Photographer + magazine editor at fault


ricohflex

Senior Member
Feb 24, 2005
3,353
8
38
sing
#1
Royals to sue | Herald Sun

Kate Middleton's Nude Photos Published By French Magazine! | PerezHilton.com

The French basically hate the English.

They pestered Diana who died in France.

Now they are doing it again to the British royalty.

To the French magazine editor and the photographer, it is ALL about money.

This is about brinksmanship.

They would not dare to do this if they knew that the consequence would be death or financial ruin. i.e. if they knew that some enraged mob would surely attack the magazine editor+photographer.
 

Last edited:

sjackal

Senior Member
Jul 9, 2008
4,490
10
38
#3
French and English are like Japanese and Chinese, Muslims and Jews.

Traditional loggerheads.
 

Shizuma

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2012
2,557
25
0
#6
if i were to take off my bikini and expose my modest assets and scream bloody murder when my pictures are published, who is the fool...?

me? or publisher?
Of course if photographer ambush me in the shower room and take photos, it is different.

This seems more like a 'reasonable right to privacy' legal issue...
 

s1221ljc

New Member
May 7, 2006
821
1
0
#7
They are world famous celebrities. I thought they should know better than to do this in the open, knowing there will always be prying eyes. If they want complete privacy, then there should be a high wall or trees around??? And being royalty, dont they have security shield/protection around the grounds. Luckily they were shot by a photographer, & not a sniper! Whats the point of the palace issuing all these statements so very often when the royalties dont know how to be circumspect, when they even have a prince cavorting around naked with strangers & attracting all the unwanted & unnecessary attention :)
 

Last edited:

Shizuma

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2012
2,557
25
0
#8
And being royalty, dont they have security shield/protection. Luckily they were shot by a photographer, & not a sniper!
if shot by sniper will save public monies. if shot by photographer will increase private monies. the profit motivation is greater in private sector. :D
 

zaren

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 27, 2003
10,961
29
48
#11
good lesson for all.....
 

Oct 1, 2011
1,799
0
0
Planet Earth
#13
Shizuma said:
if i were to take off my bikini and expose my modest assets and scream bloody murder when my pictures are published, who is the fool...?

me? or publisher?
Of course if photographer ambush me in the shower room and take photos, it is different.

This seems more like a 'reasonable right to privacy' legal issue...
Cats have assets? :O
 

ricohflex

Senior Member
Feb 24, 2005
3,353
8
38
sing
#14
This is the magazine editor

Now they only have to identify the photographer.

Actually all they have to do is to identify both, publish detailed photos of both, give their full name and addresses (and update if they move house), their IDs, credit card numbers, car license plates, names of children and family members, what school their children attend, describe in detail their everyday routines, where they can be found, their companies, addresses and location of their offices, where they hang out for relaxation, which pubs they frequent, etc....

Repeat this publishing often in newspapers and numerous websites.

Must not make any threats. Do not link it with the photo case. Just publish the information without embellishment or adding any unnecessary comments.

That is all they need to do.

No one will dare to do it again.
 

Last edited:

s1221ljc

New Member
May 7, 2006
821
1
0
#15
So what if we know who the editor or photographer is, who cares about their personal particulars, they are not celebrities, they are not famous pop-stars or actors/actresses. Loss of much privacy is simply the price to pay for the gain in fame, or infamy - & the riches that comes with it. If there is no juicy, salacious stories, there will be nothing newsworthy for the tabloids. Who would be bothered with ordinary everyday details of ordinary boring activities & stuff? So lesson is, dont do anything stupid (or what you dont want to be printed/reported) & people would leave you alone, if they cant make money out of it ... Making veiled threats or insinnuations do not work on news hounds. They would likely become more well known, & richer. Why would one think they are ashamed of what they do or fear to be made known, which I am sure they are prepared for anyway.

What makes the news are not just those highly orchestrated visits to childrens home, botanical gardens and such, but also those when one is caught off guard, unaware in their "natural" unrehearsed, spontaneous states :)
 

Last edited:

kei1309

Senior Member
Apr 12, 2010
7,312
23
0
Earth
www.facebook.com
#16
this is about the right to their privacy. when famous people want to "just be normal people", they can't do it in public or places where people can easily spy on them.

it was mentioned in the news that the place they were at was supposed to be inaccessible to prying eyes, yet this happens.

don't blame the royal family for being famous. they were born in to it. people will follow them around whether they like it or not.

even the royals are people too.

oh and by the way... do you remember how Diana of Wales died? they were hounded by the exact same magazine publisher and paparazzi that led to the car crash. and almost 15 years later, they're doing the same thing. why do you think the royals are even more pissed?
 

Shizuma

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2012
2,557
25
0
#17
why do you think the royals are even more pissed?
because they cannot send the Magazine Editors to the National Razor in Paris, or lock the papapraprpaparparpaprazzis up in the Tower of London.
 

giantcanopy

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2007
6,232
2
0
SG
#19
Shizuma said:
if shot by sniper will save public monies. if shot by photographer will increase private monies. the profit motivation is greater in private sector. :D
It was apparently sniped with a telephoto lens one km from the scene.
 

Top Bottom