Is the French court this backward and unsophisticated? Original photos? 
Do they actually expect negatives in 2012?
Don’t they know digital photos don’t really have “originals”? There could be a thousand copies of every photo by now. Emailed all over the world.
Heck you can Google Image Kate Middleton nude and see several of the photos very easily.
I don’t understand how it helps Kate, either, and assume that it’s a smug middle-finger from France to the UK. If someone can explain why it’s not, I’d appreciate that.
I felt bad for the Princess. But, she should have known better. The future queen of England should never be nude anywhere except her shower or bedroom. She isn’t a college girl anymore. She has responsibilities now that came with her marriage.
A $2,600 fine is nothing. That does seem like a rebuff of the civil suit.
She could totally take away the impact of these photos by doing some hardcore porn.
How do you know that they’re digital? A lot of professional photographers still use film. It’s still the superior medium.
Well, they’re digital now. Even if film negatives exist, asking for them back is like asking for the first drop of water that flowed into the sea from the Mississippi – it was a done deal painfully long ago, and will do nothing to stop the flood following behind.
I agree it might just be a stunt by the court. I’ve gotten wildly conflicting interpretations on the legal admissibility of digital photos. The same police department has told me that I must have digital photos to prove someone is committing a non-felony offense – my word as a witness is no good – AND that photos are totally worthless for such purpose because they can be faked. I conclude they’re intentionally varying their message in ways that minimize the effort they’d have to put out…
NBC did a demo showing how a picture from half mile away would be taken. This guy is a former paparazzi. He said his camera has a 600 mm lens with a doubler. Giving 1200 mm. Costs about 20 grand for all the equipment. Google shows the 600 mm lens is about 10 grand.
video
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/49070527#49070527
True enough. The Internet never forgets.
This is an invasion of a woman’s privacy while sunbathing. I condemn that. And there is nothing shameful about sunbathing in private while topless, or even in public where it is allowed.
The pictures aren’t even all that great. That’s the real tragedy in this whole thing
hahaha, I thought the same thing when I read about the ruling this morning, it’s just ridiculously anachronistic.
I’ve always been bothered by the terribly intrusive and invasive measure of the paparazzi. I would have thought that Diana’s death would have initiated drastic legal measures to protect people from these stalkers, but sadly, not much has changed.
Someone should create a business where celebrities pay college kids $15 hour to hound photographers and photo editors while they walk around, do errands, etc. Get a list of the worst offenders, follow them home,hide in bushes, knock on their doors and take photos non-stop wherever and whenever. Or create flash mobs (flashmob the flash mob?) to pester these leeches round the clock…
[jackass pedant]
I think you mean Duchess.
[/jackass pedant]
At least they’re pictures of her topless with her own husband in France, unlike that other Royal duchess, Fergie.
The Queen must have had a “whew” moment there …
Actually, Her Royal Highness Princess William, Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn, Baroness Carrickfergus, is both a princess and duchess, by marriage.
Which part of “jackass” was unclear to you?
As a tangent, is this still true? I thought that
A) almost all professional photographers (photojournalists, sports photographers, paparazzi, and the like), use digital cameras, and that
B) the quality of a very good digital camera was as good as film.
I am no expert, so I could well be wrong on either or both of these.
There are professionals who still use film for various reasons. However, I am willing to bet very large sums of money that there are no full-time paparazzi who use film at this point, just as newspaper photographers don’t use film. First, for the type of photography they’re doing, film rarely if ever would provide a better image. And, much more importantly, time is of the absolute essence in these fields. Getting an image of a breaking “story” to TMZ within minutes FAR, FAR outweighs any (mostly imagined) benefit film might have.
And this is the tack everyone from the royal family should have adopted. It isn’t 1820 anymore. People are allowed to have fun and be comfortable in their bodies. If the royals had shrugged and said “paparazzi are gonna paparazzi”, nobody would be talking about this right now.
This. Their response/reaction should have been: Big Fucking Deal, and their official statement (if any) should have been a genteel paraphrasing of that sentiment. Like the one you suggested, for example.
There have been rumours on other websites I frequent that she:
a) was sucking on a cigarette
or even
b) was sucking on something very royal indeed
If either of these rumours are true, and I obv. can’t vouch for them, it may help to explain the peculiar reaction here. I don’t think they’d have sued if the story was just as has been presented.