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

[Mermaid1962]

Bingo!

This whole epsiode leads me to believe that we should all, in our respective countries, do what we can to influence our lawmakers to pass laws making the taking of pictures in private against the law unless you have a signed permission. It should also be illegal to publish such pictures. Everybody, get busy and see what we can accomplish.

 

[Roslyn]

This whole epsiode leads me to believe that we should all, in our respective countries, do what we can to influence our lawmakers to pass laws making the taking of pictures in private against the law unless you have a signed permission. It should also be illegal to publish such pictures. Everybody, get busy and see what we can accomplish.

A worthy aim, but easier said than done. Drafting the legislation would be a nightmare. It would have to provide for it to be illegal to take a photograph from a public road. It shouldn't be hard to prohibit photos being taken from a track on private land as it could be a condition of entry that no photographs be taken, but from public road? Is it envisaged that no photographs of private buildings or gardens or wildlife could be taken from public places lest one incidentally captures the image of a person who happens to be on that property at the time?

 

[Muhler]

The saga about Se & Hør and the pictures of W&K continues: Mystik om Se og Hørs-billeder af bundløs Kate - Kendte | www.bt.dk

Se & Hør published a sixteen page appendix showing a lot of pictures of Kate. These pictures have not and will not be shown online.

Now it seems that American media have picked up that and added that the pictures were even more revealing than those publised in Closer, because the S&H pictures show Kate without her bikini panties on.
(I must add that I haven't seen any of the pictures in S&H as I flatly refuse to buy the magazine).
The editor of S&H, Kim Henningsen, have been contacted by US media, and he stated that no new pictures of Kate were published. - That however is only half-true, he later admitted. The pictures were indeed not new, they were merely previously unpublished. - That has caused some confusion in USA and probably some annoyance as well.

Good grief! Kim Henningsen is trying to defend these pictures as being harmless and practically innocent while at the same time being reluctant to admit how revealing they really were....

- Hypocricy in action.

Kim Henningsen adds that S&H so far haven't been approached by the British court.

 

[Catherine J]

A worthy aim, but easier said than done. Drafting the legislation would be a nightmare.

Yes But, meh. One imagines the civil rights movement, international human rights, copyright, etc were similar nightmares. For me, the pictures of William and Catherine are simply latter day examples of what has been becoming a serious problem for several years.

It would have to provide for it to be illegal to take a photograph from a public road. It shouldn't be hard to prohibit photos being taken from a track on private land as it could be a condition of entry that no photographs be taken, but from public road? Is it envisaged that no photographs of private buildings or gardens or wildlife could be taken from public places lest one incidentally captures the image of a person who happens to be on that property at the time?

Seriously, I would not even attempt to deal with legislation that aimed itself as stopping the photographers. Let them snap away.

I would deal with international legislation that aimed itself at publishers (whether they be internet based or paper and ink based). In other words, I would take the road of least resistance and piggy back on the fair use and copyright laws already in place which were, as you say, a nightmare to create and took a long time.

Nip this in the financial ass and watch the problem shrink appreciably in a matter of weeks.

Copyright, like right to privacy, and based on the exact same principles, had become a problem by the nineties because of the internet. Beefing up international law was the only way it could be addressed. And I think this is the same thing.

Big job? Oh yeah. But then all the important jobs are.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think right to privacy *belongs* inside the copyright rubric. It is superficially covered in some countries under "Personality Rights" but this is rarely enforced. It is, after all, simply an extension of having the right to control your own creative (one creates one's image) output.

The hang up in terms of coming at it from a photographer/reporter perspective would be the "public interest" argument, which could stall everything to the point of silliness. Inside of the copyright idea, there is no need to prove or disprove public interest, just a requirement to pay for the use and/or ask for specific permission.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Despite the gross invasion and violating of privacy or committing a crime - after the bottomless pictures I think even more "what was she thinking" or what kind of mindset does she have as one of the most photographed women in the world? I am still stunned at this error of judgement from her or William's part. His mother was even photographed inside a gym, how can he even think he or his wife can expect privacy on an outside terrace.

On another note, how many bikinis does one have to bring for one afternoon

 

[angieuk]

According to friends William wants to delay having a family as long as possible - due to the mayhem of the topless photos. A friend is reported as saying --- he is not ready for the madness that will happen once a pregnancy is announced. Kate does not want a family yet and wants to get Kensington Palace set up as a home before they consider anything.

