Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   "On a side note," he said, "she had wonderful breasts." Response to being sued for a million dollars for topless picture taken on top of Empire State Building   (in.reuters.com) divider line 160
    More: Amusing, Empire State Building, boobs  
•       •       •

20505 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Jan 2014 at 7:05 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



160 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-14 07:07:18 AM  
TTIWWP
 
2014-01-14 07:08:05 AM  
I'd have to see these 'wonderful' breasts before I can render judgment.
 
2014-01-14 07:08:48 AM  
What the flappers no flapping photo. Im going to /.
 
2014-01-14 07:09:13 AM  
If you want to find America's biggest boobs, they are none other than the Empire State Building's management team.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-01-14 07:09:20 AM  
OMG! Kids saw boobies!  They are SCARRED FOR LIFE!
 
2014-01-14 07:09:38 AM  
A cell phone?  Yes, all serious / real professional photographers use cell phones to take their planned photo shoots.
 
2014-01-14 07:09:45 AM  
TTIWWP
 
Skr
2014-01-14 07:10:00 AM  
"observation deck was full of tourists, including children" I don't think the kids would have any problems with the boobs. Really just the adults impressing morals unto them.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-01-14 07:11:08 AM  
Found it.

http://gothamist.com/2013/08/11/nsfw_photos_topless_woman_atop_empi. ph p#photo-1

yeah, NSFW, but the final line in the story is right.
 
2014-01-14 07:11:43 AM  
Just kidding hitting reload each 2sec
I have hopes
 
2014-01-14 07:13:04 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: A cell phone?  Yes, all serious / real professional photographers use cell phones to take their planned photo shoots.


actually, there's an entire art-underground where they not only take arty-shots with cellphones, but do all the editing on-phone. http://plus.google.com/+MichelleRobinson_michmutters/posts


Oh, I'm sure THIS guy was a tool, but now you know.
 
2014-01-14 07:13:30 AM  
This is not a bookmark so I can check this thread after work.
 
2014-01-14 07:14:26 AM  
This should in no way be seen as a marker for myself to remember to inspect said magnificent mammaries once I make my escape from this infernal cube farm... Nossir, not that at all.
 
2014-01-14 07:14:35 AM  
Fine, I'll GIS it.

You'll have to deal with the slideshow - you brought this on yourself.

Of course, NSFW.

http://gothamist.com/2013/08/11/nsfw_photos_topless_woman_atop_empi. ph p#photo-1
 
2014-01-14 07:15:12 AM  

d23: Found it.

http://gothamist.com/2013/08/11/nsfw_photos_topless_woman_atop_empi. ph p#photo-1

yeah, NSFW, but the final line in the story is right.


(Reporting by Marina Lopes and Daniel Wiessner)

Indeed.
 
2014-01-14 07:15:19 AM  
Bah! Beaten by three minutes searching! Knock me out, mods.
 
2014-01-14 07:15:22 AM  
I've seen the pictures, and no... no they're not.
 
2014-01-14 07:15:24 AM  
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-01-14 07:15:34 AM  
wow.. I must have pissed off a lot of people...
 
2014-01-14 07:16:18 AM  
Living the dream...
 
2014-01-14 07:19:10 AM  
Those are some shiatty pictures
 
2014-01-14 07:19:36 AM  
Yeah, that's really worth a million dollars. Some tits... things that roughly half the human race has. Perish the thought that some people might have seen a pair of them.

WTF is wrong with Americans?
 
2014-01-14 07:24:25 AM  
Would be legal in Canada
 
ecl
2014-01-14 07:24:35 AM  
She has broad shoulders.  Do not want.
 
2014-01-14 07:27:10 AM  
Management of the Empire State Building charged in the suit the pictures were produced "for his own commercial purpose" and damaged the landmark's "reputation as a safe and secure family friendly tourist attraction."

Get over yourselves
 
2014-01-14 07:28:37 AM  
Nevermind the side note, the front view is great.

[PeterGriffinSideBoob.jpg]
 
2014-01-14 07:30:10 AM  
"HAD wonderful breasts"  Did she thereafter die?
 
2014-01-14 07:31:02 AM  

kertus: Would be legal in Canada


being topless is legal in New York
 
2014-01-14 07:31:44 AM  
OH NO!!! You mean CHILDREN may have seen BREASTS?!?!?! Heavens!

I'll never understand that shiat for as long as I live. I grew up with parents who were / are artists. I saw paintings, drawings and pictures similar in nature to the ones in the article from when I was pretty much, well, alive. Only it was the early late 60s early 70s, so more sagging and lots more bush.

ANYway, I don't get this "There were CHILDREN there who say the breasts" shiat that comes up all over the US. Who farking cares? No wonder so many kids are farked up about their bodies and sexuality! From day 1 they're told they should be ashamed of them and that tits are bad.

No. Tits are awesome. They should be free, let them flap in the breeze! Ditto wangs. Just let that shiat be.

Care chases, graphic murders, fights, that's all kosher, but tits? That's just out of the question.

/no, I'm not a nudist
//would never dream of subjecting an unsuspecting public to my pale, pimply ass
///but really, get the fark over it already
 
2014-01-14 07:35:07 AM  

unchellmatt: Care chases


I know it's a typo, but I really think we should start calling them that.
 
