How The Royal Family Got The World To Look At Naked Photos Of Kate Middleton [Updated]

from the streisand-effect dept

Update: Good points made in the comments that suggest that the graph below is actually more about the original news coming out in the evening, and the national UK press running the story in the morning -- rather than in response to the threat to sue. While the legal action certainly didn't help push the story under the rug (it's the only way I heard about it, for instance), it looks like we (picking up on the Forbes piece) went too far in assuming that the threat to sue is what resulted in the attention. The original story remains below.

I don't tend to follow news like this, so there could be plenty of reasons why I missed the report that the wife of Prince William, Kate Middleton, had been photographed topless while on vacation with William in France. Of course, it could also be because almost no one paid attention to the story... until the royal family decided to sue. As Kash Hill correctly notes, this seems like yet another perfect example of the Streisand Effect in action. The story got very little attention... until legal action was threatened.
It may be upsetting and embarrassing, but it's difficult to see how suing makes things better. All it did was get a lot more people looking for the photos and put a lot more attention on the story itself. I know that, at times when someone is wronged, there's a feeling that they must do something, but does it really make sense to "do something" if it also makes you much worse off?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Sep 17th, 2012 @ 7:19am

    Royal boobs, Batman! They must be one of the most famous by now! Also, boobs.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Skeptical Cynic (profile), Sep 17th, 2012 @ 7:54am

    The new marketing Paradigm

    Forget spending big money on TV ads or SMM or Google Ads.

    Spent 100 times less by just suing somebody. You will get everything you need to get people looking at your product by just suing.

    Of course it will help if you have boobs involved

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Josef Anvil (profile), Sep 17th, 2012 @ 8:28am

    I'm a victim too

    I feel victimized by the Streisand Effect. When I first heard the story, I chuckled a bit and then went on with my life. Then as the story kept popping up on TV, in the newspapers, and in the news on the net; I felt compelled to google the images.

    Now I've seen the Royal Boobies, and yes they are nice, but until the Streisand Effect overwhelmed me, I had no desire to even peek. Who do I sue over this invasion of my will?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Sep 17th, 2012 @ 8:32am

      Re: I'm a victim too

      Yeah, if anything this underestimates the exposure (heh) these pics have gotten. Tons of people who had no interest in seeing the royal knobs have stumbled across these pics due to the ubiquitous posting.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Sep 17th, 2012 @ 8:48am

        Re: Re: I'm a victim too

        But maybe that's the difference.
        The royals may not be pushed about the people who weren't being "served" by the newspaper in question.
        After your image is used and hundreds of thousands of people have seen what you'd rather they hadn't does it matter to you if millions of others look at it to see if it really is something that would upset them too and largely decide that yes it is.

        Most of the people in that spike of viewers have gone, wow, English woman has breasts shock news and as for the ones that would particularly want to see such an image, they may have gotten the hit all at the same time, but the nature of the internet is that it would always have been there so they would have seen it eventually.

        So, on the basis that those kinds of people would see it eventually anyway, there was nothing to lose in suing, it's not like more people would suddenly become aware that she has breasts because of the case, most people probably assumed that already and it won't even mean that there'll be new pictures of her breasts.
        I have still managed to avoid seeing them which is better than last year when I became aware that a certain footballer had had sexual relations with another footballer's wife despite me having no interest in football, footballers or footballer's wives.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Sep 17th, 2012 @ 12:04pm

          Re: Re: Re: I'm a victim too

          So, on the basis that those kinds of people would see it eventually anyway, there was nothing to lose in suing

          Except they never would have seen it if the lawsuit didn't push it from "titillating" to "newsworthy".

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      weneedhelp (profile), Sep 17th, 2012 @ 8:54am

      Re: I'm a victim too

      You can put boobs on a tree and it will get a million youtube hits.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Sep 17th, 2012 @ 8:57am

        Just don't link to "them"

        You can put boobs on a tree and it will get a million youtube hits.

        *Sigh* Youtube pulled that one down.

