If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Lawyers seek injunction over Kate Middleton topless photos, apparently unclear on how the internet works   (foxnews.com) divider line 175
    More: Interesting, Kate Middleton, civil cases, La Repubblica, Joe Webb, injunctions, St. James  
•       •       •

7492 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Sep 2012 at 5:57 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



175 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-16 08:48:27 PM
The Royal family seems to be pretty useless anyway, the least they can do is get naked for the amusement of the rest of us. If I were leaching off my country and living in a palace and called everyone subjects, I'd feel obligated to pull my junk out when asked.
 
2012-09-16 08:56:41 PM

paj: Why is having topless pictures of yourself a huge deal? Oooo, she removed a strip of fabric! Prudes.


This.

Woah, blurry A cup boobs!!!!

fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfap --> expected behavior from a 12 year old, or your typical farker
Eew, how scandalous! --> expected behavior from a fat bitter middle aged she-beast
 
2012-09-16 08:58:03 PM
I think the Royal Family is upset about the photos. Kate, on the other hand, is young, attractive and she knows it. I don't think she minds at all.
 
2012-09-16 08:58:58 PM
i46.tinypic.com

Kate topless
 
2012-09-16 09:00:10 PM
Kate is fairly plain looking and has pretty small tits. My girlfriend has her beat by a mile.
 
2012-09-16 09:06:42 PM
I'm at a loss to understand why anyone should care about this person any more than they care about the checkout clerk at the local grocery.
 
2012-09-16 09:08:18 PM

Dead for Tax Reasons: how hard is it for famous people to get: don't whip out your titties if you don't want to see them on the internets

no number of lawsuits can put your top back on


Exactly. If you're a member of the royal family, you should assume that the only time you can be sure there are no photographers stalking you is when you're in a small room with four walls.
 
2012-09-16 09:08:54 PM

ScottRiqui: zvoidx: Something about this story is suspicious. It's the combination of that she's out in the open/when they must have intense security..the image quality is very poor..plus being so close to the Harry photo scandal.

I do realize that the shots were taken from a distance - but you'd be surprised how clear you can get from a great distance with consumer cameras these days, let alone pro.

The (lack of) image quality is understandable. At the distance involved, what we're seeing is only a small, cropped portion of the total image. The two subjects wouldn't near fill the frame at that distance, even with a 600mm lens.

Also, unlike shorter lengths, where most of the paparazzi use f/2.8 or faster lenses, the biggest aperture you can get on a 600mm lens is f/4.0, which is a full stop "slower" than an f/2.8 (and even a 600mm f/4 is still a $13k lens). That's why the photographer had to bump the ISO up to 12,400. I don't know if he's shooting Canon or Nikon, but in either case, some graininess and noise is to be expected at that ISO. And even at max aperture and high ISO, I'll bet the shutter speed still wasn't very fast, so the focus is soft because the subjects weren't completely still.


Also consider that if someone can take a "shot" of them with a camera, then so could a sniper.
They must have extremely sophisticated security for those two.

Security wasn't aware that someone was pointing a camera at them from a distance and that Kate was topless and in someone's "scope"? Find that difficult to believe.
 
2012-09-16 09:12:55 PM
AndreMA: I'm at a loss to understand why anyone should care about this person any more than they care about the checkout clerk at the local grocery.

because little girls don't dream of becoming checkout clerks
 
2012-09-16 09:14:38 PM

TommyymmoT: Where are these pictures?
I'd rather fancy a glimpse at the royal orbs.


I wouldnt exactly call them orbs.

www.erench.com
 
2012-09-16 09:17:35 PM
@Snapper

Maybe so, but everything one of the inbreds from that family visit my country, it is on my dime! We fly them over, pay for the security, food, transportation, and fly them home again.

If that is not an example of FREELOADING, I am not sure what is!
 
2012-09-16 09:18:12 PM

Gothnet: UseLessHuman: It seems like some kind of vindictive streak, the common man wants to see the richest and most famous people dragged through the mud so they don't have to feel so sad and pitiful in their own lives.

It's not that. It's far more simple. She's hot and an extremely rare form of utterly unattainable, people want to see her naked. A lot of folks, myself included, would have a good chuckle at the royal family destroying itself, but that's not what's going on here.

I don't think many of the people who want to look at the royal tits actually wish her any harm, psychological or otherwise.


Strobeguy: I think Id rather see nude pics of Pippa Middletons royal arse

Pippa Middleton ain't royal. Just sayin!


Maybe not but her arse is!
 
2012-09-16 09:21:27 PM
What is the big deal...I am sure NASA or the CIA have better pics anyway....They would need a good lens too, they are A cups at best!
 
2012-09-16 09:22:56 PM

Prank Call of Cthulhu: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: omeganuepsilon: Also, they weren't that spectacular.

You expected Roman candles?

I expected a cloud of blue jays flying in front of them, blocking my view. She's a princess. I didn't think anybody ever saw their tits.


Kinda like when Snow White took a bath? That'd make a good photoshop contest.
 
2012-09-16 09:25:03 PM

mikewadestr: Kate is fairly plain looking and has pretty small tits. My girlfriend has her beat by a mile.


I'm sure she does and good for you.
 
2012-09-16 09:26:44 PM

AndreMA: I'm at a loss to understand why anyone should care about this person any more than they care about the checkout clerk at the local grocery.


At least they actually might have a chance with the grocery clerk, and she's probably less snooty and demanding to boot.
 
2012-09-16 09:29:02 PM

AndreMA: I'm at a loss to understand why anyone should care about this person any more than they care about the checkout clerk at the local grocery.


Because, as already proven, there's a better chance you get to see this one's tits.
 
2012-09-16 09:34:25 PM
Dear Kate,

As much as I would love to see your Royal Titties, I feel that someone should tell you that no place out doors, no matter how secluded, is truly public. So if you do not want a bunch of perverts waking off to your Royal Titties then keep them covered up whenever you are outside! Really, it is that simple. I know it must be great feeling the warm sun on your Royal Titties, but if you expose them to the Sun then someone from The Sun (or some other rag) might just snap a picture of your Royal Titties. And once those Royal Titties of yours are on the internet there is simply no way to ever get them back. So, please, for your own sake, cover up the Royal Titties.

Sincerely,
Mock26.
 
2012-09-16 09:36:51 PM

belhade: AndreMA: I'm at a loss to understand why anyone should care about this person any more than they care about the checkout clerk at the local grocery.

Because, as already proven, there's a better chance you get to see this one's tits.


That and the check out clerk at my local grocery is an Iraqi man in his late fifties.
 
2012-09-16 09:37:00 PM

zvoidx: ScottRiqui: zvoidx: Something about this story is suspicious. It's the combination of that she's out in the open/when they must have intense security..the image quality is very poor..plus being so close to the Harry photo scandal.

I do realize that the shots were taken from a distance - but you'd be surprised how clear you can get from a great distance with consumer cameras these days, let alone pro.

The (lack of) image quality is understandable. At the distance involved, what we're seeing is only a small, cropped portion of the total image. The two subjects wouldn't near fill the frame at that distance, even with a 600mm lens.

Also, unlike shorter lengths, where most of the paparazzi use f/2.8 or faster lenses, the biggest aperture you can get on a 600mm lens is f/4.0, which is a full stop "slower" than an f/2.8 (and even a 600mm f/4 is still a $13k lens). That's why the photographer had to bump the ISO up to 12,400. I don't know if he's shooting Canon or Nikon, but in either case, some graininess and noise is to be expected at that ISO. And even at max aperture and high ISO, I'll bet the shutter speed still wasn't very fast, so the focus is soft because the subjects weren't completely still.

Also consider that if someone can take a "shot" of them with a camera, then so could a sniper.
They must have extremely sophisticated security for those two.

Security wasn't aware that someone was pointing a camera at them from a distance and that Kate was topless and in someone's "scope"? Find that difficult to believe.


