French Court Detaches Itself From Reality, Demands Tabloid Turn Over 'Original' Topless Kate Middleton Photos
from the Google-Image-Search-ordered-to-destroy-all-negatives-in-its-possession dept
In what has to be the most purely symbolic decision handed down by a court since King Solomon's derailing of a vexing child custody battle, a French court has ordered the tabloid that originally published the topless photos of Kate Middleton to perform an act of contrition that is actually more pointless than prosecuting this case itself:The French magazine Closer, which published topless photos of the Duchess of Cambridge, must hand over the original pictures and pay a 10,000-euro ($13,000) fine each time the images are published again, a French court ruled.Perhaps the judge (Judge Jean-Michel Hayat) spent the past few days enjoying some fine film noir, watching negatives go up in smoke in starkly lit ashtrays as the music rose and screen went soft focus momentarily as things, indeed, appeared to be working out for the troubled heroine. This explanation is as good as any for an order that completely ignores the reality of the situation. The picture is out there [indicates everywhere, but especially the internet] and no amount of fines or orders to produce the "originals" (on what? an SD card?) is putting those breasts back under proper British clothing.
The magazine, owned by the Berlusconi family’s Arnoldo Mondadori Editore Spa (MN), was sued after it printed a series of photos of the royal couple sunbathing on a private French estate. The tabloid was ordered to pay Kate 2,000 euros in expenses and an additional 10,000 euros each day it fails to turn over the original images.
It's not even a problem specific to the internet era. This wouldn't have flown 30 years ago when people had access to both newpapers and copiers. For that matter, this type of order has been outdated since the point photographs could be affixed to paper and distributed to readers/gawkers. You can't simply undo a mass distribution of "unapproved" photos. Not now. Not 30 years ago. Not 100 years ago. The photos are everywhere.
“Clearly, the harm has been done,” said Christopher Mesnooh, an American lawyer working in France for Field Fisher Waterhouse. “Thousands, now tens of thousands of copies, are now in public circulation. A legal decision is a wonderful thing to obtain and the royal couple did exactly what they should have done. But you know the magazine is out there and I suspect most of you have already seen copies of that magazine, so the basic, the initial harm, has been done.”So, it all boils down to making sure the royal family is given some sort of... something for its "troubles." There will likely be more of these utterly disconnected decisions as the royal family may also pursue legal action in Italy and Ireland, not to mention pursuing criminal charges against the photographer. But I suppose it's a misguided (and amusing) effort to be doing something, especially considering the relationship between the royal family and its paparazzi has been anything but pleasant.
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: france, kate middleton, photos, royal family
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Ummm... is there a qualifier?
"pay a 10,000-euro ($13,000) fine each time the images are published again"
BY THE MAGAZINE... I hope? They just didn't bother to print that part, right, I mean the judge clearly would not punish the magazine for republished works from this point forward, right? I mean, even if he did, clearly he limited to print right?
...Or did he just order a blank check that the internet can exploit to put this company out of business?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ummm... is there a qualifier?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ummm... is there a qualifier?
i think that would make the average /b/tards brain go asplody
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
> each time the images are published again
That might be nothing more than a minor cost of doing business.
Fire up the presses!
Asking for the "Original" photos to be turned over reminds me of Hillary Clinton asking WikiLeaks to "return" the documents taken from embassies. Do they have a clue how digital works?
Look, here is a pattern of bits: 10010110
Now here is a copy of it: 10010110
Quick! Which one is the original? In what way is the 1st one better than the second one? If I interchanged them, would the 2nd now be "better" than the 1st?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they find against a publisher who has published privacy invading photos of a third party then surely financial damages and being required to print photographs of themselves of equally embarassing or humiliating status and give them the same level of prominence in the publication as the illicit photos would be sufficient.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Already got 'em!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Already got 'em!
How cold was it the day those pictures were taken?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
on what? an SD card?
Who could say different?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: on what? an SD card?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think the fines are too small to deter a larger tabloid. In this case I am pretty sure Aller is just playing the numbers: Sure, a fine of 10000 � is bad, but if you earn 2 � per reader, you only need 5000 people more than usual to buy the magazine to make it worth it! Sure, you can add some more costs making it maybe 20000 � in total for the photos, but 10000 extra readers is so easy to obtain. Even in small markets like Denmark and Sweden!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the other hand...
Could be quite an effective deterrent to future publications.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That fine will end up being more than all the money in France making it the most expensive pictures ever mad in the history of France.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Assuming they used a Digital camera, the "original" existed for probably less than a second in the camera's video memory. Everything that comes after that - including the image that was stored in the camera's internal storage, or, most likely, an SD card - is, effectively, a copy.
Perhaps with some forensic techniques the "original" could be recovered...but I am imagining that, by now, it would be nearly impossible to do so. Not that anyone honest enough to admit it would care anyway. When someone puts things this way, they sound less interested in getting the orginals and more interested in burning someone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No problem!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or maybe people shouldn't be so uptight about nudity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In short, assume you will be seen if you are famous and are outside. Keep your clothes on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
counterintelligence
1) hire a double to saunter around in a thong for the afternoon,
2) wait until the photos hit the newsstands, then
3) reveal the deception, thereby destroying the reputation (and I use the term loosely) of the tabloid in the tiny minds of the readers who for some reason actually care about this stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright...
Too bad the magazine wasn't the owner, and thus could not transfer the original license, just the license of what they've done to those images. Basically, they just got a license from the original photographer to create a derived work (which was already published) and then stop any further publishing of this derived work.
It's not a matter of owning the negatives or whatever. It's about owning the rights on those images.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damned insensitive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Damned insensitive
But Kate wasn't in her bathroom or inside her hotel room. No, she was sitting on her balcony outside in clear view of anyone who could see the balcony.
