WTF
Have you been paid by Kingston Technologies to advertise their memory card?
Whats the point of the article, after all?
Agreed, the royal jubblies are no great shakes and she has dark nipples. You see better ones on a European beach.
I rush back from town mid-afternoon in order to participate in an online conference, or what they prefer me to call a "webinar". At home, I discover that my son is sitting at his computer. It’s a school day. This might not be such a bad thing: since his school doesn’t teach about computers any more - see 'Emotional Baggage' - …
>Have you been paid by Kingston Technologies to advertise their memory card?
Good to hear from another person raised on Blue Peter and their use of 'sticky tape' instead of Sellotape, and Pritt-Stick with the label covered. But that was a children's programme on a non-commercial channel; this is The Register viewed by adults (I think).
It is hard to find a photo of an SDcard that doesn't show its branding. Generic photos of the blank belly of cards look as if they have been taken by professionals, and presumably belong to a photo library. If Mr Dabbs were advertising it, it would be the latest and greatest card, not a Class 4.
The point of the court case is not to stop the movement of the images entirely but to prevent them becoming a trade-able commodity and more specifically to set a precedent for future attempts to publish similar photographs. By legally attacking and asserting the rights of the individual to their privacy they are establishing the case law needed to attack further attempts at invasion. They've requested the originals only as a function of making the magazine accountable for further distribution, because if all copies are 'handed over' then if more come out then the couple have grounds to get the mag for breach of the terms of the court case. They should also pursue other papers just to make sure their precedent is set in enough countries.
I don't think many a person will be knocking one out over those pictures and more attractive pictures of her lordship are already available, but this isn't about that, it is about the right of her to get them out in private without fear of the telephoto lens.
"The point of the court case is not to stop the movement of the images entirely but to prevent them becoming a trade-able commodity and more specifically to set a precedent for future attempts to publish similar photographs."
Quite. If the original photographer had not broken local laws to obtain the images in the first place then he (I will assume it was a bloke) wouldn't have minded putting his name on every copy and *he* could now be the one chasing loads of foreign publications through the courts for, er, "royalties".
I agree.. the deed is done and it's all about breach of privacy and someoen makiing dosh from it. Hopefully some smartass pap will get a good fine or a week in jail and think twice the next time. I'm no great fan of royalty but Kate has an air of dignity, youth, and good looks. She should feel free to do what she wants, and expect a degree of privacy. Once you make an effort to get a picture viia long lens; camera through a hedge; on top of ladders etc, you have breached their space. I wish them well and hope any fines go to charity.
So what is Kate in Reg units ? I'm guessing 2/3 Bulgarian airbag ...
On topic though, I had a converstation last night about Royal pics and the summary is
Harry - No sympathy at all, compounded by Royal advisors/security (see below)
Kate - Should have realised long before now that's she's a public figure
Wills - Given his mother's experience should have known better
Royal advisors/security - Incompetent - Not doing their job with both Harry and Kate
Royal legal advisors - Arrogant for advising that any action would do any good/kill the story (it's done the exact opposite)
Paris - Is better at managing the media than all of the above
I'm not female and do not have breasts, but I'm aware that many people who are, and who do, are deeply disgusted by a tabloid press that considers every woman's body as a resource to exploit for money: if the Duchess of Cambridge is considered a legitimate object of such exploitation, then pretty much anybody is.
Some coverage has either thoughtfully pointed out or gleefully proclaimed, depending on who is speaking and what their intentions are, that the sewer press of the world is equally interested in, and liable to intrude into, Her Royal Highness's womb. And it's disgraceful.
If it was up to me, Prince Harry would be pulled out of Camp Bastion long enough to personally fly missile attacks on the French, Irish, Italian and every other newspaper and magazine office that are profitting from this filthy trade. Bomb them all to hell and leave the bodies buried in the rubble. I sincerely believe that it is a fair reprisal.
@Robert Carnegie Unfortunately there are enough men and women in the world that are interested in The Royals and Celebrities to warrant the effort the photographers go to in order to get the pics. I doubt very much the demand perceived or otherwise will abate anytime soon. You only have to look at the example of the Daily Mail website that was redone to add the celebrity hooks resulting in traffic and revenues increasing substantially.
Celebrities also add to the problem as they need that exposure as it improves their negotiating position in securing fees for movies/appearances/endorsements/etc. I wouldn't be suprised if a high proportion of the 'paparazzi' shots are actually staged.