2014-01-14 07:35:55 AM  
i don't understand why he is being sued.

on a side note, those are not worth a million dollars.
 
2014-01-14 07:38:28 AM  

unchellmatt: OH NO!!! You mean CHILDREN may have seen BREASTS?!?!?! Heavens!

I'll never understand that shiat for as long as I live. I grew up with parents who were / are artists. I saw paintings, drawings and pictures similar in nature to the ones in the article from when I was pretty much, well, alive. Only it was the early late 60s early 70s, so more sagging and lots more bush.

ANYway, I don't get this "There were CHILDREN there who say the breasts" shiat that comes up all over the US. Who farking cares? No wonder so many kids are farked up about their bodies and sexuality! From day 1 they're told they should be ashamed of them and that tits are bad.

No. Tits are awesome. They should be free, let them flap in the breeze! Ditto wangs. Just let that shiat be.

Care chases, graphic murders, fights, that's all kosher, but tits? That's just out of the question.

/no, I'm not a nudist
//would never dream of subjecting an unsuspecting public to my pale, pimply ass
///but really, get the fark over it already



Technically, breasts are for children.
 
2014-01-14 07:39:27 AM  
And no one has taken their family up the Empire State Building since.
 
2014-01-14 07:40:41 AM  

jackiekennedy: "HAD wonderful breasts"  Did she thereafter die?


No, but from the looks of it, in 10 years she'll be known as "Saggy Maggie".
 
2014-01-14 07:45:56 AM  
Oh but they can have weddings up there. Talk about life ruining. Some kid sees that. Decides he'd rather marry than become and Astronaut Doorgunner for the First Martian Killer Brigade. Twenty years later, he's over weight, working as a programmer analyst for a contracting company and the love of his life is complaining about the new house the Mansfields bought out at Costa Plente Estates. The kids hate him and he has 5 bosses wanting e-mail updates but he can't e-mail them all in the same e-mail because they don't want to acknowledge the fact that there are five supervisors for one contractor.
One day, he's sitting in his cube, filling out a paper form for a new chair when the guy in the cube next to him says "Did you hear about the First Martian Killer Brigade? They took the Martian capital of Akron!* Three cheers for the First Martian Killers! Hip hip hurray!! Hip hip hurray!! Hip hip hurray!! "

He says under his breath "Those three cheers could have been for me." Then he goes back to looking at a buggy RPG IV program written by a senile AS400 programmer in 1992.

(*) City was stolen by the Martians and memorialized in a Pretenders song.
 
2014-01-14 07:47:14 AM  

unchellmatt: No. Tits are awesome. They should be free, let them flap in the breeze!


Do your boobs hang low?

very mildly NSFW. If your boss/co-workers would get offended by fully clothed animated boobies in a shirt don't watch. Otherwise it's all good.
 
2014-01-14 07:48:25 AM  
media.tumblr.com
 
2014-01-14 07:49:06 AM  

Harry Freakstorm: Costa Plente Estates.


Nice.
 
2014-01-14 07:49:11 AM  
Oh look. Another "photographer" who specializes in convincing attractive women to remove their tops because, yanno, art. Yeah that's the ticket.
 
2014-01-14 07:50:03 AM  

MythDragon: unchellmatt: No. Tits are awesome. They should be free, let them flap in the breeze!

Do your boobs hang low?

very mildly NSFW. If your boss/co-workers would get offended by fully clothed animated boobies in a shirt don't watch. Otherwise it's all good.


heh, love that one :)

And I gotta remember; No rambling tirades before coffee. Typos! Typos everywhere.
 
2014-01-14 07:50:11 AM  

WhyteRaven74: kertus: Would be legal in Canada

being topless is legal in New York


That just means they can't stick you in jail for it.
 
2014-01-14 07:57:54 AM  
Photographers assessment was quite accurate.
 
2014-01-14 07:58:51 AM  

zvoidx: Technically, breasts are for children.


I thought it was Hell?
 
2014-01-14 08:02:33 AM  

WhyteRaven74: kertus: Would be legal in Canada

being topless is legal in New York



And being topless in New York is legal in Canada.
 
2014-01-14 08:02:51 AM  

unchellmatt: ANYway, I don't get this "There were CHILDREN there who say the breasts" shiat that comes up all over the US.


It all started because some awful, horrid, filthy women were actually exposing their own children to the sight of their bare breasts. Their BABIES. Imagine the horror. Tiny wee babies forced right up against the sinful bare nipple flesh of their own mum! Forced to touch it! With their mouths no less.

Well that disgusting behaviour needed to be clamped down upon tout de suite.
 
2014-01-14 08:05:05 AM  
Can we stop pretending this is not a BIE thread now?

/EIP
 
x23
2014-01-14 08:10:13 AM  
"as 30-year-old photographer Allen Henson captured the image on his cell phone."

does not compute.

and after seeing the pics i am certainly no more convinced the label should be 'photographer'.
 
2014-01-14 08:16:47 AM  

x23: "as 30-year-old photographer Allen Henson captured the image on his cell phone."

does not compute.

and after seeing the pics i am certainly no more convinced the label should be 'photographer'.


