How far would you go?

[Beaux Reflets]

With the photograph row well and truly brewing over the privacy of William and Kate; how far would you go?

Interestingly the privacy laws in France may well be in for a testing, although until more details are revealed upon the photographer and magazine relationship, it is hard to guess what the outcome will be.

In my opinion everyone deserves privacy and respect regardless of who they are; and it will be very interesting to see how the new Laws (UK) upon Stalking are perhaps going to be useful, in determining where the lines of expectation upon acting within the Law are to be drawn.

From the reports on the BBC I think it is fair to surmise that the photographer working 'from off the street' did not ask the Royal couple to sign a model release form, and they might have been simply out 'bird watching' and got a lucky shot as they panned a tweeter on the wing; but my guess is that the outcome of all this, is to likely put the onus upon the photographer, and no doubt France will be asked to sign up to the International Laws upon Stalking that no doubt may follow.

So as a amateur or professional tog; Where do you draw the line?

[ABERS]

Complete and utter storm in a teacup.

What is interesting is the fact that there is a market out there for saddo's that want to ogle the thruppennybits of someone in the public eye. Is the girl blessed with a chest of remarkable dimensions? Or is it just to satisfy the prurient curiosity that wonders if behind all the pomp and ceremony the "Royals" are just ordinary people with the same appendages as every other person.

As far as 'the line' goes I wouldn't be taking pictures of people in their garden over a fence in the firstplace, so I can't make a judgement there, but if people want to do that that's their business. Some people make a living in curious and sometimes distasteful ways, ask any banker or politician!

[Graham]

  I don't think anything will change untill The Papers learn the difference between "In the public interest" and "Of interest to the public".
                Graham.

[Hinfrance]

I don't think these particular images (I haven't seen them) meet either criterion in my case. 

[Beaux Reflets]

Who really wants to see the images?

Beyond the apparent peeping tom aspect and said media greed, there must still be a real security problem to afford such opportune timing; after all the time since Princess Diana's death, in some ways I am surprised by such an occurrence and then perhaps not.

[SimonW]

Apart from all the privacy issues, maybe there is a fairly serious security issue. That camera could have been a gun with a telescopic sight. If its position can be discovered from the photo then someone with more wicked intentions that the photographer might make use of it.

[Karen]

To be honest who (and especially her in her position and who must have a camera trained on her constantly) lies about a roof top terrace with their boobs out anyway.

[Graham]

 On the other hand....If I'm paying for them, I should be entitled to see them! 

[anglefire]

It is a storm in a tea cup, but on the other hand, they have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a private villa, wherever the hell it is.

And the excuse of them being beautiful images doesn't wash.

I would like to know what they would say if the're wife/girlfriends/daughters thrupennies were spread all over the newspapers.

[anglefire]

To be honest who (and especially her in her position and who must have a camera trained on her constantly) lies about a roof top terrace with their boobs out anyway.

Why shouldn't she be able to? Loads of women had them out on beaches in the South of France when I was down there on Holiday this year, non of them, as far as I could tell, ad their pictures spread over the papers.

[Graham]

 Personaly I think she should just laugh it off, with a "What is it with you people" shrug.

[anglefire]

Whilst I also think she should do that, I also think there is another point - and that is to test the legal system of France for everyone. If there is a law, then it should be seen to be effective, and not toothless.

Having said that, only the rich can afford the law.

[Beaux Reflets]

I am pretty sure the French legal system works as there is reportage that suggests the media do their maths, weighing the fines against the potential sales figures, because it is the financial benefits that steers the thinking over and above any moral reasoning; and in this regard, the media drive up celebrity value by increased coverage making profit upon the back of those they portray.

As for, "only the rich can afford the Law"; if its criminal Law then the money aspect should not matter! And there are additional insurance policies folk can take up to cover legal fees towards prosecuting or defence costs for areas not covered by their general liability insurance policies.

I think that in a world where so much more is now public, it is more about setting the line upon privacy so that folk are not hounded!

It could be argued that a photograph of a vehicle, in which more than 50% of it shows the interior and occupants of that vehicle could be deemed as an invasion of the occupants privacy and accordingly require a signed Model Release Form.

[Karen]

To be honest who (and especially her in her position and who must have a camera trained on her constantly) lies about a roof top terrace with their boobs out anyway.

Why shouldn't she be able to? Loads of women had them out on beaches in the South of France when I was down there on Holiday this year, non of them, as far as I could tell, ad their pictures spread over the papers.

Probably because they are not one of the most famous women in the world!!