        Where oh where will I find boobs now?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Trails (profile), Sep 17th, 2012 @ 9:37am

      Re: I'm a victim too

      In other words they infringed on you willfully?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Lowestofthekeys (profile), Sep 17th, 2012 @ 8:36am

    I never thought I'd see the day where drama trumped boobies on the internet.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 17th, 2012 @ 8:38am

    The graph shown in this article does not show that the Streisand Effect made this topic popular. You might as well have claimed that the Wake-Up Effect caused it.

    The images were published around 10:00 - 11:00 PM according to the graph and then around 7:00 - 8:00 AM the next morning people started tweeting...

    Personally I believe the royal family's decision to sue did cause some Streisand Effect but this graph does not show it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    BentFranklin (profile), Sep 17th, 2012 @ 8:38am

    Photoshop project: Reshape the right side of that graph into the profile of a royal boob.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    5upMushroom (profile), Sep 17th, 2012 @ 8:44am

    The rise is due to folks waking up.

    The Royal Family's threat to sue news hit at the top of the search spike. The rise that came before the announcement was due to folks waking up and reading the news. No doubt, there was a bit of a Streisand Effect, but it was probably just a drop in the ocean compared to the news itself. It's Kate Middleton's nipples for crying out loud.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 17th, 2012 @ 8:45am

    um, isn't the Streisand Effect supposed to show an increase after suing? in that graph, the number of tweets dropped off, which would appear to indicate the lawsuit had either no effect, or actually helped.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 17th, 2012 @ 8:48am

    As a Briton, I can confirm that the Streisand Effect paid little part in this story. This was a huge headline news story in the UK all day, and the royals only threatened to sue later in the day. Your graph seems to show the cycle of a typical large news story. In the morning, people saw the news and started talking about it. The point at which the royals threatened to sue is the peak of your graph. If anything, once that threat was made, mentions of the story went DOWN, not up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Niall (profile), Sep 17th, 2012 @ 9:07am

      Re:

      Also, unlike many Streisand Effect stories, this one is one where, attention or no, the Royals feel the need to make a point. Firstly, Prince William feels strongly about paparazzi after they were complicit (he feels) in the death of his mother, Diana. Secondly, the Prince and Princess were on private land, where a serious telephoto lens was used, which potenially under the strict French laws is a serious breach of privacy. I suspect that especially after the recent Harry incident they are aware of the risk of 'publicising' things, but it was hardly much of a secret in Europe, whereas there are still issues over whether the press can justify showing stuff like this.

      It seems like this is one of those cases where making a 'stand' is considered to be worth the risk of increased publicity - and it's not like Princess Catherine is exactly a low-profile figure to start with.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Richard (profile), Sep 17th, 2012 @ 10:22am

        Re: Re:

        . Firstly, Prince William feels strongly about paparazzi after they were complicit (he feels) in the death of his mother, Diana.

        Which distracts attention away from the real cause of her death - namely the lack of a crash barrier to guard the pillars in the Paris tunnel. I understand that this STILL HASN'T BEEEN FIXED. This means that sooner or later other will die. Prince William would be better advised to ignore the paparazzi and make a fuss about the crash barrier. That way lives could be saved in future.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 17th, 2012 @ 9:13am

      Re:

      agreed. This story was going to be bell curved no matter what the Royal response was. I think an argument could be made that litigation was like swimming with the current - the story got a little farther, but, right or wrong, this was going to be a big story no matter what. I think the Streisand effect would be better used to describe stories that would have otherwise passed unnoticed.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Sep 17th, 2012 @ 9:54am

        Re: Re:

        More like a Dirac-response or chi-curve - having a lot more tailing - but that is besides the point. The announcement of the lawsuit happened at an opportune time where the damage any lawsuit causes their reputation would be small.