William wishes he could have Zara Phillips life.

How true this is who knows? But William is definitely a changed man since the photo scandal and maybe he wants to put off having children for now? I don't remember the title of the magazine as I had to run for the bus.

 

[Catherine J]

According to friends William wants to delay having a family as long as possible - due to the mayhem of the topless photos. A friend is reported as saying --- he is not ready for the madness that will happen once a pregnancy is announced. Kate does not want a family yet and wants to get Kensington Palace set up as a home before they consider anything.

William wishes he could have Zara Phillips life.

How true this is who knows? But William is definitely a changed man since the photo scandal and maybe he wants to put off having children for now? I don't remember the title of the magazine as I had to run for the bus.

I believe that it is well known that William's actual friends do not talk to the press. It is widely reported by reputable sources, to the best of my recollection. At least, it is one of the things I consider to be true about William.

Therefore ... all of this is conjecture. An unnamed source has very little credibility.

As much as it is a terrible thing, as awful as it is, and as much as they might or might not struggle with it privately, I do not believe this will alter any of the "grand scheme of things" plans in place. They will likely start a family when and how they have always intended and they will likely carry on with their duties when and how was always intended.

This is, is it not, part of the great value of the Monarchy? They lead not by rule and parliament, but by example. Who, in the Commonwealth, does not remember with fondness and a certain sort of nostalgic pride, the time of Churchill and George VI and Elizabeth, when they "carried on".

I was thinking of this line from the "Finest Hour" speech, where the sentiment lends itself to the situation, while making *no* comparison to the events being so characterized.

Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was their finest hour."

Yes, yes, I am, at best, hyperbolic But the best examples almost always seem a little reaching, after all we cite the great from our history; a hard thing to do for those of us who are not great.

I just mean to say that they will carry on and do their duties and, believe me, if Prince William thought for one single second that he wanted Zara Phillips' life, none of *us* would know about it.

Maybe, in the fullness of time, this *will* be seen as their finest hour. A young, newly married couple suffer a terrible personal violation. She is untested by public life, he suffered youthful trauma related to the same violation. They bear a *tremendous* weight just being who they are - they carry the future of a two thousand year old tradition on them. The best, most comforting thing they can do for us is to "carry on". And I believe they will. And we will come to see this, whether they are blameless, or it is an error in judgement or an outright mistake, as a sort of crucible from which we hope they emerge stronger and more confident. A testing place.

If I am not mistaken, this was also the speech where Churchill had that great line about not allowing the past and present to fight, lest the future be lost.

So, certainly, the laws need to be changed, and we need a public dialogue on privacy and the right to be able to control the use of one's likeness, but in the context of the Duke and Duchess' specific issue, I think I believe I am done discussing it here. Because to frame a discussion that is not about them, per se, one that could take forever, around their personal issue feels a little exploitive; a further violation, if you will.

So, to all the very smart people who had good opinions and arguments, to all the people who engaged back, I thank you for the most excellent conversation.

 

[Muhler]

Forgive me but the "finest hour" reference is a liiitle bit melodramatic. (I know you wrote it with a twinkle in your eyes).

If this is the worst crisis W&K will face, then they are very fortunate indeed.

This breach of their privacy is most annoying and infuriating, even humilliating perhaps, but it isn't a disaster. They'll survive.

They are not on the brink of a divorce.
They have not lost a child.
They don't have cancer.
They haven't been subjected to assassination attempt and had a "near miss".
William is not in a coma like Prince Friso.
And so on. The examples are legio.

- Should something like the above ever happen, then you can talk about their finest hour. These photos are trivial in comparison.

 

[angieuk]

Catherine J and Muhler

I think you both made excellent points. Very true!

 

[Daria_S]

According to friends William wants to delay having a family as long as possible - due to the mayhem of the topless photos. A friend is reported as saying --- he is not ready for the madness that will happen once a pregnancy is announced. Kate does not want a family yet and wants to get Kensington Palace set up as a home before they consider anything.

William wishes he could have Zara Phillips life.

How true this is who knows? But William is definitely a changed man since the photo scandal and maybe he wants to put off having children for now? I don't remember the title of the magazine as I had to run for the bus.

