Let's bring in abc news chief legal correspondent, and my "20/20" co-anchor, chris cuomo. Good to see you this morning. Does this stop further publication of any of the photos, the rulings moments... See More
Let's bring in abc news chief legal correspondent, and my "20/20" co-anchor, chris cuomo. Good to see you this morning. Does this stop further publication of any of the photos, the rulings moments ago? This is for the media. For the legal community, it's not a big deal. Why? French privacy laws, very strict. Well-known. It was expected that the courts would say don't publish this anymore, "closer," french newspaper. But the fine is de minimis. Business-wise it makes sense for them to publish. The irish and others can follow suit without any respect for this resolve. And the order to hand over the photos and the digital copies, sounds big like a big step. Is it? To me, it sounds like nothing. As we all know as parents, digital copies of pictures are innumerable, especially when they're out on line. The idea that it's the old days and you can hand over the negatives is naive. This is what we would call a placating verdict. And it's a win into a bigger analysis that needs to be done here. This is the most public couple in the world. The only behavior they can control is their own. So, if they don't want pictures of them taken this way, they're the only ones that can control it. Quickly, the defense was, she was on a balcony you could see from the street. Is that a valid defense? For most people, yes. You'd say, could you see me or not? Did I have an expectation of privacy or not? This is a different couple with different analysis. The u.K. Tabloids isn't using the pictures. To achieve that is no small feat. Thank you so much.
This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.