[Medium FormatPro]

Kate Middleton Topless Photo Scandal | Watch the video - Yahoo! News

As reported by Tina Krause - CBS2

Naturally noting that this ooccured in France, so I'm not yet sure how this would be effected under their legal/justice system.

But here in america - it would have been perfectly legal. The published claims that the pics were taken from a public street. In america that is perfectly legal - just as long as one isn't pointing their (very telephoto) lens at something such as a military base - which btw is still legal, but also might get one detained for a bit.

Also noting, this "activity" occured outdoors. So anyone happening to be outside of the property line - that also observed it - would also still be legal. So one has to watch out for any public passerbys and also ones neighbors. Might I also add - that even if it did not occur outdoors - that one might also want to be a bit more cautious if it happened in a window that did not have proper window covering.

It is interesting that the royals are claiming that their privacy was violated - which in fact is not the case. They were "outside" of their home country, yet they were still quite public figures. There was no reasonable expectation of privacy -especially if the lack of common sense would have them parading around so that the public could witness this.

Lesson learned? Maybe. Just remember their is very little privacy for just about everyone.

[ihasa]

Worth remembering that the law is different in France vs the UK vs the USA on this. And the French laws are more stringent. For me, there is a reasonable expectation of privacy if you're on private land well away from public access where you would not normally be seen without a huge telephoto lens.

[Medium FormatPro]

I do value your personal perspective, and unfortunately the laws are different between places such as; in the U.K., France, and america.

...Let me continue by also clearly pointing out - I am not a legal professional, but am also quite aware of how it would go in america. Here, even if one is on private lend - regardless of the size of the property... That if one were able to see from the street - using normal eye sight or literally any optic - even night vision - let me go better on that one - even GIII nightvision on any optic of any length - then it's legal in america - from street view, but... It get worse...

If ones neighbor can see it then it's also legal, So that means (here in america) that if your neighbors security camera also happens to "reach" onto your property - then it's fair game. In the past there have even been cases where (sorry no link, yet) security cameras have managed to catch interesting things through a neighbors window, but... This is a case where night vision may not be legal - just depends. If one is "willing to take the risk" of not having window coverings (of sorts), then one also has to take the risk of accidently advertising certain things - perhaps for the whole world to see.

But also here in america there's both civil and criminal law. Technically one could be cited for a number of things like "disturbing the peace" and many others. Would it stick? Most likely not if one even showed up for court. But then agan, there's always the jury option for certain instances. Also noting that some jurors could perhaps be persuaded that Elvis still is alive, and lives in the Seattle space needle. Also in america - one can have civil papers drawn against them for just about anything.

Another case remotely related... A couple doing certain things in their vehicle - somewhat in public. Is it fair game? In america - as long as they are adults - if someone were to catch it on camera it would have been fair game in most instances.

In France it should be interesting to see exactly how this one plays out. In america I'll bet something as remote (and far away) as this changes a lot of celebrity "patterns" of public behavior.

[Nass]

I don't see the big deal. My moobs are much bigger.

[ihasa]

I don't see the big deal. My moobs are much bigger.

And I guess rather than buy a magazine to look at Kate's, you can just play with them in the mirror?

[John Hill]

I am more interested to hear what lens was used to get the shot from 800metres?

[wildweasel]

There's been a bit of fuss over here about this, but I don't see the problem - as has been said, the pictures were taken from public property. Besides, they're only breasts; at least 50% of the population have them so there's nothing special about that. You can see topless sunbathers on almost any beach and in many parks during the summer over here, only difference is she's the future queen and her brother in law was caught with his tackle out a few weeks ago so there's a continuation of that story.

[Buschmaster]

There's been a bit of fuss over here about this, but I don't see the problem - as has been said, the pictures were taken from public property. Besides, they're only breasts; at least 50% of the population have them so there's nothing special about that. You can see topless sunbathers on almost any beach and in many parks during the summer over here, only difference is she's the future queen and her brother in law was caught with his tackle out a few weeks ago so there's a continuation of that story.

She wasn't at a topless beach. She was hanging out in what she thought was privacy. That's really the main difference.

Not entirely sure how I feel about this, part of me says "Who cares?" and part of me feels that she has a reasonable right to privacy.

[grhazelton]

So...the old saying is valid. "Those who live in glass houses shouldn't."

[Medium FormatPro]

She was hanging out in what she thought was privacy

Not correct.

She new full well that one could see a good portion of the house and property from the road. Plus there's the neighbors as well. Sure the neighbors were at somewhat of a ditance, but could have easily spotted her - even via unaided eye.

I live on property that is actually larger and more secluded than where she got caught on, yet... Who in their right mind would think of doing this and not getting caught - especially if she is a somewhat public figure.

[westmill]

She is a royal and should have known better. They must be the most photographed people on the planet. Its hard to have much sympathy for such stupidity. A topless royal is any press photographers dream. A lot of Brits will see her as an embarassment to the nation. My feelings were simply what a moron lol.

[wildweasel]

Another point is - if she could be seen to be photographed, a sniper could have had a field day. Wouldn't be the first time a royal's been killed by terrorists - Lord Mountbatten comes to mind, as well as last week's attack on Prince Harry's base that was claimed to have been launched to get him. Not exactly like we're the most popular country in the world at the moment.

[boriscleto]

Kate Middleton Topless Photos Published | The Onion - America's Finest News Source | American Voices

That’s nothing. I know a website that has a ton of pictures of beautiful naked people in focus.

Jane Morrison
Systems Analyst

Where can I download those photos, look at them once, shrug, and never care about them again?

Toby Balk
Automobile Detailer

[magkelly]

I think there's more to it that that. The person who took those shots really had to work for them if that was the case and I personally do not believe that they were taken from the street. I think the paparazzi is using the fact that there was a road leading up to the back of the house as an excuse to say they didn't actually trespass. They're tying to avoid prosecution.

The pool was semi enclosed. The house pool wasn't in the front of the house on a main well traveled road. They might have been taken from the road but to me it looks more like they either climbed a wall to use that long lens or took it from a ladder truck to get it. It's not just something that would b e easy to get standing there with a long lens, on the road. Technically it could be argued that they did trespass maybe.

Personally I hope they nail him/her but I also have to wonder why she didn't keep her darned top on. I mean, come on, expectation of privacy or not, she's got to know they're dogging her every move. If she hasn't learned that lesson by now she's not the brightest candle, Kate. If you're a shy type and a celebrity you absolutely don't take off your top unless you're in your own bedroom with the curtains drawn with someone you trust 100%. I'm not saying she deserved what happened. Of course not, it's perfectly wretched, but she's not exactly being very smart under the circumstances either...

Then again it's only a set of boobs not the Holy Grail. Personally? I would have made some snotty comment about people lacking manners and ignored it. It's not the end of the world that her boobs got press time. This is 2012 not 1812 and even if she may be the future queen of England who will even care by the time she is? Think about it. Queen Elizabeth looks to be living forever. By the time Charles becomes king he'll likely be 70 something. By the time he goes William will be the same and so will Kate. By then they could probably hang those shots up in every pub in the UK and likely she'd only laugh and maybe wish she still had those boobs...

[Blue]

And I guess rather than buy a magazine to look at Kate's, you can just play with them in the mirror?