controversy for duchess kate. Pictures of her, baby bump and all, on a tropical vacation have been published. And the royals are not happy about it. We should say that abc news has decided not to show... See More
controversy for duchess kate. Pictures of her, baby bump and all, on a tropical vacation have been published. And the royals are not happy about it. We should say that abc news has decided not to show the photos. And abc's lama hasan has the story. Reporter: Hitting the newsstands this morning, italian gossip magazine, "chi" with new pictures of a bikini-clad momma-to-be, with baby bump on show. It's different when you're a member of the royal family. They crave normality. They want to be just like everybody else. But they're not just like everybody else. Reporter: The pictures are from a caribbean getaway, an island famed for its privacy and security. But when it comes to the royal couple, there is no such thing as privacy for the soon-to-be parents. The palace is up in arms, saying it's a clear breach of the couple's right to privacy. Last summer when a french magazine published photos of a topless kate sunbathing at a private home in france, the royals warned tabloids that lawsuits could follow. The british media have decided not to publish the pictures. Reporter: But, boy, are they making their voices heard. Kate's horror at baby bump snaps, reads one newspaper. Fresh anguish for pregnant kate, says another. The pictures of what the editor says, are kate looking so healthy and glowing. Kate's on a public beach. There's other holidaymakers there. And she looks fabulous. Reporter: Any photos of the modern royals are big bucks. A court order will never stop the prying eyes of the paparazzi. Lama hasan, abc news, london. Here to discuss the royals' right to privacy is "people" magazine's managing editor. What do you know? The cover of your magazine is the beautiful robin roberts. We are thrilled. We are thrilled. Looking so radiant. I'm lucky to be alive. We're lucky to have her back in one week. It's a great story. We were lucky to do this. She talks candidly about the strugg struggle. Robin, as you all know here is very forward and tough. And very positive. And she remains so. But there were moments that were tough. And she talks about them candidly. It's a moving story. And the difference with your interview with robin, she was involved in it. And the pictures with the royals, they were on a desserted island. A secluded island. And a long lens was able to capture the duchess. Here's the thing. For women out there. Not all pregnancies are created equal. People are more interested in her than other people. You have to make a judgment call. They tried to sell these pictures to "people" magazine. There's nothing that's illegal about it, perhaps. But you look at them and say, our readers would want to see this. But for us at "people" magazine, this is bad for the brand. People are going to say openly, leave her alone. For another magazine, I'm not going to cast on their decision, they decided to do it. But for someone like us and a big news organization like abc news, you stay away from it. The average person is going to say, leave her alone. This is an invasion of privacy. You think the public reaction will be mostly negative to this? It's an issue of what you can do and should do. You can print them. But should you? Could the royal family take legal action here? They did in france in the summertime with the topless photographs. It's a place they've been to a lot. Some might say they should have known better. I think the fact it's not topless and a different grade of picture. Where do these two need to go? They were on a secluded island, trying to have private time. Just because you can make a picture of them and you have a lens that can shoot over a mile doesn't necessarily mean you should run the photograph. I think people will say that seems invasive. Thank you for your opinion. "People" magazine's larry hackett, everybody. Josh?
This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.