Just a creeper taking advantage of dumb hot chicks.

Ladies... you do realize there are FEMALE non scummo photographers in the world you could offer to model for if you are looking get some exposure, right? Hooking up with a dude like this raises the odds you'll just get typecast as another porn skag.
 
2014-01-14 08:19:29 AM  

hillary: So if I visit the Empire State Building and my fly is accidentally open and some idiot posts a photo, I could get sued. Good to know. Think I'll avoid the Empire State Building on my planned upcoming visit to NYC. Suggest all other Farkers do likewise.


No. The person who took and distributed the photo would get sued. You'd get arrested and tossed on the sex offender registry... because penises are scary.
 
2014-01-14 08:22:58 AM  

here to help: x23: "as 30-year-old photographer Allen Henson captured the image on his cell phone."

does not compute.

and after seeing the pics i am certainly no more convinced the label should be 'photographer'.

Just a creeper taking advantage of dumb hot chicks.

Ladies... you do realize there are FEMALE non scummo photographers in the world you could offer to model for if you are looking get some exposure, right? Hooking up with a dude like this raises the odds you'll just get typecast as another porn skag.


That's like the Dane Cook level of slut shaming.
 
2014-01-14 08:26:22 AM  

Lady Indica: That's like the Dane Cook level of slut shaming.


Uh... no. If the chicks are fine with that then by all means go for it. I'm shaming the scumbags who prey on young women trying to break into modeling.

I'm on your side... despite my spicy, Farktacular language.

And Dane Cook? F*CK YOU!
 
2014-01-14 08:29:16 AM  
So by visiting the Empire State Building and not breaking any rule, contract or law makes you liable to be sued for a million dollars. Well, I know one place I will never in my life visit.
 
2014-01-14 08:39:39 AM  

mekkab: actually, there's an entire art-underground where they not only take arty-shots with cellphones, but do all the editing on-phone. http://plus.google.com/+MichelleRobinson_michmutters/posts


Not that I would have heard of them...
 
2014-01-14 08:43:48 AM  
Management of the Empire State Building charged in the suit the pictures [...] damaged the landmark's "reputation as a safe and secure family friendly tourist attraction."

Why are bare breasts unsafe? Are her nipples big enough to poke a child's eyes out or something?
 
2014-01-14 08:45:06 AM  
www.vcn.bc.ca

Not available for comment
 
2014-01-14 08:46:45 AM  

unchellmatt: ANYway, I don't get this "There were CHILDREN there who say the breasts" shiat that comes up all over the US. Who farking cares? No wonder so many kids are farked up about their bodies and sexuality! From day 1 they're told they should be ashamed of them and that tits are bad.


There are a number of us Americans who don't farking get it either. First of all, why is every offended person's immediate response something about being 'family friendly', and secondly they're just boobs. Who the fark cares?

I know more than you: So by visiting the Empire State Building and not breaking any rule, contract or law makes you liable to be sued for a million dollars. Well, I know one place I will never in my life visit.


It's lame anyway. I was there. Once. It's just 'Yep, tall building with fenced in balcony.'
 
2014-01-14 08:46:48 AM  
I would thing the fark ladies have much better.  BIE? Convince us!
 
2014-01-14 08:51:00 AM  

here to help: Lady Indica: That's like the Dane Cook level of slut shaming.

Uh... no. If the chicks are fine with that then by all means go for it. I'm shaming the scumbags who prey on young women trying to break into modeling.

I'm on your side... despite my spicy, Farktacular language.

And Dane Cook? F*CK YOU!


Naw, it's pretty accurate. You kind of gave it away by pretending that these "dumb hot chicks" would never be taken advantage of by a female photographer, apparently because women can never be scumbags.

/would have been 2/10, but poutrage gives the appearance of weakness, so 0/10
 
2014-01-14 08:51:01 AM  

d23: Found it.

http://gothamist.com/2013/08/11/nsfw_photos_topless_woman_atop_empi. ph p#photo-1

yeah, NSFW, but the final line in the story is right.


Fantastic!
The lawsuit is being instigated because they think he made a profit off the photos and isn't sharing.
 
2014-01-14 08:53:45 AM  
particularly nice weather.
 
2014-01-14 08:54:22 AM  
images.huffingtonpost.com
 
2014-01-14 09:01:08 AM  
I thought tits were legal in NYC.
 
2014-01-14 09:04:28 AM  
100% Legal. If I were that photographer I'd counter-sue for time and money wasted.
 
2014-01-14 09:06:09 AM  

mongbiohazard: Yeah, that's really worth a million dollars. Some tits... things that roughly half the human race has. Perish the thought that some people might have seen a pair of them.

WTF is wrong with Americans?


Everywhere else in the world: excitedly "OMG BEWBS!"

America: distressed, horrified and weeping "OMG, BEWBS!"

I'm guessing that there is great political influence from people with lesser bewbage who wish to supress all who possess greater bewbage. They also think that America should not look at other bewbs lest they compare them to the lesser bewbage and find it lacking.

In conclusion; Bewbs.
 
2014-01-14 09:09:12 AM  

here to help: hillary: So if I visit the Empire State Building and my fly is accidentally open and some idiot posts a photo, I could get sued. Good to know. Think I'll avoid the Empire State Building on my planned upcoming visit to NYC. Suggest all other Farkers do likewise.

