How The Royal Family Got The World To Look At Naked Photos Of Kate Middleton [Updated]

from the streisand-effect dept

Mon, Sep 17th 2012 8:21am — Mike Masnick

Update: Good points made in the comments that suggest that the graph below is actually more about the original news coming out in the evening, and the national UK press running the story in the morning -- rather than in response to the threat to sue. While the legal action certainly didn't help push the story under the rug (it's the only way I heard about it, for instance), it looks like we (picking up on the Forbes piece) went too far in assuming that the threat to sue is what resulted in the attention. The original story remains below.

I don't tend to follow news like this, so there could be plenty of reasons why I missed the report that the wife of Prince William, Kate Middleton, had been photographed topless while on vacation with William in France. Of course, it could also be because almost no one paid attention to the story... until the royal family decided to sue. As Kash Hill correctly notes, this seems like yet another perfect example of the Streisand Effect in action. The story got very little attention... until legal action was threatened.

It may be upsetting and embarrassing, but it's difficult to see how suing makes things better. All it did was get a lot more people looking for the photos and put a lot more attention on the story itself. I know that, at times when someone is wronged, there's a feeling that they must do something, but does it really make sense to "do something" if it also makes you much worse off?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: kate middleton, lawsuit, naked photos, prince william, royal family, streisand effect

59 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 17 Sep 2012 @ 7:19am

Royal boobs, Batman! They must be one of the most famous by now! Also, boobs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Skeptical Cynic (profile), 17 Sep 2012 @ 7:54am

The new marketing Paradigm
Forget spending big money on TV ads or SMM or Google Ads.

Spent 100 times less by just suing somebody. You will get everything you need to get people looking at your product by just suing.

Of course it will help if you have boobs involved
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josef Anvil (profile), 17 Sep 2012 @ 8:28am

I'm a victim too
I feel victimized by the Streisand Effect. When I first heard the story, I chuckled a bit and then went on with my life. Then as the story kept popping up on TV, in the newspapers, and in the news on the net; I felt compelled to google the images.

Now I've seen the Royal Boobies, and yes they are nice, but until the Streisand Effect overwhelmed me, I had no desire to even peek. Who do I sue over this invasion of my will?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 17 Sep 2012 @ 8:32am

Re: I'm a victim too
Yeah, if anything this underestimates the exposure (heh) these pics have gotten. Tons of people who had no interest in seeing the royal knobs have stumbled across these pics due to the ubiquitous posting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lowestofthekeys (profile), 17 Sep 2012 @ 8:36am

I never thought I'd see the day where drama trumped boobies on the internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2012 @ 8:38am

The graph shown in this article does not show that the Streisand Effect made this topic popular. You might as well have claimed that the Wake-Up Effect caused it.

The images were published around 10:00 - 11:00 PM according to the graph and then around 7:00 - 8:00 AM the next morning people started tweeting...

Personally I believe the royal family's decision to sue did cause some Streisand Effect but this graph does not show it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BentFranklin (profile), 17 Sep 2012 @ 8:38am

Photoshop project: Reshape the right side of that graph into the profile of a royal boob.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
5upMushroom (profile), 17 Sep 2012 @ 8:44am

The rise is due to folks waking up.
The Royal Family's threat to sue news hit at the top of the search spike. The rise that came before the announcement was due to folks waking up and reading the news. No doubt, there was a bit of a Streisand Effect, but it was probably just a drop in the ocean compared to the news itself. It's Kate Middleton's nipples for crying out loud.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2012 @ 8:45am

um, isn't the Streisand Effect supposed to show an increase after suing? in that graph, the number of tweets dropped off, which would appear to indicate the lawsuit had either no effect, or actually helped.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2012 @ 8:48am

As a Briton, I can confirm that the Streisand Effect paid little part in this story. This was a huge headline news story in the UK all day, and the royals only threatened to sue later in the day. Your graph seems to show the cycle of a typical large news story. In the morning, people saw the news and started talking about it. The point at which the royals threatened to sue is the peak of your graph. If anything, once that threat was made, mentions of the story went DOWN, not up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2012 @ 8:48am

Re: Re: I'm a victim too
But maybe that's the difference.
The royals may not be pushed about the people who weren't being "served" by the newspaper in question.
After your image is used and hundreds of thousands of people have seen what you'd rather they hadn't does it matter to you if millions of others look at it to see if it really is something that would upset them too and largely decide that yes it is.

Most of the people in that spike of viewers have gone, wow, English woman has breasts shock news and as for the ones that would particularly want to see such an image, they may have gotten the hit all at the same time, but the nature of the internet is that it would always have been there so they would have seen it eventually.

So, on the basis that those kinds of people would see it eventually anyway, there was nothing to lose in suing, it's not like more people would suddenly become aware that she has breasts because of the case, most people probably assumed that already and it won't even mean that there'll be new pictures of her breasts.
I have still managed to avoid seeing them which is better than last year when I became aware that a certain footballer had had sexual relations with another footballer's wife despite me having no interest in football, footballers or footballer's wives.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2012 @ 8:51am

I dunno, this whole thing seems overblown. Kind of making a mountain out of a pair of mole hills.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 17 Sep 2012 @ 8:51am

If I took a photo of my neighbour with her norks out, I would be jailed for being a peeping tom. I hope the same thing happens to the person who took the photos of Kate Middleton.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2012 @ 8:52am

At what exact time did they threaten legal action? Because as many have noted, it looks like they threaten legal action only at the peak of the graph. I cannot for the life of me see how legal action could possibly increase the coverage this got.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Juan Hung-Lo, 17 Sep 2012 @ 8:53am

I just "Googled" the "pics"
Yawn. Looks like it was a slow nudes day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2012 @ 8:53am

Unless I am missing something, the other commenters have a point. This does not look like a case of Streisand Effect. Activity seems to have dropped sharply just two hours after the announcement (and kept dropping steadily as the day progressed). Typical Streisand Effect should've seen the activity increase, not decrease, I believe.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 17 Sep 2012 @ 8:54am

Re: I'm a victim too
You can put boobs on a tree and it will get a million youtube hits.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2012 @ 8:55am

Re: I just "Googled" the "pics"
You should keep abreast of the news at all times.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gnudist, 17 Sep 2012 @ 8:56am

Just pics? garfield gets to bang all the royal ladies and then smoke lasanga flavored cigars.

Not fair i tells ya
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2012 @ 8:57am

Just don't link to "them"
You can put boobs on a tree and it will get a million youtube hits.

*Sigh* Youtube pulled that one down.

Where oh where will I find boobs now?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 17 Sep 2012 @ 8:58am

Not a Royal Fan but.........
This was all over the main news long before they decided to take legal action! The Streisand does not apply here!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yakko Warner (profile), 17 Sep 2012 @ 9:00am

Re:
Which royal: Kate, or Queen Elizabeth?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HM Philip W, 17 Sep 2012 @ 9:02am

Looks like a tempest in a B-Cup.
Strangely, though, I'm hungry.

Fap, fap, fap!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2012 @ 9:05am

Re: Re: I just "Googled" the "pics"
You want a bust in the mouth?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 17 Sep 2012 @ 9:07am

Re:
Also, unlike many Streisand Effect stories, this one is one where, attention or no, the Royals feel the need to make a point. Firstly, Prince William feels strongly about paparazzi after they were complicit (he feels) in the death of his mother, Diana. Secondly, the Prince and Princess were on private land, where a serious telephoto lens was used, which potenially under the strict French laws is a serious breach of privacy. I suspect that especially after the recent Harry incident they are aware of the risk of 'publicising' things, but it was hardly much of a secret in Europe, whereas there are still issues over whether the press can justify showing stuff like this.

It seems like this is one of those cases where making a 'stand' is considered to be worth the risk of increased publicity - and it's not like Princess Catherine is exactly a low-profile figure to start with.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Haywood (profile), 17 Sep 2012 @ 9:09am

Thread is worhtless without pictures
I'm just sayin
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2012 @ 9:10am

More cheap titillation.
Yes, even The Royals have "naughty bits".

Burma!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2012 @ 9:12am

Re: Thread is worhtless without pictures
You'd be disappointed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2012 @ 9:13am

Umm, wow. Talk about drawing the wrong conclusion from data.

