General Discussion

regnaD kciN

(27,639 posts)

92. On photography and the "right to privacy"...

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 12:41 PM

Sep 2012

According to U.S. law, at least, if you are in a public place. or can be seen from a public place, you can be photographed from that public place and those photos can be used for editorial (but not commercial i.e. advertising) purposes, even without your permission.

So, if this had been in the U.S., and the only way the paparazzi could have gotten topless pictures of Kate would have been to take them on the villa's property, they would be breaking the law. However, if they had been able to get topless photos of her (even using an extreme telephoto lens) from a road, park, or public beach, it would have been completely legal, and those photos could be used by any magazine, as long as it wasn't to advertise a product.

I mention this because lots of people don't know the law, and assume they are protected by privacy laws when they really aren't. Forewarned is forearmed.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

211 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Today's simple lesson: If you don't want pictures of you topless to go public----- [View all] trumad Sep 2012 OP

That's an embarrassing thing for a potential employer to bring up at the interview 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #1

:) pinboy3niner Sep 2012 #3

Well, he is unemployed and has been living on Government Aid his entire life. FSogol Sep 2012 #8

Typical welfare-princess 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #10

English anchor babies. n/t FSogol Sep 2012 #15

Yeah, they can always sell some stock if times get tough. renie408 Sep 2012 #11

Or borrow $20-30k from their parents and start a business. FSogol Sep 2012 #14

He's actually not unemployed laundry_queen Sep 2012 #25

Yes, I have to hand it to both of those guys.. they DO work! DavidL Sep 2012 #53

Actually, he's currently a commissioned officer in the RAF. GoCubsGo Sep 2012 #184

Beh-taahahaha!!!! louis-t Sep 2012 #110

Who cares? Kate is a woman. MineralMan Sep 2012 #2

Uh--- that's not the point of the thread. trumad Sep 2012 #4

And if they shot the photos through the windows of th Private Villa? edhopper Sep 2012 #6

What is the point of the thread, then, trumad? MineralMan Sep 2012 #24

Ugg... trumad Sep 2012 #32

Right. You don't care... MineralMan Sep 2012 #43

We should never, ever become outraged over something that happens... LanternWaste Sep 2012 #79

+1 antiquie Sep 2012 #34

All that matters is that she cares. nt NCTraveler Sep 2012 #13

Nah. The only thing that's wrong with this whole MineralMan Sep 2012 #20

ahhn the simple world you live in trumad Sep 2012 #39

"Tabloids sell because people love shit like this. " MineralMan Sep 2012 #42

Absolutely true. What I am looking for is real factual news not sensation and that is all the tabs jwirr Sep 2012 #57

Its a French magazine : not a tabloid. dipsydoodle Sep 2012 #62

I was quoting another poster. MineralMan Sep 2012 #81

Hadn't realised that dipsydoodle Sep 2012 #150

"...why would anyone be titillated by seeing Kate Middleton's breasts?" Blue_Tires Sep 2012 #70

regardless of whether a woman is receptive to the idea or not. nt seabeyond Sep 2012 #71

no, consent factors into it... Blue_Tires Sep 2012 #76

So, can I assume that trumad's post led you to search for the photos? MineralMan Sep 2012 #72

I'll take a look when I'm not at work... Blue_Tires Sep 2012 #93

"tit"illated? LMAO L0oniX Sep 2012 #102

No other word fits nearly as well. MineralMan Sep 2012 #125

You're blaming Kate? Seriously? cynatnite Sep 2012 #5

Wow! Is that what you got from this.... ?? trumad Sep 2012 #23

She wasn't in public...she was in a private villa... cynatnite Sep 2012 #28

Agree 100 percent trumad Sep 2012 #35

She was not in public. She was at a private villa with the expectation that she had privacy.... cynatnite Sep 2012 #38

Hard to have an expectation of privacy when you know there are super zoom cameras and a Lex Sep 2012 #45

This message was self-deleted by its author cynatnite Sep 2012 #54

Yes, this. treestar Sep 2012 #158

all I know it their security SUCKS elehhhhna Sep 2012 #180

Just a small note nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #194

On photography and the "right to privacy"... regnaD kciN Sep 2012 #92

Some people think that celebrities have no privacy. Such as the papparazzi, for instance. Zalatix Sep 2012 #134

EXACTLY! I am amazed that a simple moral issue has such heated discussion here. alp227 Sep 2012 #168

Unfortunately, when you become a member of the English Royal Family, you lose some "freedoms" blueamy66 Sep 2012 #171

If someone had used a mega zoom lens to spy on the Obama girls... cynatnite Sep 2012 #175

I guess that I just don't see the need to sunbathe topless. blueamy66 Sep 2012 #176

YOU don't see the need to sunbathe topless. randome Sep 2012 #177

No, like members of the English Royal Family. blueamy66 Sep 2012 #182

You don't, but many women do both in public and in private. Kate was in private... cynatnite Sep 2012 #179

I disagree. blueamy66 Sep 2012 #183

yes Mr. Assagne we all know it is the woman's fault... whistler162 Sep 2012 #199

Good advice! (pic warning) RandiFan1290 Sep 2012 #7

Oh god, that is just painful to look at! smirkymonkey Sep 2012 #185

I preemptively uploaded topless pics of myself on Facebook this morning.... cbdo2007 Sep 2012 #9

Link? L0oniX Sep 2012 #104

I agreee...these inbred tools are only famous because they have joeybee12 Sep 2012 #12

So, if I had 50 paparazzi following me and promoting me for absolutely no reason, I'd be famous! cynatnite Sep 2012 #19

Happy to help... joeybee12 Sep 2012 #29

That wasn't your point? cynatnite Sep 2012 #33

I don't get why anyone cares, really. It's France. Jennicut Sep 2012 #16

Exactly! nt MineralMan Sep 2012 #21

Exactly. Sounds like she's ashamed. If I looked like her I'd be Lex Sep 2012 #47

She has boobs! So do I. Jennicut Sep 2012 #55

if we do not want our boobs on the net for a man to jack off to, per a poster on this thread seabeyond Sep 2012 #61

But you're not, so hers is the opinion that matters. (nt) Posteritatis Sep 2012 #107

Apparently the word "if" confuses you. Lex Sep 2012 #126

if you're gonna start the thread, at least post the photo... Blue_Tires Sep 2012 #17

+1 L0oniX Sep 2012 #106

I prefer to say: if you don't want to be shamed for being topless, don't be American DonRedwood Sep 2012 #18

Going topless in a PRIVATE VILLA Le Taz Hot Sep 2012 #22

See post 23 trumad Sep 2012 #26

They were at a private home. n/t cynatnite Sep 2012 #30

No matter trumad Sep 2012 #36

It does matter. She had every reason to feel that she could relax in privacy... cynatnite Sep 2012 #40

The point is--- trumad Sep 2012 #41

It's like saying she asked for it. n/t cynatnite Sep 2012 #56

Bingo. And then telling us where to look to see the photos. MineralMan Sep 2012 #74

BS. She had EVERY REASON to anticipate such intrusion. TheMadMonk Sep 2012 #186

Agree 100% JSK Sep 2012 #173

Yes, if you're a woman, you should keep yourself covered at all times. randome Sep 2012 #178

Outdoors and visible from a public street (nt) Nye Bevan Sep 2012 #37

I think it depends aint_no_life_nowhere Sep 2012 #44

Yes, I saw your "fucking point" before I posted. Le Taz Hot Sep 2012 #46

This. redqueen Sep 2012 #50

It's another version of "she asked for it". n/t cynatnite Sep 2012 #59

Yeah, but putting the blame there won't stop it from happening, either. randome Sep 2012 #77

I don't get why your point is so goddamned hard for some people here to understand. Guh. (nt) Posteritatis Sep 2012 #113

Check how American courts have ruled nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #195

First Harry's ass, now Kate's breasts! Nye Bevan Sep 2012 #27

I will never understand why we as humans are so afraid of our bodies Drale Sep 2012 #31

Ever hear of PRIVACY? alp227 Sep 2012 #169

I never go topless in public. I just forget my pants. HopeHoops Sep 2012 #48

what a ridiculous argument that others dont have a problem with a woman exposed, SHE should not seabeyond Sep 2012 #49

My question is why do they care? Drale Sep 2012 #51

Because her privacy is violated? alp227 Sep 2012 #170

Here's what I don't get. The Palace knows this can happen. no_hypocrisy Sep 2012 #52