No. The person who took and distributed the photo would get sued. You'd get arrested and tossed on the sex offender registry... because penises are scary.



Only in the wrong hands.
 
2014-01-14 09:09:33 AM  

Tatterdemalian: here to help: Lady Indica: That's like the Dane Cook level of slut shaming.

Uh... no. If the chicks are fine with that then by all means go for it. I'm shaming the scumbags who prey on young women trying to break into modeling.

I'm on your side... despite my spicy, Farktacular language.

And Dane Cook? F*CK YOU!

Naw, it's pretty accurate. You kind of gave it away by pretending that these "dumb hot chicks" would never be taken advantage of by a female photographer, apparently because women can never be scumbags.

/would have been 2/10, but poutrage gives the appearance of weakness, so 0/10


Yes, well we all know what a hard edged feminist and all around compassionate human being you are so I'll totes defer to your judgment on this.

I don't care what anyone says. Young people tend to be dumb and easily manipulated. Young women are young people. Young people trying to "make it in the big city" are particularly vulnerable and there are far more people looking to take advantage of that. Young women trying to "make it big in the city" have a specific commodity that is attractive to scumbags. This guy reeks of scumbag and the incident reeks even more of "publicity stunt".

Have you ever lived in the city? Have you ever been part of any entertainment industry or "art" communities? I have and I've seen these scoundrels at work. There are people who can play these bastards just as hard if not more so and that's great. Some people get completely destroyed by them and sh*t out the other end.

This "professional photographer" took his pic from a CELLPHONE ffs and the only other work of his mentioned are other nudes. If all your pictures are of young attractive NAKED women chances are you're not an artist... you're just a creep.
 
2014-01-14 09:15:47 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: I thought tits were legal in NYC.


BEER_ME_in_CT: 100% Legal. If I were that photographer I'd counter-sue for time and money wasted.


It is legal in NYC. The ESB, however, is private property, and they can set their own rules.

This prevents it from being an arrestable offense, and the only course of action for the ESB is a civil suit.

That being said, the lawsuit is bogus.

Unless the back of the ticket they purchased, or a sign was posted, specifically stated you had keep your shirt on, the accused had no way of knowing that the ESBs rules were more restrictive than the city laws. Secondly, they would have to prove that the photos were used for a commercial use. Uploading to twitter/instagram isn't going to cut it, or they would have to sue every person who takes the tour.

The most that i see that should happen is that both the photographer and the model are banned from the building, but that is about it.
 
2014-01-14 09:21:37 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: I thought tits were legal in NYC.


They are.  The Coed Topless Pulp Fiction Appreciation Society (NSFW) taught me that.
 
2014-01-14 09:32:33 AM  
People go ape over the least little things.

www.retrocrush.com
 
2014-01-14 09:33:38 AM  

factoryconnection: Marcus Aurelius: I thought tits were legal in NYC.

They are.  The Coed Topless Pulp Fiction Appreciation Society (NSFW) taught me that.


God I love that thing and their reading material.

/I'm sure their books are good too
 
2014-01-14 09:33:53 AM  

abhorrent1: Those are some shiatty pictures


And somewhat saggy breasts.
 
2014-01-14 09:40:45 AM  
It's perfectly legal for women to be topless in NYC. I don't think there are rules against taking pictures on the observation deck of the Empire State Building.

I'm no attorney, but I would say their lawsuit is without merit. They probably are just trying to stop a potentially awesome trend.
 
2014-01-14 09:52:47 AM  
They are kinda nice.  Not sure i'd go with Wonderful.  Wonderful is like that roller-coaster pair of brunettes doing the flasher thing.
 
2014-01-14 09:54:54 AM  

unchellmatt: OH NO!!! You mean CHILDREN may have seen BREASTS?!?!?! Heavens!

I'll never understand that shiat for as long as I live. I grew up with parents who were / are artists. I saw paintings, drawings and pictures similar in nature to the ones in the article from when I was pretty much, well, alive. Only it was the early late 60s early 70s, so more sagging and lots more bush.

ANYway, I don't get this "There were CHILDREN there who say the breasts" shiat that comes up all over the US. Who farking cares? No wonder so many kids are farked up about their bodies and sexuality! From day 1 they're told they should be ashamed of them and that tits are bad.

No. Tits are awesome. They should be free, let them flap in the breeze! Ditto wangs. Just let that shiat be.

Care chases, graphic murders, fights, that's all kosher, but tits? That's just out of the question.

/no, I'm not a nudist
//would never dream of subjecting an unsuspecting public to my pale, pimply ass
///but really, get the fark over it already


So, are you saying that children should be subject to sexuality at an early age?  Not sure I agree with that.

I do agree that non-sexualized nudity (think National Geographic) is no big deal, but that was clearly not the case.  In this case, the photographer chose a very shapely model, put her in a somewhat provocative pose, specifically for the social experiment of eliciting a response.  This behavior is, by definition, offensive.  Is the Empire State building stretching a point to try and punish him?  Yes.  But his actions should not considered normal, socially acceptable behavior.

Nudity per se is not offensive.  But there is more to this incident than simple nudity.
 