This sounds like something a tabloid would publish, because as someone pointed out, William's friends would not talk to the press about something that's so personal. I can definitely understand that the publishing of the revealing and private pictures that should not have been taken, let alone allowed to grace the media would have an effect on them, but I wonder if it would that drastic. I think we can all guess that after William and Catherine have a child, the press will have limited access to the said child for as long as possible. That was nothing new. I think delaying the inevitable is not necessarily a good idea, because when they become full-time royals, they'll be photographed a lot more often, and heaven knows what the press may find and intrude upon.

 

[AdmirerUS]

On another note, how many bikinis does one have to bring for one afternoon

The reason for multiple bikinis is to blur tan lines. Sticking to one suit leaves strong delineations where melatonin increases. Several suits produce different tan lines and a better all over development of color. There is less to your tan lines when you wear different necklines, etc, That is, if you like to sunbathe at all.

 

[COUNTESS]

May I ask this foolish question, if it is terrible to lie in the sun for any length of time, for your health's sake, why would you do this in the first place?

 

[Daria_S]

May I ask this foolish question, if it is terrible to lie in the sun for any length of time, for your health's sake, why would you do this in the first place?

I think if you do this once in a while, with proper protection, and in moderation, there can't be too much harm. Catherine doesn't strike me as someone who goes tanning a lot (her complexion is not too pale, it seems), so to spend a few hours in the sun while on a holiday is perfectly acceptable.

 

[AdmirerUS]

May I ask this foolish question, if it is terrible to lie in the sun for any length of time, for your health's sake, why would you do this in the first place?

For the same reason women wear such high heels - vanity. Society IN GENERAL likes a "glow" from the sun so much that we have developed multiple technologies to create the look.

OK, not vanity for all women but high heels cause bunions and deformation of the feet, thought they do lift the derriere, heighten the tone of the leg and make a woman look taller/thinner than flats do.

I live in a very wintery climate, and the feeling of warm sun on an early Spring day is a tonic for me. I no longer bake in the sun, but I did once and I liked how it felt. Now that I have arthritis, I admit that the sun on my joints as I garden does help with the pain. I assume the Duchess of Cambridge does not have that issue yet.

I know many people who tan and many who do not. As with most things, moderation is probably a key to good health.

 

[Chloe-]

According to friends William wants to delay having a family as long as possible - due to the mayhem of the topless photos. A friend is reported as saying --- he is not ready for the madness that will happen once a pregnancy is announced. Kate does not want a family yet and wants to get Kensington Palace set up as a home before they consider anything.

William wishes he could have Zara Phillips life.

How true this is who knows? But William is definitely a changed man since the photo scandal and maybe he wants to put off having children for now? I don't remember the title of the magazine as I had to run for the bus.

Kate is vain, selfish, and only wants to play "dress-up." She is taking her new life for all it's worth. It is similar to when commoners win the lottery, or when a promiscuous woman marries a wealthy man.

Call me old-fashioned, but she has a duty to adhere to and her excuses are unacceptable. I don't think Kate has yet to realize the importance of her role, and I don't think she ever will.

 

[NGalitzine]

Kate is vain, selfish, and only wants to play "dress-up." She is taking her new life for all it's worth. It is similar to when commoners win the lottery, or when a promiscuous woman marries a wealthy man.

Call me old-fashioned, but she has a duty to adhere to and her excuses are unacceptable. I don't think Kate has yet to realize the importance of her role, and I don't think she ever will.

If all she wanted to do was play dress up then one would assume she would have jumped into a full schedule of official engagements in order the "play dress up" every day. I would also guess she would have ditched the high street shops in favor of a full wardrobe of custom designer wear, Loubiton shoes, Hermes bags and all the jewels she could carry. Living in Wales does seem to limit the opportunities to "play dress up" unless she wears a really killer wardrobe and tiaras around the cottage in Wales.

As for excuses I am not aware that she has given any interviews or press releases giving any excuses for anything, or indeed that she has anything to give an excuse for so I would love to know what your sources are.

 

[COESpiral]

Oh, so you've spoken to her and know all about her nefarious plot? Right now I'm sure she's twisting her hair in lieu of a moustache a la Snidely Whiplash and wondering how she can bring down a monarchy singlehandedly. Foiled again!

Grow up.

 

[MichelleQ2]

Kate is vain, selfish, and only wants to play "dress-up." She is taking her new life for all it's worth. It is similar to when commoners win the lottery, or when a promiscuous woman marries a wealthy man.

Call me old-fashioned, but she has a duty to adhere to and her excuses are unacceptable. I don't think Kate has yet to realize the importance of her role, and I don't think she ever will.

