"Public Domain" defense in topless publication?

<p>"In an interview Saturday with The Associated Press, Chi editor Alfonso Signorini said he didn't fear legal action since the photos were already in the public domain following Closer's publication."</p>

<br /> <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/09/15/berlusconi-owned-magazine-to-publish-topless-kate-middleton-pictures/?intcmp=obnetwork#ixzz26kCAKWfa">http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/09/15/berlusconi-owned-magazine-to-publish-topless-kate-middleton-pictures/?intcmp=obnetwork#ixzz26kCAKWfa</a>

 

 

 

 

 

I guess this means the photographer isn't going to get paid either? Maybe it's "fair use" for, uh, "news?" If nothing else, it shows how quickly and completely one can lose control of copying and distribution.

<p>Difficult to imagine that the editor of a publication doesn't know what "public domain" means. Tragic.</p>

<p>Notice that Fox makes no attempt to point out how incorrect that statement is. I assume that is because they will want to do the same thing at some point, if they haven't already. The media probably relishes the idea that they will be able to lift photos from anywhere once they establish that they can get away with a "public domain" excuse.</p>

<p>My reading of this is that the person did not mean "public domain" in the legal sense but rather that the photos had already been made public and so his publication wasn't the one to blame for any affront to the royal couple. <br />As for the legal sense of public domain, certainly the photos as such don't become public domain once they are published. The photographer presumably is still trying to sell them whereever he can and getting as much as he can, and another publication can't just pick them up and run with them. But a shot of the cover of the magazine or the spread of photos inside -- where the story is about the fact that the magazine published them and the photos are only part of an image showing the magazine -- might very well be "fair use." It is news that the magazine published these photos, and reasonable that other publications can show an image of the magazine.<br />I am not a lawyer, but I am a former newspaper/magazine editor/reporter/photographer, so I can see this from a lot of angles.</p>

<p>If the unmentionable "royals" would just keep their danged clothes on, there wouldn't be any problem of the sort we've seen too much of lately.</p>

<p>What is it with this preposterous obsession with exposing themselves? </p>

<p>Life just seems to be so <em>hard</em> for them.... </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>What is it with this preposterous obsession with exposing themselves?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />They don't have the same religion-fueled inhibitions? </p>

Jeff Maybe but if either become King or Queen they would become head of the Church of England would that offend those with religion fueled inhibitions and morals? miken

<p>We, in the United States, find it somewhat incredulous that a public figure could seek prosecution for a photo taken from a public place. However, in Great Britain and throughout Europe, "rights" are bestowed by a benevolent government, rather than "... endowed by the Creator."</p>

<p>In Europe (although not in Great Britain), going topless (or less) in public is commonplace, at least near water. It must be fairly common in private too, judging from the number of children running about.</p>

<p>Uh, this is from FOX "news"....</p>

<blockquote>

<p>We, in the United States, find it somewhat incredulous that a public figure could seek prosecution for a photo taken from a public place.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br />True, if "we" means people who are unaware of voyeurism statutes that apply where the subject is in a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy which can apply whether or not a photographer is in a public place. I don't know any of the details behind the photos in question so this isn't a claim that such statutes would apply here. Although I wouldn't be surprised if the situation would fit under the Texas improper photography statute. </p>

<p>If you look towards the bottom of this current <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164">BBC news article</a>, you will see a photo and a map showing just how far that villa was from the side of the roadway. Easily a couple of thousand feet. That makes the claim of the villa being adjacent to a public roadway a bit more capricious.</p>

<p>I'm guessing that the media's obsession with this crop of exposed royals is reflecting the public's dis-enchantment with the state of the modern monarchy.</p>

<p>If doing things naked is worth so much attention, then you'll probably like this video and the other stories listed at the bottom of the page ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/erin-holdsworth-nearly-nude-car-chase_n_1884853.html?utm_hp_ref=dumb-criminals ).<br /> At least some of these are surely Royals, don't you figure?</p>

<p>BTW, in my "preposterous obsession" I was channeling Terry Thomas in <em>Mad, Mad....</em></p>

<p>"<em>you will see a photo and a map showing just how far that villa was from the side of the roadway. Easily a couple of thousand feet</em>."</p>

<p>That's about the length of a football field. Easily reached by todays modern long-length lenses, wtih extenders and cropped camera.</p>

A couple thousand feet is almost the length of seven football fields.