2014-01-14 09:58:17 AM  
Thank you for the links to the original pictures.

BIE? EIP

/been a crap month thus far
//could use the cheering up :(
 
2014-01-14 10:00:57 AM  

big pig peaches: It's perfectly legal for women to be topless in NYC. I don't think there are rules against taking pictures on the observation deck of the Empire State Building.

I'm no attorney, but I would say their lawsuit is without merit. They probably are just trying to stop a potentially awesome trend.


It is a stretch.  They are saying that commercial photography is illegal, and that this individual was a professional photographer.  If he is using these pics to drive traffic to his business or build up his brand, they might have a point.
 
2014-01-14 10:08:40 AM  
Meh, it's private property and (unfortunately) bare breasts are not a protected class. Don't go, write strongly worded letters, or better yet support the photographer by buying his stuff.
 
2014-01-14 10:13:34 AM  
I am curious as to what makes this art and not some unscrupulous attempt by some guy with a cell phone to get hot women to take their tops off.
 
2014-01-14 10:15:46 AM  

Pumpernickel bread: I am curious as to what makes this art and not some unscrupulous attempt by some guy with a cell phone to get hot women to take their tops off.


EXACTLY!

Yet somehow pointing that out is "slut shaming".

Yeesh.
 
2014-01-14 10:19:02 AM  
There shall be no sexual images atop one of the world's largest phallic symbols.
 
2014-01-14 10:21:52 AM  

Pumpernickel bread: I am curious as to what makes this art and not some unscrupulous attempt by some guy with a cell phone to get hot women to take their tops off.


Hey Stalin, I thought you were dead.
 
2014-01-14 10:28:33 AM  
If I'm not mistaken, it's legal for women to go topless in New York City, isn't it?

So what's the problem?
 
2014-01-14 10:29:26 AM  
After looking at the pictures...did anyone else notice the people around her?  Not a single one of them was "checking her out".  They were all just going about their business.

Mind you, I had to look at the pictures 4 times before I noticed there even were other people in the picture.

Well you know, because boobs.
 
2014-01-14 10:37:21 AM  
big boobies ...!

/ almost always look better in the bra
 
2014-01-14 10:39:51 AM  

d23: Found it.

http://gothamist.com/2013/08/11/nsfw_photos_topless_woman_atop_empi. ph p#photo-1

yeah, NSFW, but the final line in the story is right.


The rest of the story appears right, too. This asshole clearly took that picture for direct (or indirect) commercial gain. Here's to hoping the owners of the ESB win the lawsuit.
 
2014-01-14 10:44:19 AM  
Doesn't the Empire State Building expose everyone to megawatts of electromagnetic radiation each and every day?
 
2014-01-14 10:48:12 AM  

mongbiohazard: Yeah, that's really worth a million dollars. Some tits... things that roughly half the human race has. Perish the thought that some people might have seen a pair of them.

WTF is wrong with Americans?


Meh.  If you've seen one, you've seen them both.
 
2014-01-14 10:48:25 AM  

ecl: She has broad shoulders.  Do not want.


What? are you giving birth to her?
 
2014-01-14 10:49:39 AM  

mongbiohazard: Yeah, that's really worth a million dollars. Some tits... things that roughly half the human race has. Perish the thought that some people might have seen a pair of them.

WTF is wrong with Americans?


Hey, not all of us are pearl clutching nutters. Some of us are quite sane and don't feel ashamed to see the human figure. The crazies are just the ones who scream the loudest. It's the rest of us who need to speak up more and tell them to knock it the fark off and calm down.

/EIP if anyone wants to test this American's response to the human figure
 
2014-01-14 10:50:03 AM  
"On a side note she had wonderful breasts."

pics.bbzzdd.com
 
2014-01-14 10:50:57 AM  
oi44.tinypic.com
/shake harder boy
 
2014-01-14 10:54:08 AM  
I think public nudity laws should be based on aesthetic value.

We convene a panel of people from various backgrounds, of various religions, sexual orientations, and political ideals.

Whenever there's a case of public nudity, this panel would decide whether it was a misdemeanor, a felony, or no crime at all based on the panel's consensus regarding the beauty of the person who exposed themselves. Also considered would be comedic value, taste/tact, and other factors that might alter the perception of each individual case of public nudity.

If the perpetrator looks like this:

2.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com

image.shutterstock.com

Then it's probably a felony.

If the person looks like this...

www.adweek.com
www.dr-youngforever.com

Then it's a minor misdemeanor.


And if they look like this:

walkoffwin55.files.wordpress.com
i3.photobucket.com

Then no crime was committed, and we publicly thank them.


/Mostly kidding
 
2014-01-14 11:04:45 AM  

BenJammin: Doesn't the Empire State Building expose everyone to megawatts of electromagnetic radiation each and every day?


Well, look at the structure of the roof cap. It looks exactly like the kind of telemetry tracker NASA uses to identify dead pulsars in other galaxies.

And look at this, cold-riveted girders with selenium cores.
 
2014-01-14 11:23:21 AM  

factoryconnection: Marcus Aurelius: I thought tits were legal in NYC.

They are.  The Coed Topless Pulp Fiction Appreciation Society (NSFW) taught me that.