I'm pretty sure the shared portion of the Venn diagram that contains "people who really want to shoot Kate Middleton" and "people who can make an 800m killshot and know where she is" is vanishingly small.

People who want to sell pictures of her tits and have a camera? Much larger.

I have not a shred of tinfoil for this particular issue.
 
2012-09-16 09:38:14 PM
 
2012-09-16 09:39:21 PM
Forgot to say especially in England, where I'm pretty sure damn near 100% of those who could make the shot served in the military and wouldn't care to.
 
2012-09-16 09:41:20 PM

AndreMA: I'm at a loss to understand why anyone should care about this person any more than they care about the checkout clerk at the local grocery.


In all fairness, I'd like to see her tits too.
 
2012-09-16 09:44:43 PM
The (currently) sexiest Kate Middleton picture:

img002.lazygirls.info 

These blurry pieces of crap don't change that.
 
2012-09-16 09:46:23 PM
Meh. Half the world's population have them.


More than half. I've got em myself.

/ War's the papparazzi?
// I'll sell pix of em cheep!
/// ne1?
 
2012-09-16 09:52:57 PM

Snotnose: Meh. Half the world's population have them.

More than half. I've got em myself.

/ War's the papparazzi?
// I'll sell pix of em cheep!
/// ne1?


BIE

EIP
 
2012-09-16 09:56:36 PM

Spiralmonkey: I'm no fan of the work-shy Middleton leech or her flat-arsed, spanner-faced sister, but she wasn't in a public place (or on a balcony). Being beside a pool at a private home half a mile from the nearest road is not public. She has a reasonable expectation of privacy. I think the big fuss is being made because her husband's mother was killed while being chased by paps driven around by an alkie and they want to make it clear that a repeat of the same is not acceptable.


FTFY
 
2012-09-16 09:57:08 PM

thelunatick: See that house in the distance? that road is the vantage point of the photographer. She was in a private house, and should have some expectation of privacy. you shouldn't have to worry about a photographer over 1 mile away.

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x286]


If you're rich, famous and hot you should worry about satellites.
 
2012-09-16 09:58:46 PM
Yah, you are NOT going to get all those feathers back into the pillow, I don't care who you are.
 
2012-09-16 10:06:50 PM

austin_millbarge: TommyymmoT: Where are these pictures?
I'd rather fancy a glimpse at the royal orbs.

I wouldnt exactly call them orbs.

[www.erench.com image 762x392]


I must witness them myself.
Do be a good chap and summons her to my bed chambers at once.
 
2012-09-16 10:07:12 PM

Jim_Callahan:

There is only one group of people that care less about the dignity of the Royals than the Americans. That group is the British Irish.

 
2012-09-16 10:11:11 PM

Fark Rye For Many Whores: [royalexhibitions.files.wordpress.com image 425x448]

^LGT museum


The Holy Hand Grenade?
 
2012-09-16 10:14:55 PM

Walker: Honey, if you don't want pictures of your titties taken don't go out on a balcony topless. The pictures were taken from a public road, not from some guy "invading your privacy". How much privacy can you expect standing outside with your titties flapping in the breeze?


I dont care about royals but

"The couple was photographed via long lens from more than a kilometre away"

is not quite her hanging them off a balcony in the street now is it?
 
2012-09-16 10:27:09 PM
Whats the big deal? Hubby was right next to her.
 
2012-09-16 10:30:47 PM
Imho, you haven't lived until you've had balcony sex in a high rise.
 
2012-09-16 10:34:00 PM
The whole thing is totally asinine:

1. That the Royals are upset about it.
2. That anyone would take a picture from half a mile away of a girl's breasts.
3. That anyone would PAY for such a picture, ensuring that someone would in fact take such a shot.
4. That anyone would pay for a publication carrying such pictures, ensuring that the publisher would publish them and also enabling 2 & 3.
5. That attorneys would cause a brouhaha by trying to quash the pics, thus ensuring people will pay for the magazine, enabling 2 & 3.

I mean, really, people. The ones who buy this crap are just as "guilty" as the dorks who sell it and the imbeciles who snapped it.
 