<p>Oops I missed the <strong>couple</strong> part.</p>

<p>The public that buys supermarket tabloids is hardly disenchanted with royalty. The pictures and the rags wouldn't sell if the public wasn't interested.</p>

<p>As it is, none of the media reports I've seen have taken either AP or the Italian editor to task over claims the images are in public domain. Really doesn't matter what they claim, it's what happens in the courtroom that might cost them money or pile up the bucks for infringements. which may be needed to pay down the photographers legal expenses. Maybe they'll try the "Hustler" "Fair Use" defense.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Easily reached by todays modern long-length lenses, wtih extenders and cropped camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In the US photography in a public place is allowed, as long as special equipment is not used. Turns out that telephoto lenses (mentioned in the article, I believe?) count as "special equipment," which would make this an invasion of privacy and not protected by law. *In the US.* Coupled with the reasonable expectation of privacy and other facts of the case, the photographer (paparazzi?), typically, would be considered out of line.</p>

<p>'tis like a can of biscuits (the ones you pop in the oven to bake.) Once opened, it is impossible to repack the dough into the container. If the lady did not want her breasts exposed on the French news circuit, she should have kept her bathing suit on. </p>

<p>You can't rewrite history, or can you?</p>

<p> </p>

If those people who got shot on the streets today (and many will have, i'm sure) didn't want to get shot on the streets, they just should have stayed at home.<br>What?<br><br>You appear to be arguing that it's the victim's fault, for giving opportunity to have someone push them into that role, Jerry. Simply put, we can, must, assume that people behave themselves, and that if they don't (and yes, we do know that some/many will not) we have the means to let them know that it's expected that they behave themselves. To slap their wrists, so to speak.<br>Well, wrists have been slapped. And still some people do not know that it is expected that they behave themselves (well... they do know, but want to make a load of money by not behaving anyway). Such is life.<br>But that can't be justified by saying that the dough is out of the can.

<blockquote>

<p>The public that buys supermarket tabloids is hardly disenchanted with royalty. The pictures and the rags wouldn't sell if the public wasn't interested.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Disenchanment suggests to me that they are no longer held in a special role and in that state of high regard. Somehow you don't interpret that to have the same meaning ? When the attraction is one that is primarily demeaning ?</p>

<p>I think it may be easier to understand my suggestion if you were to read more of the English press.</p>

<p>"...who got shot on the streets today..."</p>

<p>Shot with a gun is somewhat different than shot with a camera. Or am I missing something?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If the unmentionable "royals" would just keep their danged clothes on, there wouldn't be any problem of the sort we've seen too much of lately.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>JDM, We are born naked. It is a perfectly natural state. I think if you are a newly wed couple and THOUSANDS of feet away from a public road in a villa there should be some expectation of privacy. I think that type of photography is reprehensible. And I can't believe someone published those images of a innocent woman. Disgusting.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Jeff Maybe but if either become King or Queen they would become head of the Church of England would that offend those with religion fueled inhibitions and morals?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>mike, WTF?! It's his wife! You don't think he's seen his wife naked? I have disrobed on numerous occasions and every so often there is a window or door near by where someone with a powerful telephoto lens could peer in. That doesn't mean I deserve to have my junk splashed across the front page of every newspaper and it certainly doesn't call into question my morality.</p>

<p>I saw the pix of Kate nekkid. She's very... fit. Now, then, if the media will finish examining her teeth and hooves, the Empire can relax, confident in the knowledge they have a thoroughbred.</p>

<i>"Shot with a gun is somewhat different than shot with a camera. Or am I missing something?"</i><br><br>Not really. You're filling in, and that's good. But why would it make a difference?

<blockquote>

<p>I think that type of photography is reprehensible.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1 And so is publishing such images. Blurry images of someone topless in a private place - why is this even worth publishing? Press charges against the photographer and slap the publishers with a large enough fine to make them think twice about doing something like this ever again.</p>