If tits are legal, then shouldn't they be SFW?  I mean someone could just walk in the office and whip 'em out.
 
2014-01-14 11:23:32 AM  
"We were doing a social experiment," said Henson

Whelp, now you're in the middle of a legal experiment.  I doubt the company can prove damages of a million dollars for this, but they might prove a heck of a lot more than this guy wants to pay.
 
2014-01-14 11:27:44 AM  

Pumpernickel bread: I am curious as to what makes this art and not some unscrupulous attempt by some guy with a cell phone to get hot women to take their tops off.


I don't understand the difference.
 
2014-01-14 11:28:17 AM  

zvoidx: Technically, breasts are for children.


Actually, technically, breasts are for adults. Nipples are for babies, to feed them, but breasts are a secondary sexual characteristic.

Which is why we should outlaw naked breasts, but allow naked nipples.
 
2014-01-14 11:32:11 AM  
www.quickmeme.com
 
2014-01-14 11:33:46 AM  
It's tough for me to sympathize with either side here. On the one side, we have a photographer taking advantage of would-be models, and on the other we have building management with sticks so far up their asses that they're almost shish kebabs.

If I were on the jury, my thinking would be "decide for the plaintiff and award $1.00 in damages."
 
2014-01-14 11:34:56 AM  

Rabid Turnip: BenJammin: Doesn't the Empire State Building expose everyone to megawatts of electromagnetic radiation each and every day?

Well, look at the structure of the roof cap. It looks exactly like the kind of telemetry tracker NASA uses to identify dead pulsars in other galaxies.

And look at this, cold-riveted girders with selenium cores.


Everyone getting this so far? So what? I guess they just don't make them like they used to.
 
2014-01-14 11:35:52 AM  
He should have taken the pic at the lesser-known Umpire State Building.
www.freakingnews.com
 
2014-01-14 11:37:28 AM  

MycroftHolmes: So, are you saying that children should be subject to sexuality at an early age? Not sure I agree with that.

I do agree that non-sexualized nudity (think National Geographic) is no big deal, but that was clearly not the case. In this case, the photographer chose a very shapely model, put her in a somewhat provocative pose, specifically for the social experiment of eliciting a response. This behavior is, by definition, offensive. Is the Empire State building stretching a point to try and punish him? Yes. But his actions should not considered normal, socially acceptable behavior.

Nudity per se is not offensive. But there is more to this incident than simple nudity.


Define 'sexualized nudity'?

A lot of people pick up National Geographic and fap like there's no tomorrow (and have done for ages). Hell, I'm sure there's people who have seen the Venus de Milo and rubbed off a few.

If the woman in those photos and been stroking her nipples or rubbing her breasts together in a "come hither" sort of fashion, sure I would agree she was sexualizing her nudity. She wasn't though, she was just standing in the rain and sure, striking a few poses. What one person considers "sexual" another may consider, well, a sheep (possibly NSFW). But simply because a woman is topless doesn't mean it's sexual. We've been taught it is, sure. But walk down any beach in much of Europe and South America. People / women go topless and hardly anyone gives a toss. Oh, sure, when they get HOME I bet more than a few guys do (snerk), but you can sexualize anything or any one.
 
2014-01-14 11:40:01 AM  
Wonderful breasts?

i216.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-14 11:40:51 AM  
i216.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-14 11:42:01 AM  
i216.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-14 11:42:10 AM  

Skr: Really just the adults impressing morals unto them.


It's called "parenting."  Think, McFly.
 
2014-01-14 11:42:15 AM  
Wait, I thought it was legal? (moderately NSFW pic in article)
 
2014-01-14 11:42:53 AM  
i216.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-14 11:43:47 AM  

d23: Found it.

http://gothamist.com/2013/08/11/nsfw_photos_topless_woman_atop_empi. ph p#photo-1

yeah, NSFW, but the final line in the story is right.


ENHANCE!
 
2014-01-14 11:44:26 AM  

ecl: She has broad shoulders.  Do not want.


What do you expect on a chick, manly shoulders?
 
2014-01-14 11:47:50 AM  

Banned on the Run: Wonderful breasts?

[i216.photobucket.com image 500x500]


I'm not sure what you are getting at, could you please post more examples so I could better ascertain your train of thought.
 
2014-01-14 11:51:25 AM  

grokca: Banned on the Run: Wonderful breasts?

[i216.photobucket.com image 500x500]

I'm not sure what you are getting at, could you please post more examples so I could better ascertain your train of thought.


No shiat, some people just don't express there point clearly.
 
2014-01-14 12:03:30 PM  

mekkab: actually, there's an entire art-underground where they not only take arty-shots with cellphones, but do all the editing on-phone. http://plus.google.com/+MichelleRobinson_michmutters/posts


Oh, I'm sure THIS guy was a tool, but now you know.


That's kinda goofy.  Just get a real damn camera.
 
2014-01-14 12:55:45 PM  

grokca: Banned on the Run: Wonderful breasts?

