The Paparazzi Are At It Again With Kate and William And The Media Are In A Muddle – Some Buy, Some Don’t, Some Publish, Some Withdraw

Philip M. Stone October 9, 2007

It seems inconceivable, but it’s true, that in the very week that a coroner’s jury has started finally looking into the death of Princess Diana who was chased by paparazzi 10 years ago in Paris, that paparazzi are now chasing her son, Prince William, and his girlfriend Kate Middleton through the streets of London.

William is looking into legal recourse against those who did the chasing, and the UK newspapers are trying to figure out just where is that line in the sand on paparazzi pictures they will buy and those they won’t.

If newspapers are to get it right they must now ask the circumstances under which pictures are taken. Should the media even be encouraging the paparazzi frenzy is one thing – if they don’t buy pictures then there are no paparazzi the reasoning goes – but if they are going to buy then the circumstances of how a picture is shot now comes into play. For the nightclub shoot, the general opinion seems to be that the couple were fair game as they walked out of the club, got into their car and drove away, but when some paparazzi followed on motorcycles and in cars then that was crossing the line and those pictures were just plain not acceptable.

In this particular case there was a spot of bad luck for the royals. They had made their getaway and the paparazzi were commiserating they didn’t have much to show when lo and behold, their car is back again passing those very same paparazzi (seems their security driver got caught out on a one-way street and had to U-turn back). For paparazzi who had seen they didn’t get anything the first time it was just too good an opportunity for a second chance, and so the chase was on.

The pictures that got the big play were, however, taken when William and Kate were in their car waiting to leave the nightclub. The photographer was not chasing them, so if one was going to buy paparazzi pictures then these were within the “rules”. But when offered to newspapers they were in a tizzy what to do.

The Matrix agency offered the pictures to the tabloid Daily Mirror, and to the tabloid Daily Mail, but both turned them down (the Daily Mail had apparently accepted and was going to use one but then got cold feet and substituted another picture taken another day). Intriguingly the London PMs Evening Standard owned by the same Associated Newspapers that publishes the Daily Mail, and Rupert Murdoch’s free thelondonpaper went with big splashes. Could it be the Standard, as it fights for circulation against thelondonpaper  believes it has to give up some of its standards to remain competitive?

Once out there the tabloid Sun and the Star bought them, too, but it is usage by the Sun and the londonpaper that is somewhat intriguing. Earlier this year when the paparazzi were making life miserable for Kate Middleton after William broke up with her, no less than Les Hinton, News International’s executive chairman, told the editors of his newspapers (Times, Sunday Times, Sun, and The News of the World, thelondonpaper) they could not buy paparazzi news pictures of Kate because of the media circus being created for someone who was, still, a private person. The fact that this private person was now out again with the heir to the throne apparently changes things – pictures with William are fair game, and only when she is privately alone is she off limits?

The Sun must have been a bit nervous because it said Prince William’s people had approved the pictures it printed which had William’s people going somewhat ballistic in their denials.  As far as the royals are concerned, the feeding frenzy outside the nightclub is not to be condoned but it is understood and reluctantly accepted, but where the real line is drawn is when there could be possible danger, like a chase.

The photographer who took the pictures told BBC Radio, “I took the pictures like I normally do, outside a nightclub when the car was still …I took them from the front of the window, nobody tried to stop me.”

Prince William’s spokesman picks it up from there, “Having already been photographed leaving the club, he and Kate Middleton were then pursued in his car by photographers on motorcycles, in vehicles, and on foot. The aggressive pursuit was potentially dangerous and worrying for them. It seems incomprehensible, particularly at this time, that this behavior is still going on.”

The “at this time” refers to the Princess Diana Coroner’s Jury Inquest that began last week and which, for the next couple of days, will actually be in Paris to see the various landmarks from the Ritz Hotel to that underpass where Diana’s Mercedes, chased by paparazzi, rammed into a support column, killing her. One of the pictures shown at the inquest last week (and released by The Crown as a handout to the media)  had not been seen before, it was probably the last paparazzi picture taken before the accident, and it was shot from the front of the car. That means there were paparazzi in front and giving chase behind the car which must have been frightening. The picture showed Diana looking behind her at the chasing paparazzi, the car’s driver actually smiling, while the bodyguard is looking very nervous.

