The news has been dominated in the last 48 hours by the story of photographs of the Duchess of Cambridge (Kate Middleton) topless. The photographs have so far just appeared in the French magazine Closer. A google search will quickly find un-censored copies of the cover of the magazine, showing some of the photographs. Here is a version I found, but the details have been pixilated out.
Topless pictures of the Duchess of Cambridge have appeared in a French magazine Closer
In the last 12 or so hours, the story has moved on to the fact that Buckingham Palace plans to sue the magazine on the grounds of invasion of privacy. Here are some quotes from St. James’s Palace, taken from The Guardian’s article here.
Earlier on Friday, in another strongly worded statement, the palace said the royal couple were hugely saddened by what it described as a “grotesque and totally unjustifiable” invasion of their privacy.
St James’s Palace was unequivocal in its condemnation of Closer. “The incident is reminiscent of the worst excesses of the press and paparazzi during the life of Diana, Princess of Wales, and all the more upsetting to the duke and duchess for being so.
“Their royal highnesses had every expectation of privacy in the remote house. It is unthinkable that anyone should take such photographs, let alone publish them.”
The Duchess of Cambridge, Kate Middleton, with her husband Prince William
I will be fascinated to see whether their attempt to sue the magazine will be successful. I am no legal expert, neither on the privacy laws here in England and Wales, nor of the apparently more stringent ones in France, where the photos were taken and have been published. Whether they are successful or not, the photographs are now already available on the internet, so anyone with any interest can see them. Also, an Italian magazine is apparently also planning to publish them (Closer in France is owned by former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi).
Should members of the Royal Family be entitled to the same expectation of privacy as the rest of us? What do you think?
http://www.eonline.com/news/346217/kate-middleton-s-topless-photo-taker-jail-time-huge-fine-a-possibility?cmpid=rss-000000-rssfeed-365-topstories
Within the following article is information regarding French legal codes. Seems the French have more stringent laws than England.
Yes, that is my understanding too. Apparently papers in the DUK were offered the photos, and all of them turned them down. Since the Leveson inquiry, the British press have become a little more careful as to what they do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leveson_Inquiry
From an article in today’s Guardian newspaper – http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/sep/14/royals-legal-action-closer-kate-topless-photos?intcmp=239
“Legal action will be taken under French privacy law, considered the toughest in Europe, with potential for both civil and criminal cases.”
“Should members of the Royal Family be entitled to the same expectation of privacy as the rest of us?”
I think that that’s a loaded question. That’s not the issue here. You would certainly have no problem at all suing for such an invasion of your privacy, so if anything the Royals have less and the question is should they have as much as we do. The answer is, it depends.
I suspect the French laws are similar to the German ones here, and I think that in this case they are correct. First, anyone can be photographed in a crowd and the photograph used without permission or payment. The crowd aspect is essential, meaning that the photograph would have been taken if other people had been present. Whether or not people are recognizable doesn’t matter. Basically, if you are comfortable being in a crowd, there is no reason not to be photographed. Even if someone earns money from the photograph, it is not because you are in it. Second, everyone has a right to privacy in a place where they can reasonably assume that they have it. So, it’s your fault if you are photographed nude on your hotel balcony from the hotel next door, but it’s not if someone flies a drone over your house because you have high hedges and uses an infrared camera. In the case here, special equipment was used, so it is an invasion of privacy, Royals or not. Third, in situations in-between, such as being photographed when shopping, coming out of a restaurant etc, in other words in public but not as part of a crowd (i.e. it does matter who is photographed), and only in such situations, there is a difference between celebrities and other folks. Celebrities have to put up with it (of course, some seek it out). Other folks can be photographed in such situations, but the photographs cannot be published without consent, which might involve payment.
Good points Phillip.
Phillip,
I am no far of the Royal Family, in fact I think they are an utter waste of time and money. But, I shouldn’t let my dislike of them colour the right they have to some level of privacy. I agree with you that, had the photo of Kate Middleton been taken during some public event, or even in a public place, then they should have no right to sue over invasion of privacy. But, as the photograph was taken whilst they were in a private place by an intrusive photographer, then I agree that they should have the right to sue under whatever privacy laws exist in the country where the photographs were taken.
The only caveat I would have to this is if the holiday were paid for out of the public money given to the Royal Family by the tax payers. I sincerely hope it wasn’t, as I see no reason why private holidays with no official business involved in them should not come from the money William earns as a helicopter pilot, or from Kate’s wealthy(ish) parents. Using public money for private holidays is something I hope the Royal Family does not do. If they do (and I am not suggesting they do), then I would feel very little sympathy for any invasion of privacy.
Readers of your blog might wonder if the succession of the title of the previous post and of this one are intentional (probably not).
Even I’m not that clever 🙂