The only way to make the images of Kate Middleton non-tradable and to keep the press away in future is to make them unremarkable. It's only the Royal Family and the UKs prudish attitude that makes them worth anything. Why are Royal breasts any different to non-royal breasts? Are they gold plated or something? Does she have diamond nipple piercings? The more fuss they make over them, the more intrusion it will cause in the future.
Prince Harry has actually played a blinder with his antics. If people I talk to are anything to go by, there's more comment about the cost of the hotel suite than about him frolicking naked with some women. He was a soldier about to go out on a tour, who was letting himself go on holiday beforehand. Bet plenty of others did the same. Difference is, they didn't do it in a £5k a night hotel suite!! But, in ignoring what's gone on, further pictures like that are going to be 'same again'. And each time, they'll get more and more unremarkable and less and less valuable; till in the end, it's not with the photographers time to take them.
Just watched a bit of it on youtube, its excruciatingly bad, the sort of bad that makes you embarrassed for all concerned. Chewys family is probably one of the worst insults to the franchise ever, and that includes the dreary prequels.
If I was Mr Lucas, I think I would try and sweep the whole sorry thing under the carpet as well.
Did he actually have any input on the script etc or was it just some tv producer?
Let's not even get into just how much worse of something "private" I can post online can be for you, and just start with this example:
So if I take photos of your bank statements, or credit card, and post them online, they "are now effectively in the public domain" so you shouldn't take action against me?
No. The fact is that that document cannot be "revoked" from the Internet - correct. But it's also true that you should be punished for publishing it in the first place, knowing that it was illegal and damaging to me, and that you should be punished to discourage a) future reoccurrences by yourself and b) future reoccurrences by others. Otherwise, everything we do will be in the "public domain", grey-market or not, and privacy dies a death.
If these photos were taken illegally, and it's proved so in court, there's going to be a HUGE slap to those who published them online or offline should they be identified. And it will have enormous knock-on effects, one of which will be that photographers and editors will be MUCH more careful about ever taking such snaps in the first place, let alone publish them (and I've heard one quote that he was "just a photographer, the editor decides what to publish" which shows an inherently shaky understanding of privacy and the law around who's responsible for actually permanently recording that image in the first place).
Nobody's stupid enough at the Royal lawyers to think they can suck those pictures out of thousands of personal hard drives across the globe. But they might well be able to put the fear of law back into the journalism industry and safeguard their (and other's) future privacy.
If I'd taken a photo of the next door neighbour sunbathing and plastered it over the net, I'd expect to be arrested if caught. Especially if I'd then sold those pictures to publications abroad. Why does journalism get a free-ride in these things that puts them above ordinary mortals?
I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of the article was?
But If the free newspaper on the bus is to be believed, the photographer didn't get paid anything for them anyway, except his usual wages from the Magazine who he works for.
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/912713-kate-middleton-topless-photographer-is-british-says-french-paparazzo
I know it's probably unimaginable to the British and West Euro readers, but this is also a Streisand thing. The royals are generally only known in the world at large when there's a super-mega-huge event, and this would have been pretty much under the radar for most of the planet had she not sued. I know I'd never have bothered to search for topless photos of Kate, even if they were 'going around', other than wanting to know what the lawsuit fuss was about.
As for the actual photos: meh. You'd think a woman whose only purpose in life is to loaf around and look good could do so much better. The one where she's bending over her belly fat has a larger cup size than her jubblies, which in Reg units can't be more than 1/4 Vietnamese Vespa Airbag.
The really important question, I think, is, 'are the pics any good?' - to which the answer is a resounding 'no, they are measly grainy crap.'
Looking at Kate Middleton clothed, I reckon she would look good topless, and would like to suggest the Cambridges take a step towards a 21st Century monarchy by commissioning a suitable photographer to do a high quality shoot. The nation deserves it.
"The really important question, I think, is, 'are the pics any good?' - to which the answer is a resounding 'no, they are measly grainy crap.'"
If the pictures taken in such a situation are so awful and grainy makes you wonder why a magazine editor would bother paying for them.
Despite the establishments attempts to cover them up. We have photographic evidence, that the future royal monarch is to be suckled on some, rather small, but perfectly normal tits. There are no sign's of blue blood or lizard features. Which leaves experts contemplating the fact that the royal family, may not actually be anything special and they may indeed have a shared 200,000 year evolution history with the rest of humanity.
The are also reports that the third in the line, to the throne of England, may presently be gestating in some bikini clad floozy, located somewhere in Nevada.