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  
•       •       •

7495 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
 
2012-09-17 12:54:58 AM  
The gun is always loaded...
 
2012-09-17 01:01:16 AM  

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.


Yeah, generating something like £175 million in income for the Government is really leaching off of society. (The Civil List produces nearly £200 million and the Royal Family gets something like 25% of that.) Sure, in the grand scheme of things £175 million is chump change, but the Royal Family pretty much pays for itself. Not to mention the fact that a visit from the Queen to a foreign country can generate a ton of good will and help smooth the way for treaties and such.
 
2012-09-17 01:05:24 AM  

TheVeryDeadIanMartin: The gun is always loaded...


So is the camera.
 
2012-09-17 01:08:23 AM  

StevieKo: 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...


No, the latter means you still took the photo.

But, if you can do the binoc/sketch then more power to you.
 
2012-09-17 01:09:20 AM  

MoeSzyslak: I read something earlier today that this has more to do with the fact she is seen smoking in some of the unpublished pics and she's rumored to be pregnant since she stopped drinking a while ago.


drinking in public. she's a skank who hooked 'the big one'. there's nothing princessy or regal about her. her and camilla should get along fabulously.
 
2012-09-17 01:16:51 AM  

Gyrfalcon: StevieKo: 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...

No, the latter means you still took the photo.


No sir, you don't get our stock footage!
You've no proof and no right!
I drew that!
Sue me! :X
 
2012-09-17 01:22:33 AM  

Occam's Disposable Razor: The (currently) sexiest Kate Middleton picture:


I have to agree. Nice legs!
 
2012-09-17 01:42:53 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.


I agree the paparazzi are scum and would be hard to convince, but if they knew they would be unable to sell those photos to the publishers with deep pockets they might change their minds. That's why I said ESPECIALLY the publishers. They're the easier ones to convince and maybe that effect would "trickle down"
 
2012-09-17 02:00:43 AM  

Snapper Carr: It's simple math - 200 million in revenue from income from the Windsor's land holdings minus 40 million for upkeep of the royal family = 160 million.


It's not at all clear that the Windsors would be entitled to those holdings if the monarchy was dissolved. At the very least the government would be entitled to collect taxes on those 200m in revenues, which they currently do not; that wouldn't make up 100% of the difference, but it would be a decent chunk of change. And in all likelihood a significant portion of those holdings would simply be assumed by the government -- for example, "all salmon fishing in Scotland" doesn't sound like the sort of thing it's in the best interest of the people to let an individual control.
 
2012-09-17 02:02:13 AM  
imageshack.us
imageshack.us
I hate small blurry pictures.
 
2012-09-17 03:01:51 AM  

grimlock1972: Keizer_Ghidorah: grimlock1972: i was going to make my same old gripe about not taking pics you do not want to get out but it doesn't apply here.

the paparazzi needs to be prosecuted for criminal trespass.

I refuse to call people who take photos of celebs for sale to magazines and etc Photographers.

Pictures taken from a public street when you're outside in plain view showing your goods is not trespassing.

True enough still does not excuse the fact they sold them for profit. if the shots had been kept to the person who took them then fine, but that is not the case.


How hard is it to not get naked in public?
 
2012-09-17 03:15:11 AM  

OtherLittleGuy: So, will British partisans burn down the French Embassy in retribution?


Youre assuming british partisans have maps. They are likely to just hit the German embassy and call it a day.
 
2012-09-17 03:29:06 AM  

OtherLittleGuy: So, will British partisans burn down the French Embassy in retribution?


Brits may be weird, but even they are not willing to deal with the smell of burnt hair and melted cheese that would ensue.
 
2012-09-17 03:45:55 AM  

12349876: 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.

I agree the paparazzi are scum and would be hard to convince, but if they knew they would be unable to sell those photos to the publishers with deep pockets they might change their minds. That's why I said ESPECIALLY the publishers. They're the easier ones to convince and maybe that effect would "trickle down"


So, revise my suggestion to drawing & quartering the publishers? I'm not seeing a downside, honestly.
 
