Royal family takes legal action over topless photos
Legal panel weighs in on the case
- Duration 6:37
- Date Sep 17, 2012
Legal panel weighs in on the case
Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Kelly scored -- second session on the docket today a growing royal scandal over topless photos.
Of the future queen of England Kate Middleton.
So far three gossip magazines have published pictures of prince William's wife sunbathing topless while on vacation in the south of France.
The couple's lawyers now taking legal action to prevent the spread of the images with a French court expected to rule on the challenge there tomorrow.
But one magazine says the pictures are perfectly legal since it claims the duchess was visible from the street.
The scandal evokes memories of the constant coverage a Princess Diana who died in in 1997 car crash.
And she was chased through the streets of Paris by the paparazzi in there is a question about whether there is any privacy.
For the British royals and whether there should be.
Kennedy now least -- and please call both -- Fox News legal analysts and so now we've got.
First it was a French.
Tabloid then it was picked up on by an Irish tabloid and in good -- Italy gossip magazine.
Owned by the former head Silvio Berlusconi publish a 26 page spread of the topless photos.
But the brits say it not us know we would never.
But many events at least does the royal couple have a case to actually shut this down legal.
Yes they have an excellent taste both the civil injunction which is going to be ruled on tomorrow Wednesday.
To say look you've got to stop this and other damages are gonna be even greater you stop them you pull them -- your website all of these magazines pull them off no more exposure shall we say and then there's also under the fat and and that's for system.
Liability here make it up to a year in prison.
For both the editor and the photographer because of -- -- if that's code is very specific it says if you take these pictures in a private place now ms.
Middleton was out on the street itself.
That would be different but if she's back in a private place that she apparently was.
That is illegal without consent of that person how private can it be if it was visible by a telephoto lens receipt that's exactly right that you hit right on the head it's exact.
What the reporters -- -- and it.
She is visible from the street we're not sitting there from a satellite looking down on those images.
We put a wet -- in their bedroom she is on the balcony yuk it up with a husband it's -- it's sad that it happened but frankly she's the royal.
Take precautions collected in -- glass bubble everyone wants to know what she does everyone want to know what she where she wears what -- where she goes what you want.
He talents behind -- that's not a lot under the French criminal code and I'm reading from a section to hear.
-- 22 seeded French yes in front of my friends I Harvard I am.
Also I know you don't get up -- yeah.
Picture -- a person who -- with any write the plays without consent of the -- or she's in a private place it doesn't matter that that zoom lens camera can take it from the street which is a public place.
Latest that's true so so SO under the French -- -- Mercedes at Kate Middleton went into her private -- -- -- -- And stood in front of the front window the dining room window that oversaw the side block lifted up the sheets and took off all her clothes the paparazzi could not take a photo of her.
I mean that's some pretty implausible because give -- that's what happens when you stretch it to the limit that's really what was anticipated by apple doesn't doesn't cut above the law.
Is that -- in a setting where people cannot see that's why they're -- up in the better that's why when you're out of and a in the balcony you don't take your top well it's it's this gracefully shouldn't publish it.
But those -- -- in this thing about these criminal sanction it's very unlikely if anything's gonna happen Fred.
There's going to be split the bid well I want I talk about the criminal aspect of Montserrat and hold you over after a break -- because I wanted -- -- -- how does is really to Princess Diana what we signed in France with her.
But there is a question about whether she assumed the risk -- I mean you know you -- all three of us are on TV are somewhat public figures.
There's a reason you don't -- oft -- top.
When you go out there some -- thought she was in a private place she didn't expect that this -- -- coming to -- hundreds -- -- -- way how could you not.
-- -- talk about that in a criminal possible criminal and.
Occasions I don't go away.
-- -- and Mercedes are back now so I wanna talk for what -- you -- criminal charges -- talk first about this Italian magazine chi.
Which is published the topless photos that they they piggy backed off of the initial photos that were in a French magazine but they added more because -- today she was on a terrorist B one -- the presence of publish them and see.
We did add this third one because we thought it was so great of her putting sunblock on her rear end her.
So now -- allowing have a topless photos but they've got some rear end shot that the others showed -- mean the French magazine chose not to publish.
Are they going to be in the clear because they say that it wasn't in they were the ones actually took the photos that.
I don't think so because they're only exacerbating the problem then they're moving it forward.
And again you can't put an American -- lens on this -- the French law issue not American and French slot is very different on privacy actions than it is here in America so.
In for in France this is a real legal liability for anyone who publishes those those photo net.
That same magazine Italy was the same magazine that published a picture Princess Diana moments after the car crash that killed her.
In Paris so they've got a sketchy history Mercedes which brings us to the question of criminal liability.
The reason magazine published this is because -- get it slap on the wrist money -- for publishing it's like 45000 bucks equipment up.
They're gonna make we more than that in sales of sure but it's the criminal liability -- as potentially did the photographer ended the editor could go to jail.
And it says very specifically -- really anticipates trespass.
It anticipate that the photographers actually trespassing as opposed to this objective test of whether someone -- the reasonable expectation of privacy.
And that's the US -- here that's not that doesn't exist -- -- right it really it really depends on if the public said he is that a private setting.
And were there it was there any trespassing by the the talk of the photographers -- a perfect -- I am I am well a couple of blocks away maybe 456 spots -- the their saints about a half miles of what possibly up to ten box like so those.
My way way -- is a fundamental difference so in in these two stories we're talking about princes Diana she was on a highway she was on the road.
She was -- a public -- -- drunk.
Do driver and that -- definitely look up rather not on the and the paparazzi but -- But -- that the -- -- only talking about the paparazzi and their implications in this she was not a public venue.
Princess and it is Middleton it was not to -- and a private plays that is lens camera coming in all right got to go thank you both so much.