So many celebrities want to parade themselves around in public, oftentimes sans clothes, and then are shocked and outraged when the public actually looks at them and takes pictures.
I'm not defending the magazine for publishing the pictures. I'm merely stating that if these people think they can get away with parading around outside nude in public and not being seen or photographed, they are sadly mistaken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Damned insensitive
have you seen where the closes public area to their house is, and how far away from the house it is ??
it's about 4 miles away, the building is a spec in the distance at the CLOSEST location to the building, you would not be able to get that pic even if you had the KECK telescope as your lens..
NO it is clear that the person taking that photo was ON THE PROPERTY !!!
This is NOT a case of a celebrity parading in 'public' at all. This was someone miles away from a public place on a large property, that someone tresspassed on the take the picture..
just as if someone hid a camera in a hotel room..
why are you guys SO badly informed ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Damned insensitive
Perhaps you missed the part where I said that I wasn't defending the magazine. The paparazzi is horrible. They very clearly hound celebrities and public figures endlessly and mercilessly. If they were trespassing to get the pictures, they should be prosecuted.
But, that doesn't change the fact that Kate was purposefully outside nude.
It doesn't matter if she was outside on public or private land. It doesn't matter if she was outside in the middle of the desert or the middle of the rain forest.
Outside is public. And if you don't want your squishy bits revealed for all the world to see, keep your clothes on unless you're behind closed doors. And especially if you're one of the most photographed women on the planet.
The paparazzi go to insane lengths to get pictures. There is nothing sacred with them. There is virtually no rule they won't break to get the pictures. Consequently all celebrities and public figures must alter their behavior to avoid such issues as this.
This means not taking ones clothes off outside. Ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Damned insensitive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Damned insensitive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Damned insensitive
"Anonymous Coward, Sep 19th, 2012 @ 4:05pm
With today's lens equipment and high resolution digital SLRs, the photographer could have been 1 to 2 miles away and still gotten pictures. A 600mm or 800mm lens provides an impressive amount of magnification with little effort. Even a 400mm lens with a 2x extender can work. Put that extender on a 600mm or 800mm lens and you can really get up close."
At an assumed distance of 4 miles, most any reasonably price telescope purchased from hobby or enthusiast store would have given exceptional clarity. Reasonably priced means around 400-600 dollars. Now take a professional(only in the case that he/she is experienced in the use of the equipment, not in their behavior) photographer who likely has Thousand of dollars/euros invested in their equipment and you have a person who from a 2 to 4 mile distance can capture relatively decent photos without breaking a sweat.
Hell with my Sony point and shoot, I can sit in the outfield at the local MLB baseball field and tell if the Catcher shaved and if he did if he nicked his face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Make 'em All Naked
You know if you don't, someone will. Just get it over with.That way you can have a professional present you in the best possible way and you can call it art and you get to keep the "originals".
Then no one will be shocked by your nakedness.
Then Maybe, just maybe, people will develop a ho hum attitude about celebrity nudity.("not another naked photo! Don't they have anything else they can take pictures of?)
The paparazzi will have nothing to go after and hopefully will become extinct.(Well, one can always hope!)
What! You got a better idea? (beside shooting predatory photo-stalkers)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
thats why I rightly call you an idiot, it's not at all about these pictures, it's about the NEXT pics that are NOT taken because the person who did not take them has noticed what happened that LAST time someone published pictures like the ones that this mag published.
So if you are stupid enough to think they have taken this action to stop specificially JUST these pics your an idiot..
no, it's about the next pics, and the ones after that..
If the Royals did nothing, then other mags would have started to post either those particular pics, or similar pics..
now they will think twice, 3 times, and not do it in the first place... (it's just not worth prison time)...
can you not think at least a few minutes into the future, weeks or months .. seconds ??
someone missed the 'big picture' here, but being 'techdirt' that is SNAFU... seems the writers of TD cannot see or conceive of any events that may or may not occur at any time in the FUTURE.. (it's often called "cause and effect")..
Do you think that magazine after being told they cannot publish those photo's, they will just go out and take new ones and publish them, (of the royals) ????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The only way to discourage this in the future is by putting the photographer in the hole for a very long time! With the way media protects their sources today, it is pretty unlikely that will happen either. As for the 2000 � each day it would seem like a punishment only meant for the magazine. If it is not, it could end up being interesting, but since proportionality is a part of the principles behind EU laws, I highly doubt it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and the award for most stupid person goes to....
whom should have known better then to streak in france at some beack private or not....no really lady you deserve this....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
technicality
These magazines have a budget for paying damages and lawyers' fees (I believe the �10000 are damages, not fine, but hey it's not like TechDirt articles were legally precise). If you're curious, purchase one of them, you're likely to see at some point some very bland and official text saying that the magazine was sued for infringing on somebody's private life and was ordered to pay damages and print the ruling inside the magazine (and sometimes on the cover, if the infringing pictures were printed on the cover). This is a NORMAL way of operating for them.
Regarding the originals, the article makes it sound like the judge is some kind of simpleton, or still lives in the 1950s. I rather suspect this is a matter of legal technicality:
* The magazine must be proposed with a way to make the trouble cease "in good faith" (hand over all "originals" and data for this picture and stop printing it).
* The magazine must be presented with punishing damages should it reiterate its infringement.
If you believe this is stupid, I invite you to read legal rulings in your own country; most likely they try to shoehorn current situations into century-old case law, and they contain technicalities because they have to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: technicality
you cant really fake that embedded information which also contains the serial number of the camera that took it.. so in fact there IS ORIGINAL files that can be retreived..
so I would say the judge has more knowledge of these issues than most of the people here at TD !!!..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: technicality
(via the S/N of the camera)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: technicality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quite reasonable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]