biggs682
Itching to get back on my bike's
- Location
- Northamptonshire
is it just me or do all of our younger royal family members want to be centre spread nude models.... who ever next ... will be caught out
do you all agree (hrh content)
- Thread starter biggs682
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
ColinJ
Puzzle game procrastinator!
- Location
- Todmorden - Yorks/Lancs border
I think if stupid people didn't buy newspapers and magazines featuring revealing photos of famous people, then greedy editors wouldn't buy the pictures, and hard-nosed professional photographers wouldn't bother taking them!
MontyVeda
a short-tempered ill-controlled small-minded troll
- Location
- Lancaster... the little city.
what Colin said...
surely one can go on holiday and sunbathe?!
surely one can go on holiday and sunbathe?!
snapper_37
Barbara Woodhouse's Love Child
- Location
- Wolves
Yes but one should keep one's puppies covered if one doesn't want to have them printed in rag-mags.
MontyVeda
a short-tempered ill-controlled small-minded troll
- Location
- Lancaster... the little city.
surely it should be against the law to publish such photos without the boobees consent?
There's a big difference between a page three model and somebody who's trying to sunbathe in private. Lets not start victim blaming eh?
There's a big difference between a page three model and somebody who's trying to sunbathe in private. Lets not start victim blaming eh?
Black Sheep
Guru
- Location
- Rammy
this could get interesting permission wise -
I believe in france, the 'copyright' of someone's image in a photo actually belongs to the person photographed not the photographer who took the picture (as it is in the UK) so could take that angle.
having briefly read the article in the UK papers about the incident, they were staying in the middle of no-where in a private villa. my wife and I are a young married couple and she never takes her top off even on the beach in mallorca where it is fairly common for ladies to do so. but in the privacy of her parent's holiday home and grounds she will do, where the only person able to see her without using a telephoto lens is me, her husband.
unlike Harry in a hotel room (a stupid decision in my opinion) this was a private moment between a married couple,
what's next, the photographer taking pics of them having sex in the bedroom if he can get a good enough position to view it?
I believe in france, the 'copyright' of someone's image in a photo actually belongs to the person photographed not the photographer who took the picture (as it is in the UK) so could take that angle.
having briefly read the article in the UK papers about the incident, they were staying in the middle of no-where in a private villa. my wife and I are a young married couple and she never takes her top off even on the beach in mallorca where it is fairly common for ladies to do so. but in the privacy of her parent's holiday home and grounds she will do, where the only person able to see her without using a telephoto lens is me, her husband.
unlike Harry in a hotel room (a stupid decision in my opinion) this was a private moment between a married couple,
what's next, the photographer taking pics of them having sex in the bedroom if he can get a good enough position to view it?
swee'pea99
Squire
This kind of stuff never fails to amuse me, insofar as I care about it at all, but I do question the idea that "it should be against the law to publish such photos".
As I understand it, it's a bit like caveat emptor - it's basically up to the photographee to ensure that if they don't want to be photographed, they can't be. (Other than by someone actively breaking the law.) Seems to me that's about right. To me it feels in the same sort of area as the concerns that the UK's libel laws enable the likes of Robert Maxwell or Asil Nadir to use their money to suppress proper scrutiny, thus enabling them to continue Doing Bad Stuff for a lot longer than would otherwise be possible. The default, I feel, should be freedom to speak, to take, to publish. If there's anything you don't want printed, don't say it. And if you don't want yer fun bags in the public domain, make sure they can't be papped by the paps.
As I understand it, it's a bit like caveat emptor - it's basically up to the photographee to ensure that if they don't want to be photographed, they can't be. (Other than by someone actively breaking the law.) Seems to me that's about right. To me it feels in the same sort of area as the concerns that the UK's libel laws enable the likes of Robert Maxwell or Asil Nadir to use their money to suppress proper scrutiny, thus enabling them to continue Doing Bad Stuff for a lot longer than would otherwise be possible. The default, I feel, should be freedom to speak, to take, to publish. If there's anything you don't want printed, don't say it. And if you don't want yer fun bags in the public domain, make sure they can't be papped by the paps.
Scruffmonster
Über Member
- Location
- London/Kent
The thing that gets me is the people that dont give two hoots are normal human beings.
The people that are in uproar are the very same types that buy OK magazine, Heat, etc, thereby contributing to the cycle.
She's the wife of the future King ffs, surely rule number 1 is 'Keep em covered, creepy paps lurk'... Also, nobody is commenting on the fact that sunbathing topless is kind of trashy.
She signed up for it. She married arguably the most famous man on the planet, by association becoming arguably the most famous woman. With all of the first class international air travel, fine dining, free clothes, stylist, and a carefree existence with a freedom to study, work, however and wherever she wants... With all of that, rightly or wrongly comes a contraction of privacy. If you can't do something as simple as make a compromise to bear the disgraceful horror of tan lines in exchange...
The people that are in uproar are the very same types that buy OK magazine, Heat, etc, thereby contributing to the cycle.
She's the wife of the future King ffs, surely rule number 1 is 'Keep em covered, creepy paps lurk'... Also, nobody is commenting on the fact that sunbathing topless is kind of trashy.
She signed up for it. She married arguably the most famous man on the planet, by association becoming arguably the most famous woman. With all of the first class international air travel, fine dining, free clothes, stylist, and a carefree existence with a freedom to study, work, however and wherever she wants... With all of that, rightly or wrongly comes a contraction of privacy. If you can't do something as simple as make a compromise to bear the disgraceful horror of tan lines in exchange...
Arjimlad
Tights of Cydonia
- Location
- South Glos
Quelle surprise, la duchesse est femme... get over it !
I do think that she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances.
I do think that she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances.
snorri
Legendary Member
- Location
- East coast, up a bit.
That would have been OK in the old days, but in these high-tech times the measures required to ensure privacy could be quite extreme, I think.
Black Sheep
Guru
- Location
- Rammy
I think there should be a level of technology that can be used.
for example, if she was sun-bathing topless on a boat offshore from the south of france she should be aware that someone on another boat could come along with a camera.
being on a private estate, some distance from the perimeter you don't quite expect to be snapped but it's a possibility (so this is a grey area then)
being in her hotel room with the doors closed and someone's hidden a camera in the corner - that's invasion of privacy.
for example, if she was sun-bathing topless on a boat offshore from the south of france she should be aware that someone on another boat could come along with a camera.
being on a private estate, some distance from the perimeter you don't quite expect to be snapped but it's a possibility (so this is a grey area then)
being in her hotel room with the doors closed and someone's hidden a camera in the corner - that's invasion of privacy.
Scruffmonster
Über Member
- Location
- London/Kent
Exactly that. Reasonable expectation. That's not a guarantee. She had a choice, she lost out.
People just need to ignore it. It's the faux outrage of the rags that are promoting them coming to light. The same people that are complaining about it are also looking for them, then they'll be making crude/lewd/derogatory comments about her as soon as the tide turns.
It's quite funny for 5 minutes and that's about it. I laughed pretty hard when a mate offerred a bet on pink or brown though.
growingvegetables
Guru
- Location
- Leeds
The truly nauseating bit is that part of the British press falling over themselves, in post-Leveson faux outrage, to show that they're such "responsible" and "moral" institutions, who turned down the photos, because it was somehow "beneath them".
Black Sheep
Guru
- Location
- Rammy
indeed, the Sun is being most responsible in lambasting the french press for daring to show the Duchess topless, they'd never do a thing like that to a member of the royal family would they?