        Streisand or not, I think Barbra would have been happy with this limited an effect.
        Stacking news is the best way to make them go away fast with low effect. If all sides of a case seems to be covered at first, nobody will waste time writing about it in the future except for retrospect articles and clever analysis that nobody outside the "social liberal-factories" (universities) reads.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 17th, 2012 @ 8:51am

    I dunno, this whole thing seems overblown. Kind of making a mountain out of a pair of mole hills.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Sep 17th, 2012 @ 8:51am

    If I took a photo of my neighbour with her norks out, I would be jailed for being a peeping tom. I hope the same thing happens to the person who took the photos of Kate Middleton.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 17th, 2012 @ 8:52am

    At what exact time did they threaten legal action? Because as many have noted, it looks like they threaten legal action only at the peak of the graph. I cannot for the life of me see how legal action could possibly increase the coverage this got.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Juan Hung-Lo, Sep 17th, 2012 @ 8:53am

    I just "Googled" the "pics"

    Yawn. Looks like it was a slow nudes day.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 17th, 2012 @ 8:53am

    Unless I am missing something, the other commenters have a point. This does not look like a case of Streisand Effect. Activity seems to have dropped sharply just two hours after the announcement (and kept dropping steadily as the day progressed). Typical Streisand Effect should've seen the activity increase, not decrease, I believe.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    gnudist, Sep 17th, 2012 @ 8:56am

    Just pics? garfield gets to bang all the royal ladies and then smoke lasanga flavored cigars.

    Not fair i tells ya

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous, Sep 17th, 2012 @ 8:58am

    Not a Royal Fan but.........

    This was all over the main news long before they decided to take legal action! The Streisand does not apply here!!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Haywood (profile), Sep 17th, 2012 @ 9:09am

    Thread is worhtless without pictures

    I'm just sayin

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 17th, 2012 @ 9:12am

      Re: Thread is worhtless without pictures

      You'd be disappointed.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Sep 17th, 2012 @ 9:45am

        Ditto

        Personally, I find Kate to be quite attractive. This despite her being British and making in into the Royal Family by marriage - two things that more often than not suggest an upper limit on a woman's attractiveness somewhat below average even on a good day.

        Finding Kate to be sorta babe-ish, I immediately raced to Google to find the images of her boobies. Tongue in lap I rapidly started clicking links, lest my keyboard or mouse short out from the drool before I found the nips in question. Sigh... how quickly I was disappointed in what I found. All I could think was, "dang... what nappy boobies for such a hot chick." I'll never look at Kate with such lust again.

        That, I suspect, is the real reason the Royals are suing. Had Kate's boobies generated as much good publicity and as many positive comments as Kate herself had to date, then there'd be no suit. As it is, Kate's below average boobies have taken the polish off her image, tarnished her, knocked her off her pedestal of perfection.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Sep 17th, 2012 @ 5:06pm

          Re: Ditto

          You should be more considerate, especially considering the remarkably odd appearance of your short and bifurcated penis.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Sep 17th, 2012 @ 11:25pm

            Re: Re: Ditto

            ROFL Why in the fuck are you even speculating on what his schlong looks like.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 5:57am

              Re: Re: Re: Ditto

              Apparently some anonymous cowards are obsessed with above average boobies while others are obsessed with below average schlongs (schlorts?).

              I suspect the latter AC is British and is more offended by the British remark than the nappy titty one. Unfortunately, however, in his haste to insult the first AC he has shown the world why there are so many homely looking brits, particularly in the royal family - British men spend more time looking at and thinking of other men's wieners than they do looking and and thinking of their women.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 17th, 2012 @ 9:25am

      Re: Thread is worhtless without pictures

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 17th, 2012 @ 9:10am

    More cheap titillation.

    Yes, even The Royals have "naughty bits".

    Burma!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 17th, 2012 @ 9:13am

    Umm, wow. Talk about drawing the wrong conclusion from data.

    The real action happened in the US market, in the US time frame, when sites like TMZ caught wind of the story BEFORE the royal family did anything. They stoked the fire, and only the very peak of the story comes from the lawsuit. Everything else was "hey, look, Kate's tiny boobs!". Even without the lawsuit action, it was a huge story, it just took a little while for the US media to get on it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Sep 17th, 2012 @ 9:14am

    Updated

    Added an update, in response to a few comments, noting the reports that this was more about the news cycle and timing of the report than a reaction to the legal threats. While it's likely that the legal threats attracted some more attention, it may have just been at the margins compared to the overall press barrage.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 17th, 2012 @ 10:58am

      Re: Updated

      Nice retraction. A little to quick on the trigger to try to attribute something to your pet "effect", I guess.

