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.

(MSNBC)   French court rules for British royalty against Italian paper. Also, don't mention the war   (today.msnbc.msn.com) divider line 29
    More: Sad, British, Italians, court orders, Prince William, Solomon Islands, photographers, Kate Middleton, wars  
•       •       •

1047 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 18 Sep 2012 at 8:36 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-09-18 08:12:49 AM
They are big on borders, but pretty lax about jurisdiction?

Also, it's tits. Who gives a fark?
 
2012-09-18 08:13:43 AM
Thank God the pictures aren't out on the internet anywhere. And even if they were I'm sure they can all be removed right?
 
2012-09-18 08:14:30 AM

vudukungfu: They are big on borders, but pretty lax about jurisdiction?

Also, it's tits. Who gives a fark?


Subby can't read. The judgement was against a French magazine.
 
2012-09-18 08:20:19 AM
 
2012-09-18 08:42:21 AM
Even Harry did Nazi that coming
 
2012-09-18 08:56:16 AM
I am confused by this.

Why is it illegal to publish a picture taken while in public?
 
2012-09-18 08:57:09 AM
Wow, reporter fails...

Injunction was against french magazine and only applys in france, however the photographer can be arrested and face jail time (3-5) for invasion of privacy.

The Italian newspaper Chi has run the pictures as well, as has an Irish paper (Irish Daily Star).

Italian paper doesn't care because its Italy and they have very lax privacy laws.

Irish papers editior is facing the sack as the owner of the paper told him not to run the pictures (incidentally the owner is also a pornographer for added irony)

I actually kinda understand why Williams so upset, the paparazzi hounded his mother and were a key factor in her death. I imagine he's not a fan of them.
 
2012-09-18 09:02:47 AM

liam76: I am confused by this.

Why is it illegal to publish a picture taken while in public?


Because French law recognises the concept of a reasonable expectation of privacy, and somebody on private ground nearly a mile away from the nearest public road probably qualifies.
 
2012-09-18 09:09:42 AM
why the "sad" tag?
 
2012-09-18 09:10:42 AM

Waldo Pepper: why the "sad" tag?


Cuz them tittays were mournful.
 
2012-09-18 09:11:59 AM

Waldo Pepper: why the "sad" tag?


Also wondering.

liam76 Are you trolling, ignorant or just a bit dim?
 
2012-09-18 09:17:18 AM
Got to keep the fried eggs out of the public domain.
 
2012-09-18 09:19:02 AM
 
2012-09-18 09:45:45 AM

DammitIForgotMyLogin: liam76: I am confused by this.

Why is it illegal to publish a picture taken while in public?

Because French law recognises the concept of a reasonable expectation of privacy, and somebody on private ground nearly a mile away from the nearest public road probably qualifies.


Guy didn't climb on private property, didn't peek in a window, he used a telephoto lense. If you have married into a family who makes their living by being in the public eye I don't think you have a reasonable expectation of privacy if you are naked outside within view of the road.

Swiss Colony: liam76 Are you trolling, ignorant or just a bit dim?


Are you a royal worshipper who think they they should have sepcial rights or think that anyone dumb enough to get naked outside while visible fromt he street should be protected?
 
2012-09-18 09:47:11 AM
What war?
 
2012-09-18 09:48:43 AM
The pictures are farking terrible anyway. They should have just denied it was her.
 
2012-09-18 09:51:13 AM

liam76: If you have married into a family who makes their living by being in the public eye I don't think you have a reasonable expectation of privacy if you are naked outside within view of the road.


And I think the laws should apply equally to everyone, regardless of whether they're in the public eye or not.

i.dailymail.co.uk

I would think that it's reasonable that this distance should count as a reasonable expectation of privacy.
 
2012-09-18 10:00:21 AM

DammitIForgotMyLogin: liam76: If you have married into a family who makes their living by being in the public eye I don't think you have a reasonable expectation of privacy if you are naked outside within view of the road.

And I think the laws should apply equally to everyone, regardless of whether they're in the public eye or not


Yes the laws should apply equally, but when you are in the public eye you are stupid not to expect peopel to try and get pictures of you. If somebody climbed on private property, or peeked in their wondow to get these pictures, yes it shoudl be illegal.

DammitIForgotMyLogin: I would think that it's reasonable that this distance should count as a reasonable expectation of privacy


With telephoto lenses being so common I don't know how good "distance" alone is for a standard.

That distance looks about 2 miles. Given that thsi is the daily mail, I will take it with a grain of salt.
 
2012-09-18 10:11:15 AM

liam76: Yes the laws should apply equally, but when you are in the public eye you are stupid not to expect peopel to try and get pictures of you. If somebody climbed on private property, or peeked in their wondow to get these pictures, yes it shoudl be illegal.