[i216.photobucket.com image 500x500]

I'm not sure what you are getting at, could you please post more examples so I could better ascertain your train of thought.


i216.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-14 12:56:53 PM  
i216.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-14 12:58:13 PM  
i216.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-14 12:58:51 PM  
i216.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-14 01:00:32 PM  
i216.photobucket.com

/lucky you -- I have some time to kill
 
2014-01-14 01:01:13 PM  
i216.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-14 01:02:02 PM  
i216.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-14 01:02:38 PM  
i216.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-14 01:05:06 PM  
i216.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-14 01:06:52 PM  
i216.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-14 01:09:22 PM  
Another bullshiat lawsuit.


i.imgur.com
 
2014-01-14 01:20:39 PM  

here to help: Tatterdemalian: here to help: Lady Indica: That's like the Dane Cook level of slut shaming.

Uh... no. If the chicks are fine with that then by all means go for it. I'm shaming the scumbags who prey on young women trying to break into modeling.

I'm on your side... despite my spicy, Farktacular language.

And Dane Cook? F*CK YOU!

Naw, it's pretty accurate. You kind of gave it away by pretending that these "dumb hot chicks" would never be taken advantage of by a female photographer, apparently because women can never be scumbags.

/would have been 2/10, but poutrage gives the appearance of weakness, so 0/10

Yes, well we all know what a hard edged feminist and all around compassionate human being you are so I'll totes defer to your judgment on this.

I don't care what anyone says. Young people tend to be dumb and easily manipulated. Young women are young people. Young people trying to "make it in the big city" are particularly vulnerable and there are far more people looking to take advantage of that. Young women trying to "make it big in the city" have a specific commodity that is attractive to scumbags. This guy reeks of scumbag and the incident reeks even more of "publicity stunt".

Have you ever lived in the city? Have you ever been part of any entertainment industry or "art" communities? I have and I've seen these scoundrels at work. There are people who can play these bastards just as hard if not more so and that's great. Some people get completely destroyed by them and sh*t out the other end.

This "professional photographer" took his pic from a CELLPHONE ffs and the only other work of his mentioned are other nudes. If all your pictures are of young attractive NAKED women chances are you're not an artist... you're just a creep.


Well, I guess we now know what happened to YOU early on in the big city.
 
2014-01-14 01:53:51 PM  
GMG boobies hide the kids.
 
2014-01-14 02:13:05 PM  

Disgruntled Goat: Well, I guess we now know what happened to YOU early on in the big city.


I'm a dude and my cornhole remains virginal and pure... despite the best efforts of those who would have preferred otherwise.
 
2014-01-14 02:16:02 PM  

Wyalt Derp: Management of the Empire State Building charged in the suit the pictures [...] damaged the landmark's "reputation as a safe and secure family friendly tourist attraction."

Why are bare breasts unsafe? Are her nipples big enough to poke a child's eyes out or something?


No, but I heard she can dial a rotary phone with them.
 
2014-01-14 02:39:59 PM  

here to help: This "professional photographer" took his pic from a CELLPHONE ffs and the only other work of his mentioned are other nudes. If all your pictures are of young attractive NAKED women chances are you're not an artist... you're just a creep.


If you're terribly terribly concerned about this... you're probably just a prude.
 
2014-01-14 02:53:24 PM  
"I am a professional photographer, but that doesn't mean that every time I touch a device with a camera on it I must be conducting a photo shoot," he said.

So you're just a sex-offender then?

And I don't believe you're a professional photog. Clearly looking at those pictures you're not, they're horrible. Obviously you just tell naive women that to get them naked.

Nice boobs though.
 
2014-01-14 03:06:09 PM  

jtown: d23: Found it.

http://gothamist.com/2013/08/11/nsfw_photos_topless_woman_atop_empi. ph p#photo-1

yeah, NSFW, but the final line in the story is right.

(Reporting by Marina Lopes and Daniel Wiessner)

Indeed.


Indeed, indeed.
 
2014-01-14 03:15:06 PM  
 
2014-01-14 03:17:26 PM  
I Could Use Some Cheering Up As Well :-)

/Bie
/Eip
 
2014-01-14 03:17:51 PM  
I think I see what Banned on the Run did up there, but I'm not going to be spoiling the lols. If it wasn't intentional and I'm right, it's funnier.
 
2014-01-14 03:22:17 PM  

unchellmatt: MycroftHolmes: So, are you saying that children should be subject to sexuality at an early age? Not sure I agree with that.

I do agree that non-sexualized nudity (think National Geographic) is no big deal, but that was clearly not the case. In this case, the photographer chose a very shapely model, put her in a somewhat provocative pose, specifically for the social experiment of eliciting a response. This behavior is, by definition, offensive. Is the Empire State building stretching a point to try and punish him? Yes. But his actions should not considered normal, socially acceptable behavior.

Nudity per se is not offensive. But there is more to this incident than simple nudity.

Define 'sexualized nudity'?

A lot of people pick up National Geographic and fap like there's no tomorrow (and have done for ages). Hell, I'm sure there's people who have seen the Venus de Milo and rubbed off a few.

If the woman in those photos and been stroking her nipples or rubbing her breasts together in a "come hither" sort of fashion, sure I would agree she was sexualizing her nudity. She wasn't though, she was just standing in the rain and sure, striking a few poses. What one person considers "sexual" another may consider, well, a sheep (possibly NSFW). But simply because a woman is topless doesn't mean it's sexual. We've been taught it is, sure. But walk down any beach in much of Europe and South America. People / women go topless and hardly anyone gives a toss. Oh, sure, when they get HOME I bet more than a few guys do (snerk), but you can sexualize anything or any one.


