Kate and the paparazzi - making snap decisions that are fair .

Will the war between palace and paparazzi break out all over again? Now that Kate Middleton is formally engaged to Prince William, are we release to see a re-run of the battles between his mother and photographers?

The London Evening Standard explored that possibility yesterday and, as its headline suggests - Fair game or respect: paparazzi are at odds over pursuing Kate Middleton - there was no agreement within the photographic pack.

That's just a surprise. These guys (and about girls) are freelance operators, individuals out for a buck, and they do not cling to any collective pact.

But the ones who wish to betray their pictures to British newspapers and magazines do seem to be mindful of the motivation to obey the editors' code of practice.

Or, at least, a variant of it. One of the paps quoted - Jan Almasi who works for the Eroteme agency (which I can't locate online) - spoke of photographers needing to "observe the 100-yard rule."

I'm not quite sure about that. The editors' code does not go out a required distance between photographer and subject.

But the key clause (No. 4), which was formulated following the end of Princess Diana, concerns harassment.

This outlaws the interest of mass and states that photographers must stop snapping away "once asked to desist."

A sub-clause states:

"Editors must see these principles are discovered by those working for them and have care not to use non-compliant material from early sources."

There is a public interest exemption, however, that does admit for editors and/or photographers to justify harassment in certain circumstances. (They would take to be very, very good).

Anyway, the crucial stop for all to reach is that the cypher is applied to all - princes and commoners, celebrities and so-called ordinary members of the public - without distinction.

Though the press (and newspaper readers) are more probably to be concerned in princes and celebrities, there is equal treatment as far as the Press Complaints Commission is concerned when considering complaints.

The PCC is also capable to circulate concerns that are elevated by people about paparazzi behaviour to editors, enabling them to have informed decisions around the birthplace of pictures they are offered.About 60 so-called "desist requests" go out each year on behalf of celebrities and members of the public.There could be a job with freelance journalists working for international publications, but as farsighted as British editors refuse to buy their material, this is unbelievable to be a popular sport.

What has been striking about Middleton has been her eminently sensible answer to having hordes of photographers around her. She has walked purposefully past them, refusing to be goaded into doing anything silly (hiding behind a handbag, lashing out, screaming, pulling faces).

If she managed that ended the age without royal protection officers then surely she will see it easier still now that she is afforded security.

She did get one formal PCC complaint, in 2007, after the Daily Mirror published a fancy of her taken in controversial circumstances. That was solved when the report issued a public statement and published an immediate apology.

In March this year, she received 5,000 in restitution for a gap of privacy, plus legal costs from picture agency Rex Features, which distributed pictures of her on a tennis court in Cornwall.

The second incident is a monitor that the developing law on privacy - which didn't exist during Princess Diana's lifetime - could be used against intrusive photographers in future.

I noted in the Standard article that a veteran pap, Max Cisotti of Xclusive Pix, said: "It's all fair game."

If we have the book game, it's the adjective that counts. The pressure will want to be fair.