It wasn’t said if that picture was taken with a flash – if it was what role might that flash have had in the ensuing crash – something the 11-person jury may well consider as they come away from Paris in forming a view of how much that paparazzi chase  contributed to Diana’s eventual  death. Why didn’t the driver take the turn-off he should have taken for his destination? Was his way blocked by motorcycles or was he going too  fast to make it because  he was trying to escape from the paparazzi behind?

But with all of those images once again very fresh in the public’s mind the incident with William and Kate last week took on added urgency. Most public and political opinion seems to be the paparazzi went too far. The chairman of the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee said that the independent Press Complaints Commission (PCC) must “talk with editors and make it absolutely clear they should not use any pictures that were taken by means of harassment of the couple.” So now all editors need is a definition of “harassment”.

Can’t you just see photo editors on deadline questioning a paparazzi’s agency on the circumstances of the how a picture was taken? But that is what the PCC is telling editors to do. “It can of course be difficult for editors to establish the exact circumstances in which a photograph is taken. But it is of the utmost importance not to use photographs which have been taken in a manner that may have compromised the safety of individuals, which may include pursuit in vehicles,” the PCC said in a statement.

The royals don’t really believe that is going to work so they have the lawyers looking into what happened last week. Was a chase in the streets of London violating privacy laws? Can Parliament be persuaded to pass legislation forbidding such chases? Should a complaint be made to the police about the chase asking that those who were responsible be charged with harassment plus various driving offences?

The Daily Telegraph quoted an “adviser” (would that be permitted in American journalism today?)  who put forward the case for the royals, “There is probable cause and effect between newspapers publishing photographs and the number of paparazzi pursuing them, Newspapers can’t pick and choose, and select the ‘nice’ image taken at the beginning of a chase and ignore the behavior that followed. Nor can they ignore the behavior that preceded the photograph being taken.”

One of the legal questions also being asked is whether the Princess Caroline European case law could apply? Is going to a nightclub and then leaving part of “private life” and not part of stately duties?

Princess Caroline in 2004 had sued three German magazines that in 1999 had printed pictures of her and her children out in public – sitting at a café, playing sports, out shopping etc – things any normal person would be doing during their time off from work. She said the pictures violated her privacy, but a German court ruled against her because she was a “public figure”. She appealed to the European Court of Justice.

The Court of Justice reversed that decision, saying that every person, however well known, must be able to enjoy a legitimate hope for the protection of his or her private life and that included public figures. No one can publish a picture of her during her private life without her express consent, the court said. The court said that to do so within the EU (and Britain is in the EU!) would violate her human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. Although the ruling was directed at Princess Caroline, it could apply to anyone.

In Britain the application of this EU case law is spotty. In August a British High Court judge ruled that Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling has no right to expect privacy as she walked her then 20-month baby in a buggy down a public street, an event a photographer with a long lens captured and who sold the picture to a UK tabloid.

Rowling and her husband sued in their son’s name and the newspaper settled. But the photo agency did not, and the ruling means the Rowlings must pay over £40,000 in court costs ($80,000) as they appeal the case. The judge said, “I have considerable sympathy for the claimant’s parents and anyone else who wishes to shield their children from intrusive media attention. But the law does not in my judgment allow them to carve out a press-free zone for their children in respect of absolutely everything they choose to do.” So in this judge’s opinion not only would Rowling not be covered by the Princess Caroline ruling, but neither was her baby.

Now that William and Kate are “an item” the frenzy is only going to get worse (the British photographers say they are not to blame  – it’s the foreign paparazzi ruining everything)  – but a chase on London streets as a jury looks into how paparazzi may have played a part in Diana’s death is almost surreal.

Truth really can be stranger than fiction!

ftm Follow Up & Comments

Post your comment here