolling puppies in tar and feathers. Then they would have a good case for arguing that exposing such a behavior is in the interest of the public.

 

[eya]

French court to rule on €1.5 million damages claim over topless photos of the Duchess of Cambridge

[France's Closer magazine could be ordered to pay up to €1.5 million (£1.3m) in damages today for for publishing topless pictures of the Duchess of Cambridge in southern France. A court in Nanterre, west of Paris, is due to rule on Tuesday afternoon whether the photos breached the Duchess's privacy during a three-day break with her husband, the Duke of Cambridge, in a chateau in Provence, southern France, in September 2012]

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Kate Middleton topless photos: case postponed to September

Verdict has been postponed until Sept 5

 

[eya]

French magazine is ordered to pay 100,000 Euros

French magazine to pay 100,000 euros over Kate pictures | Daily Mail Online

 

[Muhler]

According to Ritzau, the fines were the highest possible.

- Still peanuts though, so a reform of the fines and penalties is overdue IMO.

The damages are also peanuts. The sum isn't big enough to deter other magazines from doing something similar in the future.

 

[Osipi]

Peanuts is a good description of this "fine" they've been ordered to pay. Magazines and publications pay way more than that for photos and this is just a drop in the bucket to them. This fine is just a slap on the wrist and won't deter them from doing the same thing again given the chance.

 

[Rudolph]

The damages were always going to be token. The main point is the Magazine was found guilty of breaching the Cambridges privacy.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

The damages were always going to be token. The main point is the Magazine was found guilty of breaching the Cambridges privacy.

So you think this is a big win for WnK? I also am glad the magazine was found guilty but I do wish some of these fines went into the millions.

 

[Osipi]

One thing that is very much a positive is that some charity is going to benefit from the amount fined. If I remember right, its been said that any award will be donated to charity. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I don't care about charity I care about the privacy issues this case has brought up. Happy WnK never backed down from seeking justice and I hope Kate will never be violated like that again, though I feel if it never happens again it will because she will be more cautious but the vultures will still try to get pix.

 

[TLLK]

French lawyers say Kate Middleton didn't deserve toplesss snap payout | Daily Mail Online




Sorry but I do not believe that Kate and William's privacy being violated has anything to do with the promotional or professional work that Meghan was doing during her acting career.

 

[cepe]

Correct. One is an active professional decision and the other was intrusion into a persons privacy

 

[akina21]

Correct. One is an active professional decision and the other was intrusion into a persons privacy

And one consented to the pictures and one didn't .

 

[sophie25]

Exactly, Meghan voluntarily stripped down to suspenders and what not for anyone to look at her. Kate did not.

 

[JuliannaVictoria]

​

Exactly, Meghan voluntarily stripped down to suspenders and what not for anyone to look at her. Kate did not.

Whoa...Meghan did not "strip" down for anyone to look at. She was modelling for a magazine. One has nothing to do with the other. Just because your profession calls for one thing, your private life should be your own.

The lawyers and the magazine do not have a leg to stand on in this case. There is no "hypocrisy" because even if it was Meghan who had her private moments aired, she would still win the case.

Any halfway descent lawyer KP has will be able to get this appeal thrown out, because one has nothing to do with other.

1. Intrusion of privacy while on a PRIVATE beach.
2. A photo shoot for a magazine.

No matter if this happened to the same person, privacy was still violated.

 

[jacqui24]

This is the most ridiculous argument. Meghan and Harry won the IPSO complaint from Mail Online for the Jamaica photos. It wasn't about bikinis or swim trunks, but about if they had a reasonable expectation of privacy on a beach which was deemed private for those days. The Cambridges had a reasonable expectation of privacy on private property. On top of it, how would a minimal symbolic fine EVER deter magazines from publishing images that violates privacy, but will sell? I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the only time privacy will be respected is if it begins to hurt their bottom line.

BTW, do they realize all of Meghan's commercial works were done prior to becoming The Duchess of Sussex? Not that this is the main point, but really if their argument is that titled women have showed their bodies in public before, that's not true here unless they can prove Meghan somehow is a psychic and knew she'd become a senior member of the BRF years before.

 

[Pranter]

Even if you are a woman who poses naked for Playboy...if you are on a private beach/property and someone using a long range (or any) camera takes pics they are violating your expectation of privacy...just because you strip for your job doesn't mean you are fair game in a private setting.


Not sure where the attys are going with this..desperate grab I guess.


LaRae

 

[sophie25]

​

Whoa...Meghan did not "strip" down for anyone to look at. She was modelling for a magazine. One has nothing to do with the other. Just because your profession calls for one thing, your private life should be your own.

The lawyers and the magazine do not have a leg to stand on in this case. There is no "hypocrisy" because even if it was Meghan who had her private moments aired, she would still win the case.

Any halfway descent lawyer KP has will be able to get this appeal thrown out, because one has nothing to do with other.

1. Intrusion of privacy while on a PRIVATE beach.
2. A photo shoot for a magazine.

No matter if this happened to the same person, privacy was still violated.

Yes and anyone could buy that magazine and look at her in her underwear. Am I missing something?

I'm not suggesting however that Meghan doing that is of any relevance to what happened to Kate. The two things are unconnected and it's crazy to compare them.

 

[Zonk]

Yes and anyone could buy that magazine and look at her in her underwear. Am I missing something?

I'm not suggesting however that Meghan doing that is of any relevance to what happened to Kate. The two things are unconnected and it's crazy to compare them.

I think the point you are missing is that it was Meghan's choice to pose because of her career and Catherine's choice was taken away from her as she was on holiday.

That's the point.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

​

Whoa...Meghan did not "strip" down for anyone to look at. She was modelling for a magazine. One has nothing to do with the other. Just because your profession calls for one thing, your private life should be your own.

The lawyers and the magazine do not have a leg to stand on in this case. There is no "hypocrisy" because even if it was Meghan who had her private moments aired, she would still win the case.

Any halfway descent lawyer KP has will be able to get this appeal thrown out, because one has nothing to do with other.

1. Intrusion of privacy while on a PRIVATE beach.
2. A photo shoot for a magazine.

No matter if this happened to the same person, privacy was still violated.

And Kate wasn't even on a private beach, it was on the patio of a private house about a mile from the road with every expectation of privacy.

 

[sophie25]

I think the point you are missing is that it was Meghan's choice to pose because of her career and Catherine's choice was taken away from her as she was on holiday.

That's the point.

I'm not missing the point at all, I agree with you but my saying that M stripped down to her suspenders seems to be unwelcome. I'm just stating the obvious as I'm not sure how anyone strips 'up' to their underwear, that's not having a go at her.