The real action happened in the US market, in the US time frame, when sites like TMZ caught wind of the story BEFORE the royal family did anything. They stoked the fire, and only the very peak of the story comes from the lawsuit. Everything else was "hey, look, Kate's tiny boobs!". Even without the lawsuit action, it was a huge story, it just took a little while for the US media to get on it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2012 @ 9:13am

Re:
agreed. This story was going to be bell curved no matter what the Royal response was. I think an argument could be made that litigation was like swimming with the current - the story got a little farther, but, right or wrong, this was going to be a big story no matter what. I think the Streisand effect would be better used to describe stories that would have otherwise passed unnoticed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 17 Sep 2012 @ 9:14am

Updated
Added an update, in response to a few comments, noting the reports that this was more about the news cycle and timing of the report than a reaction to the legal threats. While it's likely that the legal threats attracted some more attention, it may have just been at the margins compared to the overall press barrage.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2012 @ 9:25am

Re: Thread is worhtless without pictures
Viola.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2012 @ 9:25am

Yawn
I've seen prolly a million boobs on the internet and these are nothing - really.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2012 @ 9:30am

Re: Yawn
Say what? There are boobs on the Internet?

Next you'll be telling me that their nipples aren't blocked out!

Does the republican party know this??????
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trails (profile), 17 Sep 2012 @ 9:37am

Re: I'm a victim too
In other words they infringed on you willfully?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2012 @ 9:40am

Re:
(Beavis voice) Heh-heh-heh... he said "point"...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2012 @ 9:45am

Ditto
Personally, I find Kate to be quite attractive. This despite her being British and making in into the Royal Family by marriage - two things that more often than not suggest an upper limit on a woman's attractiveness somewhat below average even on a good day.

Finding Kate to be sorta babe-ish, I immediately raced to Google to find the images of her boobies. Tongue in lap I rapidly started clicking links, lest my keyboard or mouse short out from the drool before I found the nips in question. Sigh... how quickly I was disappointed in what I found. All I could think was, "dang... what nappy boobies for such a hot chick." I'll never look at Kate with such lust again.

That, I suspect, is the real reason the Royals are suing. Had Kate's boobies generated as much good publicity and as many positive comments as Kate herself had to date, then there'd be no suit. As it is, Kate's below average boobies have taken the polish off her image, tarnished her, knocked her off her pedestal of perfection.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2012 @ 9:51am

Re: Re: Re: I just "Googled" the "pics"
That sounds titillating!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2012 @ 9:54am

Re: Re:
More like a Dirac-response or chi-curve - having a lot more tailing - but that is besides the point. The announcement of the lawsuit happened at an opportune time where the damage any lawsuit causes their reputation would be small.

Streisand or not, I think Barbra would have been happy with this limited an effect.
Stacking news is the best way to make them go away fast with low effect. If all sides of a case seems to be covered at first, nobody will waste time writing about it in the future except for retrospect articles and clever analysis that nobody outside the "social liberal-factories" (universities) reads.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2012 @ 10:18am

Re: Re: Re: Re: I just "Googled" the "pics"
Well, ta tas for now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 17 Sep 2012 @ 10:22am

Re: Re:
. Firstly, Prince William feels strongly about paparazzi after they were complicit (he feels) in the death of his mother, Diana.

Which distracts attention away from the real cause of her death - namely the lack of a crash barrier to guard the pillars in the Paris tunnel. I understand that this STILL HASN'T BEEEN FIXED. This means that sooner or later other will die. Prince William would be better advised to ignore the paparazzi and make a fuss about the crash barrier. That way lives could be saved in future.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 17 Sep 2012 @ 10:27am

Re:
Problem is if you rotate the graph 90 degrees CCW, then it looks like a head, with a long beek, and a very tiny boobie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2012 @ 10:40am

Re: Re: Thread is worhtless without pictures
Did you mean "Voila"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2012 @ 10:48am

Nipped in the bud... NOT!
Well I have to admit that all the fuss prompted me to Google the pictures and take a peek - nice, but nothing to write home about.

I guess that's what happens when you try to "nip" it in the bud!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2012 @ 10:58am

Re: Updated
Nice retraction. A little to quick on the trigger to try to attribute something to your pet "effect", I guess.

Next time think for yourself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Duke (profile), 17 Sep 2012 @ 11:44am

To be really pedantic...
Just to be really pedantic, she isn't called Kate Middleton any more; since getting married she's a titled member of the Royal Family (a Duchess) so doesn't have a legal surname (although she might be able to use Mountbatten-Windsor).