2012-09-17 06:24:34 AM  

Mock26: 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.

Yeah, generating something like £175 million in income for the Government is really leaching off of society. (The Civil List produces nearly £200 million and the Royal Family gets something like 25% of that.) Sure, in the grand scheme of things £175 million is chump change, but the Royal Family pretty much pays for itself. Not to mention the fact that a visit from the Queen to a foreign country can generate a ton of good will and help smooth the way for treaties and such.


Eh, people go to see the buildings and the artifacts. It's not like the family is out signing autographs. They could kick their ass out and it would still be the same tourist trap it is today.
 
2012-09-17 08:10:27 AM  

Majick Thise: The lawyers know all about the internet, but they also know all about 'billable hours'


You seem to think that the barristers were trying hard to push the royal family toward litigation, and the Queen was hesitant at first, only to cave into pressure by some shark with a clever ad on the sides of buses.
 
2012-09-17 09:45:00 AM  
Blurry photos of some pretty unspectacular boobies. Bigger concern would be that that could have been a sniper instead of a woman with a camera.
 
2012-09-17 10:53:53 AM  

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


Done in one.

/need some eyebleach for Kate's topless photos
//please post below
 
2012-09-17 02:14:50 PM  

Mugato: Mock26: 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.

Yeah, generating something like £175 million in income for the Government is really leaching off of society. (The Civil List produces nearly £200 million and the Royal Family gets something like 25% of that.) Sure, in the grand scheme of things £175 million is chump change, but the Royal Family pretty much pays for itself. Not to mention the fact that a visit from the Queen to a foreign country can generate a ton of good will and help smooth the way for treaties and such.

Eh, people go to see the buildings and the artifacts. It's not like the family is out signing autographs. They could kick their ass out and it would still be the same tourist trap it is today.


The money from the Civil List is not generated by tourists visiting England but from the property owned by the Royal Family. So if they could kick their ass out all of the revenue generated by that property suddenly reverts back to the Royal Family and the government is out £200 million.
 
2012-09-17 04:51:24 PM  
i1100.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 06:45:23 PM  

Mock26: The money from the Civil List is not generated by tourists visiting England but from the property owned by the Royal Family. So if they could kick their ass out all of the revenue generated by that property suddenly reverts back to the Royal Family and the government is out £200 million.


Who's to say they should get to keep all of this land if, for instance, we were to kick them out?

Seriously. Drop 'em a couple of mil between them (and that's generous) and let them fend for themselves, all the rest is property of the nation.
 
2012-09-17 07:17:28 PM  

otto the bull: [imageshack.us image 440x1500]
[imageshack.us image 503x1500]
I hate small blurry pictures.


You know who else hated small blurry pictures?

c0181321.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com
 
2012-09-17 07:49:06 PM  

indylaw: Majick Thise: The lawyers know all about the internet, but they also know all about 'billable hours'

You seem to think that the barristers were trying hard to push the royal family toward litigation, and the Queen was hesitant at first, only to cave into pressure by some shark with a clever ad on the sides of buses.


Not at all. But I bet there wasn't even one of the royal litigators who said 'Ya know, those pics were out of focus and at a great distance, really poor pics maybe we should just ignore it'
 
2012-09-18 02:09:27 AM  

Gothnet: Mock26: The money from the Civil List is not generated by tourists visiting England but from the property owned by the Royal Family. So if they could kick their ass out all of the revenue generated by that property suddenly reverts back to the Royal Family and the government is out £200 million.

Who's to say they should get to keep all of this land if, for instance, we were to kick them out?

Seriously. Drop 'em a couple of mil between them (and that's generous) and let them fend for themselves, all the rest is property of the nation.


And who is to say that they would not?
 
2012-09-19 08:18:09 AM  

Mock26: And who is to say that they would not?


Err, the people and government of the county that supports them?

Not quite sure I understand why you think that they should be allowed to keep it all, being as it's been gained simply through position and paid for by everyone else.
 
Displayed 25 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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report