Kate & William file lawsuit

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-08-2011
Kate & William file lawsuit
Fri, 09-14-2012 - 2:14pm

Britain's Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have filed a lawsuit against French magazine Closer for printing photos of what appears to be Kate, sunbathing topless. 



Good for them!  I think the paparazzi stepped way over the line with this one and I see it as an invasion of privacy for sure.  I'm shocked at how many comments I've read on articles and Facebook from people saying that since she's such a public figure, she shouldn't have done it at all.  They were in a private secluded residence for goodness sakes. It isn't as if she was sunbathing topless on a public beach! 

What do you think? Invasion of privacy by the paparazzi, or should Kate have used better judgment?


Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.~ Dr Seuss

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Fri, 09-14-2012 - 4:07pm

The French/Euro laws are different.  But it strikes a cord that we are the ones responsible.  It is the public that buys these magazine making them profitable.  After all these paparazzi make $50000+ for fotos!  It is the fact that we the public live out lives thru celeberties.  Is it wrong yes.  Will it stop, no.  I hope they get a big settlement!


iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2001
Sat, 09-15-2012 - 5:29pm
xxxs wrote:

The French/Euro laws are different.  But it strikes a cord that we are the ones responsible.  

I don't know that it was an anti-Europe or French thing, it's just that that is where it happened.  

I agree with you that it's the people who buy the magazines that make it profitable.  Still, something has to be done to limit the lengths these photographers will go to to invade people's privacy.  I wonder if it could be proscuted under stalking law.

What a miserable way to live - Constant hounding and judgement.  Glad I'm a nobody!  :smileywink:

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-18-2006
Sun, 09-16-2012 - 7:16pm

I think it's a clear invasion of privacy, and I honestly find the obsession with the Royal Family soooo freakin creepy. They're people - famous people, to be sure, but people, nonetheless. I was a great admirer of Princess Diana and absolutely feel the paparazzi contriubuted to her death.


iVillage Member
Registered: 05-25-2004
Sun, 09-23-2012 - 12:51am

In the case of Kate sunbathing topless, she had every expectation of privacy. They were in a secluded private residence in a private area. It's not as if she stood on someone's front lawn in suberbia and took off her top. I think the photographer crossed a huge line. Kate did nothing wrong.

When a Prince swims naked in a hotel pool with many other people, there is no expectaton of any sort of privacy. He knows where he is and made that choice. Would I take the photos and embarrass him? No, I'd still not do it nor have I seem them nor want to see them. I'm just saying that he should have known and expected the photos to go public. He knew what would happen and either wanted that or simply didn't care. Big difference in the two events.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-17-2003
Sun, 09-23-2012 - 10:36am

Before I say anything, I agree with you.

But, I do have to wonder how much privacy anyone should expect in her position? It is a private, secluded residence, but is it common for the paparazzi to photograph famous people at their private, secluded locations? Is it lawful to do so from a distance, as long as they are not on their property? I don't know, I am just wondering.

Again, I do agree the photographer crossed a gross line here, but I am not so sure I believe she should be so shocked and stunned about it.

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Sun, 09-23-2012 - 3:40pm

In the us there is a policy that was started in the 1930's.  The law see "public figures" as surrendering their privacy.  What constitutes a "public figure? 




   The story in the US started from Hollywood staging What we would call stunts to publicize their products establish stars and "buzz".


iVillage Member
Registered: 12-17-2003
Mon, 09-24-2012 - 7:19am

I think the big no-no was the violation of privacy, If she was at a public place I'd say snap away.

Isn't that the big question? In America it is not always considered a violation of privacy when someone is photographed on their own property. Often times, it is not, whether that be a public figure or a person trying to dupe the insurance company while faking a disability. I don't think it has much to do with whether or not it's a public or private place.

I don't know the laws there. Again, I don't want to come off as siding with the photographer. I am just thinking or pondering why people in their position would ever expect privacy, regardless of where they were or what they were doing.

I think it's very common for the paparazzi to try to and obtain pictures of celebrities in a private setting. No? So, this whole shocked, would never expect it attitude, I don't buy it.

What about celebrities that go to great lengths to have "private" weddings, Aren't paparazzi expected to respect their privacy?

Sorry, I don't think expecting something and something being a law are the same thing. I would think they all expect interference from the paparazzi and go to great lengths to try and secure privacy. But again, if the paparazzi are able to find the location and fly overhead for a shot of this wedding .... are the breaking the law?