As for their decision to sue (and, iirc, report the matter to the French police as a crime), I wonder if that is less about stopping the publication and dissemination of the images than it is about sending a clear message to these sorts of photographers (I'm not sure the word "journalist" is really appropriate) that they will get in trouble if they try it again. The lawsuit may be less about suppressing the images as discouraging future publications (something the lack of a reaction to the Prince Harry photographs a few weeks ago obviously didn't do).

Plus, I don't know about the US press, but the UK mainstream media has taken a clear stand against publishing the photographs (even The Sun... and the 'outrage' in the Daily Mail was wonderfully hypocritical, but that's another story).

Freedom of expression may be a great thing, but I have no problem with discouraging people from taking photographs using a telescopic lens, of people who are relaxing, in private, on holiday.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nospacesorspecialcharacters (profile), 17 Sep 2012 @ 12:03pm

Re:
I think Mike just wanted to get it off his chest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 17 Sep 2012 @ 12:04pm

Re: Re: Re: I'm a victim too
So, on the basis that those kinds of people would see it eventually anyway, there was nothing to lose in suing

Except they never would have seen it if the lawsuit didn't push it from "titillating" to "newsworthy".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sad, 17 Sep 2012 @ 12:18pm

Oh good, I can remove Techdrt from my RSS aggregator
If you can write an article this without reference to history, I feel I can do without what anyone here has to say about anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wally (profile), 17 Sep 2012 @ 12:24pm

ethics
The royals have a right to sue. The picture was taken with a teloscopic lense. And I'm never using droid to do this again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nonanymous, 17 Sep 2012 @ 2:33pm

Re: Updated
Thanks for updating. I saw the graph timeline earlier today and wanted to comment right away that this is just pushing too far with cause/effect, considering how little time has passed.

Another point that you seem to miss out on completely, is that sometimes it does make sense to cause more immediate attention while fighting for a larger cause. In this case I would've expected more introspection from you, since it is a frequent topic on these pages: privacy. I don't think I have to expand any more, should be obvious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2012 @ 2:36pm

Re: Re: Re: Thread is worhtless without pictures
Whoosh!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2012 @ 3:39pm

What I'm seeing is that the legal threat came a few days after a sharp trend upward in related tweets, and was followed by an immediate sharp trend downward.

That might simply be poor graphing skills, but the graph that's shown hardly supports the TD or Forbes narrative.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2012 @ 5:06pm

Re: Ditto
You should be more considerate, especially considering the remarkably odd appearance of your short and bifurcated penis.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2012 @ 7:56pm

you know if they could feed all of Africa for years if only they would make a sex tape.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2012 @ 11:25pm

Re: Re: Ditto
ROFL Why in the fuck are you even speculating on what his schlong looks like.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Sep 2012 @ 5:57am

Re: Re: Re: Ditto
Apparently some anonymous cowards are obsessed with above average boobies while others are obsessed with below average schlongs (schlorts?).

I suspect the latter AC is British and is more offended by the British remark than the nappy titty one. Unfortunately, however, in his haste to insult the first AC he has shown the world why there are so many homely looking brits, particularly in the royal family - British men spend more time looking at and thinking of other men's wieners than they do looking and and thinking of their women.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mrbfd, 18 Sep 2012 @ 11:49am

For appearances' sake
That was an informative comment about how there is still no median barrier in the tunnel where Diana died.� We Amerikans have been putting concrete median barriers on our Interstates since the '60s.� Since the '70s they have been cast by rolling extrusion machines.� So there is no excuse not to have them in place.� Where are all those fancy French lawyers & why aren't they suing over it?

The only reason for the Kate lawsuit is that the Royals have to "cover their asses" for propriety's sake.� Why would an international celebrity be topless, even briefly, out on a balcony?� What did they think would happen?

Kate is rightfully proud of her body but hers are standard-issue B-cup b00bs & nothing special---royal or not.

P.S. Kate:� B is my favorite size.� Please do not get a b00b job.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ColinCowpat (profile), 18 Sep 2012 @ 12:57pm

Errrr....
It probably doesn't help that an anagram of Kate Middleton is "Naked Tit Model"
[ link to this | view in thread ]