2012-09-16 10:37:08 PM

TheDumbBlonde: mikewadestr: Kate is fairly plain looking and has pretty small tits. My girlfriend has her beat by a mile.

I'm sure she does and good for you.


Hell, I have her beat, and I'm 43 years old!
 
2012-09-16 10:52:39 PM

Littleturtle: TheDumbBlonde: mikewadestr: Kate is fairly plain looking and has pretty small tits. My girlfriend has her beat by a mile.

I'm sure she does and good for you.

Hell, I have her beat, and I'm 43 years old!


You know we need proof.
 
2012-09-16 10:53:05 PM

Gyrfalcon: The only thing that would make paparazzi think twice is if we started summary drawing and quartering of anyone caught within 10,000 yards of a celebrity with any type of recording deviceall of them everywhere.


With minor modifications to your plan, I could totally be on board. Legit journalists? Crucial to a healthy society. Scum-sucking paparazzi leeches? No reason to keep them alive.
 
2012-09-16 10:56:47 PM

UseLessHuman: It seems like some kind of vindictive streak, the common man wants to see the richest and most famous people dragged through the mud so they don't have to feel so sad and pitiful in their own lives.


What mud? The shocking revelation that she has breasts?
 
2012-09-16 11:04:31 PM
she has a great ass/
 
2012-09-16 11:11:25 PM

mikewadestr: Kate is fairly plain looking and has pretty small tits. My girlfriend has her beat by a mile.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA......and in 30 years, Kate is still going to be looking great. Cause her old man will have the money for the BEST surgery....

Looked decent in the photos I saw. Ask any girl with big knockers what a pain in the back they are.
 
2012-09-16 11:30:15 PM

Spiralmonkey: I'm no fan of the work-shy Middleton leech or her flat-arsed, spanner-faced sister, but she wasn't in a public place (or on a balcony). Being beside a pool at a private home half a mile from the nearest road is not public. She has a reasonable expectation of privacy. I think the big fuss is being made because her husband's mother was killed while being chased by paps and they want to make it clear that a repeat of the same is not acceptable.


Lol "spanner-face". I thought I was the only one who thought Pippa a very plain girl, who no one would look at twice at if she didn't have a famous relative.
 
2012-09-16 11:53:41 PM
Here's how the Internet works: I'm in-port in CA. Farkettes, I'm looking at you, I'll be here all week. Don't let me down.

/EIP
 
2012-09-16 11:56:38 PM

Mugato: The Royal family seems to be pretty useless anyway, the least they can do is get naked for the amusement of the rest of us. If I were leaching off my country and living in a palace and called everyone subjects, I'd feel obligated to pull my junk out when asked.


forum.idle-games.com
 
2012-09-17 12:04:59 AM

CrispFlows: Without the a royal family, Britain simply loses a major part of their identity especially in comparison to the other European countries.


Corrected.

They're all equally related anyway, so it doesn't really matter which one currently occupies the place.
 
2012-09-17 12:06:36 AM
So some no name English women are okay to objectify and exploit on Page 3, but hands off the Duchess' tits?
 
2012-09-17 12:11:20 AM

scathing1: One place to view said pictures.


Fark just got royally served!
Looks like your membership just went up sir.
AMIRITE?!
 
2012-09-17 12:12:48 AM

gadian: Eh, they were taken from a super long distance from the road in front of a private estate. One should have the expectation of privacy in that instance.


When you're the personification of the British Empire, perhaps your expectations of privacy are diminished by being one of the most specifically public people on the planet.
 
2012-09-17 12:23:41 AM

Gyrfalcon: 12349876: They know they're not getting these pics off the tubes.

It's about preventing future pictures. Make the paparazzi and especially the publishers think twice about doing something similar again.

The only thing that would make paparazzi think twice is if we started summary drawing and quartering of anyone caught within 10,000 yards of a celebrity with any type of recording device.

Even then I doubt there'd be much success.


so if one were to use binoculars and manually sketch the image as an artist...
or simply run the pic through a sketch filter...
 
Displayed 50 of 175 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report