What excuses?

 

[dbarn67]

This whole epsiode leads me to believe that we should all, in our respective countries, do what we can to influence our lawmakers to pass laws making the taking of pictures in private against the law unless you have a signed permission. It should also be illegal to publish such pictures. Everybody, get busy and see what we can accomplish.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled (about 10 yrs ago) that once you leave your home you NOT have an absolute right to privacy. I'll have to ask my lawyer friends whether this extends to your backyard (I think it does).

I come down on the side of those who see both sides of the argument. W&C were grossly invaded but they didn't use good judgment either.

 

[Winnie]

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled (about 10 yrs ago) that once you leave your home you NOT have an absolute right to privacy. I'll have to ask my lawyer friends whether this extends to your backyard (I think it does).

If I remember correctly, this ruling came down due to a photographer climbing a fence and taking pictures through the window of a private dwelling. The family in question just lost three of their children in an awful accident. The photos were published at that time of the parents & family showing their emotional suffering. Everything was "fair game" back then.

That was why the ruling was made to protect the privacy of a person's life in their dwelling. A photo can be taken inside a home [if shades are up] only if photographer is on public property. Court cases have even ruled that photos taken from private developments [where town is not responsible for maintenance of roads but a homes owners organization is] is NOT public property. This ruling seems to change a bit within different states.

 

[Queen Camilla]

Despite the gross invasion and violating of privacy or committing a crime - after the bottomless pictures I think even more "what was she thinking" or what kind of mindset does she have as one of the most photographed women in the world? I am still stunned at this error of judgement from her or William's part. His mother was even photographed inside a gym, how can he even think he or his wife can expect privacy on an outside terrace.

On another note, how many bikinis does one have to bring for one afternoon

The photographer took pictures over several day. (But how did he/she know W&K were vacationing there?)

Diana was photographed topless several times during the 80's & 90's but the pictures were never published. William was also photographed while peeing during a polo game. (Those pictures are available on the internet.) Some day Diana's photo's will also be released...

As far as Kate, I'll have to agree with you: What was she thinking/doing?
Why remove your bathing suit? The villa was not isolated. There were no trees or screen to shield her from anyone on the property. Not just photographers but staff.

 

[Catherine J]

Kate is vain, selfish, and only wants to play "dress-up."

Unless you are in possession of information which the rest of the free world is not, you could not possibly know this of a certainty. Therefore it is just your opinion, stated though it may be as fact. Frankly I am not interested in its chemical composition or what leads you to it.

She is taking her new life for all it's worth.

We can agree on this. Everyone takes to their new life for all it's worth. Well, all the successful people do. You say it as if it was a proof of your first sentence.

It is similar to when commoners win the lottery, or when a promiscuous woman marries a wealthy man.

What? The lottery thing I get but the promiscuous woman thing? That's rhetorical, by the way. It's the product of a certain sort of mind which I don't mind talking *to* but rarely ever talk *with*. The effort is usually not worth the result.

Call me old-fashioned, but she has a duty to adhere to and her excuses are unacceptable. I don't think Kate has yet to realize the importance of her role, and I don't think she ever will.

No, I don't think I would call you old fashioned at all. Nope.

As far as I am aware, Catherine has not made any excuses.

You cannot know what she does or does not realize.

Your mind, as evidenced by the dogmatic statements it produces, is clearly made up. My advice to you is to unmake it just a little, let some light and air in and you might be surprised by what it discovers when its allowed to think freely.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Criminal investigation

Kate Middleton topless photos probe: Criminal investigation launched to find paparazzi who took the pictures of Duchess of Cambridge - Mirror Online

 

[Sonjapearl]

Despite the gross invasion and violating of privacy or committing a crime - after the bottomless pictures I think even more "what was she thinking" or what kind of mindset does she have as one of the most photographed women in the world? I am still stunned at this error of judgement from her or William's part. His mother was even photographed inside a gym, how can he even think he or his wife can expect privacy on an outside terrace.

On another note, how many bikinis does one have to bring for one afternoon

I have to admit that I am starting to agree - especially when you remember William was photographed urinating and that pic made rounds on the Internet, though without the same frenzy as his wife's revealing pics. You would think both would be careful after that, so there is a lack of judgment in this case. And if there are photos of William without trunks on and even some intimate photos, then I would really question the Duke and Duchess' mindset in regards to their awareness of the paparazzi and media.

