Handling Images in the Digital Age.

Legal representatives of the British Royal family have pursued action in French courts due to the publishing of naked images of one of the most recent people brought into their fold. The first steps of this legal move resulted in (as reported by the BBC News website):

  • A court in Paris ruled the publishers of Closer must hand over the original photographs within 24 hours or face a daily fine of 10,000 euros (£8,000).

Before actually taking on board the above statement I think a necessary digression is in order.

Since the horrific chain of events which ultimately led to the death of Diana Spencer there is, understandably,  an obvious sensitivity surrounding paparazzi and her surviving children. However, gradually the media have gone to great lengths to attempt to recapture the public obsession surrounding Diana with her son William and more importantly his wife Kate Middleton. The media frenzy surrounding their wedding is evidence enough. The machine grinds on.

True to form, the peddlers of celebrity snap shots (and what a service they provide the world) have yet again crossed the line – thankfully nothing like the aforementioned tragedy – which separates mutually beneficial publicity from what is deemed inappropriate and boy is that a fine line. The recent ‘topless’ images of Kate Middleton have caused all sorts of outcry from Royalists and the like. I won’t delve into why the backlash is so much more severe when it comes to images of a princess – I even shudder at typing the word –  when compared to a ‘regular’ celebrity. That’s a whole other topic of discussion which ultimately revolves around class in society. However, I’ll go on the record and suggest that no one deserves the unwanted attention of paparazzi, and it is indeed distasteful for them to be harassing the family of a woman who died indirectly due to their pursuit, but I also think that this reaction to a topless image of someone who benefits from media attention in the same way as other celebrities who are victims of this extreme voyeurism is certainly disproportionate. Either condemn all voyeuristic, opportunistic pictures of celebrities equally or keep schtum. Kate Middleton is not deserving of special treatment in this regard. It should be one rule for all. She should have no more or less rights than the average Joe.

Getting back on topic. The quote above clearly states that the publishers of the image have to hand over the ‘original photographs’ . Consider that instruction. Assuming the images were digital – which I think is a fair assumption to make in 2012 – you have to wonder what exactly qualifies as the ‘original photographs’? Was it the first digital files saved on the camera? The transferred files from the camera to the computer? The first email with the images attached to it that was sent to Closer? The one of doubtless many emails circulated within the confines of Closer headquarters? Also, how does one go about handing over these originals? Forward an email to the legal team? I think I’ve made my point. This seems like an exercise in futility. If they were printed images with negatives attached this order would make sense but in the digital age it’s almost laughable.

I’m sure all of this will rumble on with continued cries of outrage at the nerve of a French magazine to publish such images of a royal for the foreseeable few days – maybe weeks – but I don’t think this court ruling can be considered a victory since it makes little sense and will have virtually no impact. After all, the images are only a Google click away now and I doubt they fall under the definition of being the originals.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

About docconcoct

A wandering mind in a sea of noise. All photographs used on Hubris that are taken by me are copyrighted.

6 responses to “Handling Images in the Digital Age.”

  1. ryanyllek says :

    At this stage, it seems like the legal threat/action is more of a deterrent, rather than damage limitation. Mess with rich folk, and you’ll pay the price.

    • docconcoct says :

      No doubt it is but the order is strange to say the least, not to mention it doesn’t include reported unpublished images which are allegedly more intimate in nature whatever that means. It’s utterly ridiculous to think how this is even an enforceable order. Again, do they simply forward an email with an attachment? It’s bizarre.

  2. Anonymous says :

    I have always hated tabloid “journalism” and all things to do with “celebrity gossip” so I was horrified last week when I discovered my boyfriend sifting through Google Images of Kate Middleton. “what in the name of Christ are you doing?” I exclaimed in disgust. Sheepishly he admitted to Googling Kate Middletons boobs. I told him that he was welcome to ogle over as many other women’s boobs as he wanted but if I ever caught him giving power to the Pappz and the tabloids again I’d be out the gap.

    • docconcoct says :

      That’s a reasonable stance indeed. The demand for these type of images clearly exists and the only way to make an impact is to remove that demand.

  3. Anonymous says :

    well, the whole thing to me is a little bit suspicious, here is my conspiracy theory (don’t buy it, you are warned): the leak of those topless pictures was a deliberate protest by the new princess (in agreement with the prince, of course) following the worldwide media frenzy over the incident of (naive) prince Harry! cos in nowadays British society, nudity is not such a taboo compare to 40, 50s. the young royals are just like average British boys and girls enjoying their liberty in their private premises, what the fuss about it!! to me, this can not be the first time the new princess was sun bathing topless, why there wasn’t any picture preceded this occasion?? it’s not because the paparazzi got smarter this time, nor the couple were not careful this time, it’s because they WANTED TO THIS TIME, TO PROTEST the fuss surrounded poor Harry from the media and the royal family!! although they fired a law suit against the magazine, one got remember to keep the Queen happy!

    • docconcoct says :

      Interesting theory indeed. It isn’t beyond the realm of possibility that these images were leaked in an attempt to draw heat away from the young Prince’s frolicking. It could be used to raise the issue of what should and should not be allowed by the papz. Granted I’ll wait for the wikileaks on this one before buying it :p

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: