The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1301  
Old 07-04-2017, 02:03 AM
eya eya is offline
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: -, Greece
Posts: 12,923
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]
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1302  
Old 07-06-2017, 04:12 PM
Duke of Marmalade's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
TRF Author
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Posts: 12,987
Kate Middleton topless photos: case postponed to September

Verdict has been postponed until Sept 5
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1303  
Old 09-05-2017, 08:17 AM
eya eya is offline
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: -, Greece
Posts: 12,923
French magazine is ordered to pay 100,000 Euros

French magazine to pay 100,000 euros over Kate pictures | Daily Mail Online
Reply With Quote
  #1304  
Old 09-05-2017, 08:40 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 11,272
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1305  
Old 09-05-2017, 08:49 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 11,993
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.
__________________
No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.

~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #1306  
Old 09-05-2017, 09:14 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 7,597
The damages were always going to be token. The main point is the Magazine was found guilty of breaching the Cambridges privacy.
Reply With Quote
  #1307  
Old 09-05-2017, 10:49 AM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Texas, United States
Posts: 3,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
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.
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #1308  
Old 09-05-2017, 11:01 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 11,993
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.
__________________
No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.

~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #1309  
Old 09-05-2017, 08:04 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Texas, United States
Posts: 3,512
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.
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #1310  
Old 06-12-2018, 10:48 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 3,804
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1311  
Old 06-12-2018, 10:58 AM
cepe's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,311


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

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #1312  
Old 06-12-2018, 12:28 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post


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 .
Reply With Quote
  #1313  
Old 06-12-2018, 01:24 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,574
Exactly, Meghan voluntarily stripped down to suspenders and what not for anyone to look at her. Kate did not.
Reply With Quote
  #1314  
Old 06-12-2018, 03:59 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: NYC, United States
Posts: 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophie25 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1315  
Old 06-12-2018, 04:11 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Norfolk, United States
Posts: 3,790
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1316  
Old 06-12-2018, 04:36 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 9,573
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
Reply With Quote
  #1317  
Old 06-12-2018, 05:01 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuliannaVictoria View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1318  
Old 06-12-2018, 05:05 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 12,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophie25 View Post
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.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #1319  
Old 06-12-2018, 05:10 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuliannaVictoria View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1320  
Old 06-12-2018, 05:10 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post
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.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Popular Tags
aif antony armstrong-jones baltic republics biography british royal family british royal history camilla canada clothes corruption current events danish royal family daughter daughters duchessofcambridge duke of york emma extramarital affairs fashion felipe and letizia forum germany harry and meghan hereditary prince alois history iñaki urdangarín juan carlos king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander liechtenstein line meghan markle monarchy nobel 2017 norwegian royal family plantagenets porphyria prince charles prince daniel prince harry prince harry of wales prince laurent prince of belgium princess beatrice princess claire princess eugenie public opinion pyrmont queen elizabeth queen letizia queen mary of teck queen mathilde queen maxima royal royal ancestry royal geneology royal ladies royal wedding soldier spain state visit surname sweden swedish royal family video games visit from spain wedding windsor castle windsor wedding



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:42 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018
Jelsoft Enterprises