This does NOT mean that I believe they don't have a right to privacy or that the two are immoral. They simply need to accept their standings in the world.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

Catherine J's quote: "Your mind, as evidenced by the dogmatic statements it produces, is clearly made up. My advice to you is to unmake it just a little, let some light and air in and you might be surprised by what it discovers when its allowed to think freely."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

So this has become an advice forum? Or, perhaps, it is becoming an insult forum. Your posts need moderating, We like to talk about royalty, not listen to you belittle, not posters opinions, but the posters themselves.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Catherine J's quote: "Your mind, as evidenced by the dogmatic statements it produces, is clearly made up. My advice to you is to unmake it just a little, let some light and air in and you might be surprised by what it discovers when its allowed to think freely."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

So this has become an advice forum? Or, perhaps, it is becoming an insult forum. Your posts need moderating, We like to talk about royalty, not listen to you belittle, not posters opinions, but the posters themselves.

Catherine J didn't insult anyone. Maybe you should look in the mirror Kitty, because you take pops at anyone that isn't singing from your hymn sheet. It seems the fans of certain CPs can dish it but can't take it. Catherine J just defends W&C from the trolls.

 

[Catherine J]

Catherine J's quote: "Your mind, as evidenced by the dogmatic statements it produces, is clearly made up. My advice to you is to unmake it just a little, let some light and air in and you might be surprised by what it discovers when its allowed to think freely."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

So this has become an advice forum? Or, perhaps, it is becoming an insult forum. Your posts need moderating, We like to talk about royalty, not listen to you belittle, not posters opinions, but the posters themselves.

Well, I do apologize if I have offended you, or anyone else. I can certainly be determined in my own opinions

However, I do NOT think ad hominem attacks are any way to deal with people in a forum. That said, in expressing my opinion of someone's opinion it is entirely possible that a tinge of that falls in between the cracks. Defending a position and pointing out what you believe to be the error in another's opinion should not become an attack of the person. You are quite right in that. And if I have not gone over the line, I have certainly danced on it.

I exist in a world where very lively academic debate is part of my daily routine - I am paid to have strong opinions, essentially - and those discussions have a lot of expressions like "Have you gone off the deep end?" and "Are you mad" and "Did you take extra dumb-down pills this morning?" many times directed AT me I forget, to my discredit, that this and other forums like it, are not those debates.

So, yes, I can see where you are coming from. However, if I might add, the snippet you provide as evidence is not anything approaching an ad hominem attack and is something I would type again, even in the light of this conversation. Saying it seems that someone's mind is made up and offering advice is not really ... well ... wrong or even impolite, not where I come from.

I could point you to a few posts I have made in the past few days where I did probably step over that line a little ( I edit my posts a lot because I recognize my tendency to be snarky) but that would be self incriminating, and those that care to track them down should go on ahead and do it.

So, yeah. Your point is taken in the broad context. I don't suppose you noticed at all that you insulted me and gave me advice?

See? It's hard to get an opinion in without a little of that, isn't it.

Anyway, thanks for the ... um ... whatever that was.

 

[Princess of Durham]

Kate is vain, selfish, and only wants to play "dress-up." She is taking her new life for all it's worth. It is similar to when commoners win the lottery, or when a promiscuous woman marries a wealthy man.

Call me old-fashioned, but she has a duty to adhere to and her excuses are unacceptable. I don't think Kate has yet to realize the importance of her role, and I don't think she ever will.

Well to borrow a phrase from good old Charlie Brown ... "GOOD GRIEF".
And that's all I'll say about that.

 

[Zonk]

Enough with the personal attacks on fellow members. I've deleted a slew of posts and will continue to do so.

Let's stay on topic.

 

[Muhler]

Perhaps we should get back on topic?

Should W&K sue the magazines and the photographer?
Yes, absolutely!

A deliberate breach of anyone's privacy for profit is unacceptable.
Sue the magazines and the photographers, every time.
The editors may calculate the costs of a settlement, but expenses for layers and bad press adds up. - And having to go through the mill at court each and every time photos where W&K's privacy is breached might, hopefully, disourage most publishers.

It may also, hopefully, encourage the politicians (who are sometimes intimidated by the media) to ensure that the consequences for breaching anyone's privacy are more severe.

Our privacy, all of us, is among the most precious things we have - in a world where there are cameras everywhere and where everyone can write about you in blogs or in a fora, often under cover of anonymity and with few if any consequences.