French Magazine Publishes Princess Kate Sunbathing Topless

French Magazine Publishes Princess Kate Sunbathing Topless

It's a standard today that once you get famous, you're going to have paparazzi following you around taking pictures. Granted, it's their job to get the juiciest shots possible to show up on the racks of your local convenience store. But, every few weeks there seems to be some new complaint by celebrities of invasion of privacy, so it begs the question, how far is too far?

In the world's latest paparazzi scandal it appears a photographer was able to snap a few pictures of Princess Kate sunbathing topless while she and her husband we're vacationing in France. The publication which put out the photos, Closer Magazine, claims the shots were taken from a nearby guesthouse terrace.

Though it may be ironic that this photo scandal happened just weeks after the nude pictures of Prince Harry and Ryan Lochte, it brings into question the danger of pictures like this. Although it may not be that fresh in our minds, the last English princess to be on the cover of a magazine lost her life in a paparazzi photo chase. Although photographs like this don't present immediate danger to an individual, the stress can build up to volatile situations.

As photographers and videographers, do you think think there should be a line? Do famous people need to just suck it up? Do photographers need to be given a few new rules?

 

 

featured image from www.closermag.fr

 

 

Censored Images:

Posted In: 
Log in or register to post comments

25 Comments

If you're in public you can be photographed. Nude sunbathing in public is a risk.
That being said, it must be annoying and stressful to have people following you around taking photos. And she can't pull the strategy some celebrities do of just wearing the same thing every day so the pictures look the same.  Still, who pays money for this stuff?  If the public didn't funnel money to the magazines and websites, they'd stop paying so much for the photos.Photography is free speech though so it's not likely to get restricted any time soon.

Actually, here (in quebec) a photographer LOST to a woman he photographed bathing naked on a fire escape giveing acces to a public alley way.

Everyone has a right to their image, even in public places. But that is dependent on the country...

Ben Deavin's picture

@google-d0bf2949f402e63317f68b1204da0137:disqus I agree, but they weren't in public, they were on private property, in a secluded hunting lodge, there was no way someone would have occidentally stumbled upon them, and they obviously felt that they were not being over looked.  Harry getting drunk in Vegas is one thing and you kind of think he had it coming, but I absolutely think this is out of order and a huge invasion of privacy!

Nick Nieto's picture

I second this --- in a private location you should be allowed privacy. 

 In a perfect world, you should be allowed some privacy, but this is the real world.  She could not possibly be so stupid as to think that in the realm of possibilities, she would not be photographed.  I can't even imagine being who she is, that she would be so dumb as to go outside nude.  Bummer.

Yeah the point here is that it was NOT in a public place.  Shooting the phone is an invasion of privacy and publishing it is even worse.  Photographers have the freedom to shoot what they want in most areas, but people like this give other photographers a bad rep.

N.'s picture

 The year is 2012. Princess Kate has boobs. Big deal!

isnt it 2013, arent we almost in 2014? you're living in the past man...

Photographers need a few rules, celebrities are like any other person.  Have some respect for them. Thats my two cents. =)

Patrick Hall's picture

The real question is, is wearing pasties while sunbathing nude a crime? 

I think the important question here is:  what the hell was this guy shooting on that those were the best he could get!  You know back in the film day, our photos of naked princesses had some quality!

If you would buy magazine because of these pictures, than it means you support the paparazzi actions  

The problem is not that Princess Katherine, Duchess of Cambridge went topless, or even naked.  Everyone has naked bodies underneath their clothing, and everyone gets undressed for many reasons, whether they are in public, or in the presence of another person, or totally alone.

The problem is the grease-ball slime-bucket pornographer who pays the paparazzi millions of dollars to snap those prime shots of celebrity flesh, just so these NSFW photographs end up on the internet, first to paying members of their celebrity skin sites, then as public domain shots to the public at large.  The problem is also the members of those paid celebrity flesh sites who pay thousands of dollars collectively to support these pornographers, only to find that these celebrities have basic human bodies just like the rest of us.  Frankly, some girls on the street look better than Princess Katherine, and are far more accessible to average men anyway.  If the choice is to masturbate to photos of the Princess over going to a public place and meeting and having a real relationship with a real woman in human life, then therein lies the real controversy: wanting and paying heavily for what is fake and can never occur vs. actually getting a real relationship going.  Trouble is the grease-ball pornographers are counting on men for the former, and our better judgments should be going for the latter.

Lynn's picture

No way should those pics have been made public!!! People have a right to privacy!!! My God! What is happening to people nowadays?????? Sickening!!!!!

come on french photographers! leave the family alone ! is it not enough that his mother died trying to escape you lot!

john tan's picture

YEAH PICTURE LOOK LIKE HER ,WALK LIKE HER  BUT NOT HER,,, ,WAY TOO FAR,,

Private property of not, I think I would  have  not taken such a risk if it were that importatnt to me about something like that gettting out.

Pappparazzi has no discression, so celebs have to take precautions in guarding themselves. It will never change for anyone.

L0WER  THEN WORM.S    AND THE PEOPLE   WHO SUPPORT  THIS KIND OF GARBAGE   ARE NO BETTER THEN THE CREEP WHO TOOK THE PHOTO'S .

EUROPE HAVE DOUBLE STANDARD.  I AM  AGAINST THESE PICTURES TOO BECAUSE THIS IS THEIR PRIVATE LIFE. ALL THE EUROPE IS AGAINST THESE PICTURES.  NO DOUBT THIS IS AGAINST THE PRIVATE LIFE NO ONE HAVE RIGHT TO  DO SO.  BUT WHEN TERRY JONES IS MAKING A MOVIE AGAINST MY LOVING PROPHET WHERE WAS ROYAL FAMILY. HERE YOU WILL CALL FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS THIS NOT THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH.  NO DOUBT EUROPE HAVE DOUBLE STANDARD.

Mohammad, you make an interesting point. I don't support your religion but I understand - my religion too faces this issue...more frequently than yours. However, this isn't the issue here. Religions and their gods should be big enough to shoulder the 'heresies' - otherwise what kind of religion is it? This is about individuals against industry. It goes to show that no matter how 'important' or 'powerful' you are you're still just vulnerable person.
There is a line, everyone know where it is, some people are prepared to cross it and others aren't. I don't think the question is about whether or not it's right - that's clear - it's how the line is strengthened and upheld. I don't think this will ever happen because humanity is just too darn curious about everything!!!

where is my beer..???

recently, i feel that fstoppers is like this paparazzi magazine. you pick up everything that will bring controversy and views. good for you, but i am out of here...

This is really old news... stuff like this... best ignored

the question isn't do you think there should be a line, the question is, Are you greedy enough as a photographer to press the shutter button to grab an image of someone that would pay of your debt?