That was my point as well Blue_Tires Sep 2012 #108

I'm not "ashamed" of my body but that doesn't mean I want my nude pictures published in a tabloid. redqueen Sep 2012 #58

THANK YOU! THANK YOU! alp227 Sep 2012 #172

I agree with you. KitSileya Sep 2012 #206

It's against French law; but the magazine will pay the fine muriel_volestrangler Sep 2012 #60

Comment from Closer UK. dipsydoodle Sep 2012 #66

Italian magazine plans 26-page special on topless Kate photos dipsydoodle Sep 2012 #188

Lots of $$$$$$ stands to be made from the sale of these pictures. Who cares that what she wants. redqueen Sep 2012 #189

I can't believe you really mean that. dipsydoodle Sep 2012 #192

You're right. I don't. redqueen Sep 2012 #196

surely they won't be making $$$ since these countries are so much more sophisticated and dont care seabeyond Sep 2012 #203

And now the Irish Daily Star, part-owned by Richard Desmond muriel_volestrangler Sep 2012 #190

Richard desmond has announced ending the joint venture dipsydoodle Sep 2012 #200

ya know... for all thsoe saying boobies not a big deal, seems all these countries and newspapers seabeyond Sep 2012 #204

This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Sep 2012 #63

what makes you think it is about YOU? are we really so void in our ability to respect another seabeyond Sep 2012 #64

This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Sep 2012 #133

brilliant post. it was a big enough fuckin deal to the woman whose privacy was invaded seabeyond Sep 2012 #145

This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Sep 2012 #151

Pity the royals and other celebs tama Sep 2012 #167

This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Sep 2012 #181

So...people shouldn't go nude in the privacy of a private area? Alduin Sep 2012 #65

For the record, that magazine is owned by . . . . wait for it . . . . Stinky The Clown Sep 2012 #67

This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Sep 2012 #152

Publishing the pictures was in bad taste. dipsydoodle Sep 2012 #68

No it wasn't. Atman Sep 2012 #83

it is always nifty when a man tells a woman, that has had privacy invaded, how SHE should feel seabeyond Sep 2012 #85

Oh, you again. Atman Sep 2012 #95

you said she should not be bothered. who are you to tell her how she should feel. i HOPE seabeyond Sep 2012 #98

No, I did not say "she should not be bothered." Atman Sep 2012 #112

ha. i really doubt that she has an issue with people standing up for HER right to take off top seabeyond Sep 2012 #122

I think you just enjoy being outraged. Atman Sep 2012 #129

mmmm, seems like you are having much more from being outraged at my supposed outrage seabeyond Sep 2012 #146

I am stunned that some don't get this point. trumad Sep 2012 #163

"She's a celebrity" doesn't make stalking okay, much as you seem to insist otherwise. (nt) Posteritatis Sep 2012 #100

I didn't say it makes stalking OKAY! Jesus F. Christ! Atman Sep 2012 #105

Every post where you put the onus on anyone other than the paparazzi, for one. (nt) Posteritatis Sep 2012 #109

That is just ridiculous. Atman Sep 2012 #120

Tell me, tama Sep 2012 #166

True, but the publisher is in the "sales" business, not the "taste" business... Blue_Tires Sep 2012 #96

No need for that lesson taterguy Sep 2012 #69

A quote from the great Ronnie Mund Inkfreak Sep 2012 #73

What's totally pathetic is that the public even cares about women covering our breasts. Zorra Sep 2012 #75

this was france, not america. where boobs should not make headlines and they did. against a womans seabeyond Sep 2012 #84

It appears that you completely misunderstood my post. I apologize for not being more clear. Zorra Sep 2012 #159

what i don't get with your post, is this happened in france. where being topless is no big deal. YET seabeyond Sep 2012 #160

"The pictures almost certainly won't be published in Britain, Zorra Sep 2012 #161

She could shut the whole thing down very quickly... Atman Sep 2012 #78

Bullshit leftynyc Sep 2012 #80

I'll bet Queen Elizabeth never went topless even in a private location. WI_DEM Sep 2012 #82

I have no idea why this is considered such important "news". PavePusher Sep 2012 #86