With helicopters and telephoto lenses, you're basically saying that nobody should have any expectation of privacy outside any more
 
2012-09-18 10:27:16 AM

liam76:
Swiss Colony: liam76 Are you trolling, ignorant or just a bit dim?

Are you a royal worshipper who think they they should have sepcial rights or think that anyone dumb enough to get naked outside while visible fromt he street should be protected?


You've answered my question - you are ignorant. As the pic above shows she wasn't "visble from the street". The photographer had a powerful lense and was waiting for an opportunity.

She wasn't parading on a beach, the photographer is essentially a voyeur.
 
2012-09-18 10:56:14 AM

DammitIForgotMyLogin: liam76: Yes the laws should apply equally, but when you are in the public eye you are stupid not to expect peopel to try and get pictures of you. If somebody climbed on private property, or peeked in their wondow to get these pictures, yes it shoudl be illegal.

With helicopters and telephoto lenses, you're basically saying that nobody should have any expectation of privacy outside any more


I didn't say anything about helicopters. You aren't allowed to take telephoto pictures on private property from aircraft.

Telephoto lenses are very common now (and getting cheaper), I prefer a legal standard that doesn't require a court and a team of lawyers to settle on.


Swiss Colony: As the pic above shows she wasn't "visble from the street".


The pic above was from the dailyfail. Go ahead and swear by it.


Swiss Colony: She wasn't parading on a beach, the photographer is essentially a voyeur


You know he was deriving sexual pleasure from this?

You probably shouldn't call people ignroant when "voyeur" is too big a word for you to understand.
 
2012-09-18 11:01:58 AM

liam76: You know she was deriving sexual pleasure from this?

 
2012-09-18 11:50:30 AM

abhorrent1: The pictures are farking terrible anyway. They should have just denied it was her.


QFT
 
2012-09-18 12:47:54 PM
If you go outside, celebrity or not, you should expect that your picture could be taken. Is there some inalienable right to topless sunbathing that I've missed? Seems like a lack of self-control and personal responsibility to me, with a generous side of AWing.

/especially funny coming from residents (owners?) of likely the most security camera-laden country on Earth
 
2012-09-18 01:35:54 PM

liam76: peeked in their wondow


What's the material difference between sitting outside on a balcony and sitting behind a pane of glass? Where do you draw the line? The curtains were half-closed - BUT THERE WAS STILL A TWO FOOT GAP SO THAT MAKES IT OK!

These photographers are scum.
 
2012-09-18 01:44:20 PM

GavinTheAlmighty: liam76: peeked in their wondow

What's the material difference between sitting outside on a balcony and sitting behind a pane of glass? Where do you draw the line? The curtains were half-closed - BUT THERE WAS STILL A TWO FOOT GAP SO THAT MAKES IT OK!

These photographers are scum.


People get hit with public nudity charges for being naked in their house because someone outside could see.
 
2012-09-18 02:06:32 PM

GavinTheAlmighty: liam76: peeked in their wondow

What's the material difference between sitting outside on a balcony and sitting behind a pane of glass? Where do you draw the line? The curtains were half-closed - BUT THERE WAS STILL A TWO FOOT GAP SO THAT MAKES IT OK!


I thought I "drew the line" when I brought up that they didn't peek through their window to get the shot.

That line is a lot more reasonable to me than some arbitrary distance.



GavinTheAlmighty: These photographers are scum


Maybe, but not because they took or sold pictures they got while in public that looked in nobody's house.
 
2012-09-18 03:30:19 PM
If they were just another couple, the paper would be considered the bad guys by the Fark OWS crowd for trying to profit off this, regardless of the legality.

Does it matter that they were in a public place and there's nothing the law can do about it? Forget the law, what about simple decency and courtesy? If I happened upon a young couple frolicking in the nude (or getting down and dirty) because they believed no one else was around, I would feel bad about taking the pictures to begin with, let alone selling them for all the world to see. But because we're talking about rich and famous people, I guess we should have no conscience about anything, right? I'm sure I'll be laughed out of here for even bringing it up.

/"I'm the alternate universe Farktopia version of Miss Manners, and I say it's perfectly OK to spit on anyone who makes over $250 grand! Just go right up and hawk a loogie at anyone wearing a nice suit or dress! Oh, and peek into their windows at night! Whatever. You're rich, you can take it. Fark you!"
 
2012-09-19 10:56:51 AM
we are missing the more entertaining part of all of this, the first magazine to buy and publish the photos is owned by Berlusconi. Berlusconi is trolling the royals because he can
 
Displayed 29 of 29 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report