      Next time think for yourself.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      nonanymous, Sep 17th, 2012 @ 2:33pm

      Re: Updated

      Thanks for updating. I saw the graph timeline earlier today and wanted to comment right away that this is just pushing too far with cause/effect, considering how little time has passed.

      Another point that you seem to miss out on completely, is that sometimes it does make sense to cause more immediate attention while fighting for a larger cause. In this case I would've expected more introspection from you, since it is a frequent topic on these pages: privacy. I don't think I have to expand any more, should be obvious.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 17th, 2012 @ 9:25am

    Yawn

    I've seen prolly a million boobs on the internet and these are nothing - really.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 17th, 2012 @ 9:30am

      Re: Yawn

      Say what? There are boobs on the Internet?

      Next you'll be telling me that their nipples aren't blocked out!

      Does the republican party know this??????

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 17th, 2012 @ 10:48am

    Nipped in the bud... NOT!

    Well I have to admit that all the fuss prompted me to Google the pictures and take a peek - nice, but nothing to write home about.

    I guess that's what happens when you try to "nip" it in the bud!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Duke (profile), Sep 17th, 2012 @ 11:44am

    To be really pedantic...

    Just to be really pedantic, she isn't called Kate Middleton any more; since getting married she's a titled member of the Royal Family (a Duchess) so doesn't have a legal surname (although she might be able to use Mountbatten-Windsor).

    As for their decision to sue (and, iirc, report the matter to the French police as a crime), I wonder if that is less about stopping the publication and dissemination of the images than it is about sending a clear message to these sorts of photographers (I'm not sure the word "journalist" is really appropriate) that they will get in trouble if they try it again. The lawsuit may be less about suppressing the images as discouraging future publications (something the lack of a reaction to the Prince Harry photographs a few weeks ago obviously didn't do).

    Plus, I don't know about the US press, but the UK mainstream media has taken a clear stand against publishing the photographs (even The Sun... and the 'outrage' in the Daily Mail was wonderfully hypocritical, but that's another story).

    Freedom of expression may be a great thing, but I have no problem with discouraging people from taking photographs using a telescopic lens, of people who are relaxing, in private, on holiday.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Sad, Sep 17th, 2012 @ 12:18pm

    Oh good, I can remove Techdrt from my RSS aggregator

    If you can write an article this without reference to history, I feel I can do without what anyone here has to say about anything.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Sep 17th, 2012 @ 12:24pm

    ethics

    The royals have a right to sue. The picture was taken with a teloscopic lense. And I'm never using droid to do this again.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 17th, 2012 @ 3:39pm

    What I'm seeing is that the legal threat came a few days after a sharp trend upward in related tweets, and was followed by an immediate sharp trend downward.

    That might simply be poor graphing skills, but the graph that's shown hardly supports the TD or Forbes narrative.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 17th, 2012 @ 7:56pm

    you know if they could feed all of Africa for years if only they would make a sex tape.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    mrbfd, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 11:49am

    For appearances' sake

    That was an informative comment about how there is still no median barrier in the tunnel where Diana died.  We Amerikans have been putting concrete median barriers on our Interstates since the '60s.  Since the '70s they have been cast by rolling extrusion machines.  So there is no excuse not to have them in place.  Where are all those fancy French lawyers & why aren't they suing over it?

    The only reason for the Kate lawsuit is that the Royals have to "cover their asses" for propriety's sake.  Why would an international celebrity be topless, even briefly, out on a balcony?  What did they think would happen?

    Kate is rightfully proud of her body but hers are standard-issue B-cup b00bs & nothing special---royal or not.

    P.S. Kate:  B is my favorite size.  Please do not get a b00b job.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    ColinCowpat (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 12:57pm

    Errrr....

    It probably doesn't help that an anagram of Kate Middleton is "Naked Tit Model"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This