It's not even news, really. MineralMan Sep 2012 #89

Spew warning, please... PavePusher Sep 2012 #91

It is a great word, isn't it? MineralMan Sep 2012 #97

Onomatopoeia. randome Sep 2012 #101

Probably, even in the Latin. MineralMan Sep 2012 #116

Fess up, trumad... MineralMan Sep 2012 #87

I haven't looked it up.... PavePusher Sep 2012 #88

"you helped publicize them" Upton Sep 2012 #137

What horror? MineralMan Sep 2012 #141

Well I went over to Free Republic to see if I could find them... trumad Sep 2012 #164

Interesting thread reactions. Something similar once happened to a famous man Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #90

"Folks here went to 'breats, we are prudes we are animals, men are this, women are that'... redqueen Sep 2012 #130

I think I get the point you are making. The Link Sep 2012 #94

how far away do you have to be ProdigalJunkMail Sep 2012 #99

The funny/sad/scary part will come when Blue_Tires Sep 2012 #103

let's take that down a notch... ProdigalJunkMail Sep 2012 #111

Oh, yeah -- I keep forgetting about those... Blue_Tires Sep 2012 #117

probably... ProdigalJunkMail Sep 2012 #119

Have you seen Google's new 3D city maps? Atman Sep 2012 #123

but, is it ok THEN to use the image? ProdigalJunkMail Sep 2012 #124

I don't know. These are issue which will have to be adjudicated as technology moves forward. Atman Sep 2012 #135

i'm going to take this down a dark, disturbing road ProdigalJunkMail Sep 2012 #139

Actually, I think most of the things you mentioned are illegal. Atman Sep 2012 #143

that is my point ProdigalJunkMail Sep 2012 #144

In a world where corporations are people and money is free speech... Atman Sep 2012 #147

i was thinking about this. how easy to blame her. what IF.... they spent a half hour looking at seabeyond Sep 2012 #118

don't even need a tree anymore ProdigalJunkMail Sep 2012 #121

Yeah, kinda. Atman Sep 2012 #127

do you think you should ever have the expectation of privacy? ProdigalJunkMail Sep 2012 #131

Of course I do. Atman Sep 2012 #138

"you and I will probably never have to worry about this" ProdigalJunkMail Sep 2012 #140

The same thing has happened to Diana, Jackie K O, and Fergie. They should have known. appleannie1 Sep 2012 #114

My wife sunbathes in my backyard, nude, on a regular basis. So does my daughter. Xithras Sep 2012 #115

Too much is made out of nudity liberal N proud Sep 2012 #128

There's (amazingly enough) a bigger issue here... brooklynite Sep 2012 #132

a nation like france that is so sophisticated they do not care about nudity uses pictures of a seabeyond Sep 2012 #149

"Yeah I know they were in a private villa" Warren Stupidity Sep 2012 #136

French laws about privacy are VERY strict; closeupready Sep 2012 #142

They already have.... joeybee12 Sep 2012 #148

I'd bet that William feels enthusiastic about suing their closeupready Sep 2012 #154

Royals launch legal action after topless Kate Middleton photographs in French Closer magazine dipsydoodle Sep 2012 #153

Good. closeupready Sep 2012 #155

good. thanks. read maybe on this thread, UK closer is pretty pissed at france's closer, also. nt seabeyond Sep 2012 #157

Good news, it is not the US nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #197

And women who dress suggestively should expect to be raped? Blue Idaho Sep 2012 #156

You have a reasonable expectation of privacy hifiguy Sep 2012 #162

Check us law in similar cases nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #198

They are tama Sep 2012 #165

Doesn't seem like such a 'simple' lesson anymore, does it? randome Sep 2012 #174

here would be the position of photographer, and the distance. seabeyond Sep 2012 #187

Fucking hell. nt redqueen Sep 2012 #191

That's a long distance Generic Other Sep 2012 #193

The side issue of that dipsydoodle Sep 2012 #202

Today's simple lesson -- don't go outside to expose your naughty bits. Major Hogwash Sep 2012 #207

yup. right on. nt seabeyond Sep 2012 #208

The pictures are so blurry I can't be sure it's Kate RegieRocker Sep 2012 #201

What part of private doesn't the ohheckyeah Sep 2012 #205

That's right, blame the victim. NashvilleLefty Sep 2012 #209

so many have decided she should have known that just was not isolated enough seabeyond Sep 2012 #210

yeah, let's say you're topless in your fenced backyard... ibegurpard Sep 2012 #211