I am at work, so I only glanced at one photo that was linked.  In that one, the pose was clearly meant to be provocative (head thrown back, back slightly arched).  Not pornographic or explicit, but it is very disingenuous to claim that her pose was gender neutral or asexual.

No, breasts do not equal sex, but the pose I saw was definitely sexualized in nature.
 
2014-01-14 03:25:09 PM  

Badgerlad: I think I see what Banned on the Run did up there, but I'm not going to be spoiling the lols. If it wasn't intentional and I'm right, it's funnier.


Nothing was intentional.  What did I do?
 
2014-01-14 03:25:48 PM  
The best breasts are those on any living woman!

/Yes, i will gander and appreciate any that I may have the chance to see.  :)
 
2014-01-14 03:35:20 PM  

knobmaker: here to help: This "professional photographer" took his pic from a CELLPHONE ffs and the only other work of his mentioned are other nudes. If all your pictures are of young attractive NAKED women chances are you're not an artist... you're just a creep.

If you're terribly terribly concerned about this... you're probably just a prude.


No. I just know how to see a real live naked female without lying to and/or manipulating them. Sometimes they even touch my penis... for FREE!
 
2014-01-14 03:37:50 PM  

Banned on the Run: Badgerlad: I think I see what Banned on the Run did up there, but I'm not going to be spoiling the lols. If it wasn't intentional and I'm right, it's funnier.

Nothing was intentional.  What did I do?


If I remember my infamous 4chan traps correctly, one of those chicks is hung like a horse.
 
2014-01-14 03:38:02 PM  
"We were doing a social experiment,"  - yeah, THAT'S the ticket.  Old-and-busted, bewbies for Art's Sake, the new hotness is to bare your bewbs as a Social Experiment! {Capitalized from extra emphatic impact!}
Banned on the Run - I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.  I'll be in my cabin.
 
2014-01-14 03:40:50 PM  

Badgerlad: Banned on the Run: Badgerlad: I think I see what Banned on the Run did up there, but I'm not going to be spoiling the lols. If it wasn't intentional and I'm right, it's funnier.

Nothing was intentional.  What did I do?

If I remember my infamous 4chan traps correctly, one of those chicks is hung like a horse.


Really?  The only 2 it could be look incredibly natural.
 
2014-01-14 03:48:59 PM  
Anyone mention BIE?

/EIP
 
2014-01-14 03:59:00 PM  

Banned on the Run: Badgerlad: Banned on the Run: Badgerlad: I think I see what Banned on the Run did up there, but I'm not going to be spoiling the lols. If it wasn't intentional and I'm right, it's funnier.

Nothing was intentional.  What did I do?

If I remember my infamous 4chan traps correctly, one of those chicks is hung like a horse.

Really?  The only 2 it could be look incredibly natural.


Ok, some very confusing GIS and liberal use of the TinEye plugin for chrome has confirmed my theory. Who's your suspect?
 
2014-01-14 04:09:11 PM  
Oh, and seems there are very small horses...

Anyway, back to the non-penised bewbies!
 
Al!
2014-01-14 04:09:45 PM  
BIE?  I'm always up for that.  EIP
 
2014-01-14 04:24:49 PM  

FormlessOne: The rest of the story appears right, too. This asshole clearly took that picture for direct (or indirect) commercial gain. Here's to hoping the owners of the ESB win the lawsuit.


OK, Counselor, what's the theory of your case?  What harm has the ESB suffered that can be remedied by monetary damages?  How is that harm so substantial as to merit the award sought?

Good luck with that.
 
2014-01-14 04:39:15 PM  

Deucednuisance: FormlessOne: The rest of the story appears right, too. This asshole clearly took that picture for direct (or indirect) commercial gain. Here's to hoping the owners of the ESB win the lawsuit.

OK, Counselor, what's the theory of your case?  What harm has the ESB suffered that can be remedied by monetary damages?  How is that harm so substantial as to merit the award sought?

Good luck with that.


It's a deterrent. They make money off tourists and Americans are afraid of boobies. They don't want the puritans to think there is going to be a live sex show when they show up with their kids.

Ain't saying it's right or wrong but there are mutliple layers of societal f*ckedupedness in play here. Remember this is Disneyfied NYC we are talking about.

Really if the guy had not spilled the pics into the public and/or the outraged mommy brigade hadn't cause an uproar they likely would not have cared. If they had done nothing their bread and butter might avoid going there because they are... well... afraid of bewbs.

I still say the guy is a self interested sleaze so whatever. F*ck him.
 
2014-01-14 04:50:09 PM  

here to help: It's a deterrent. They make money off tourists and Americans are afraid of boobies. They don't want the puritans to think there is going to be a live sex show when they show up with their kids.

Ain't saying it's right or wrong but there are mutliple layers of societal f*ckedupedness in play here. Remember this is Disneyfied NYC we are talking about.

Really if the guy had not spilled the pics into the public and/or the outraged mommy brigade hadn't cause an uproar they likely would not have cared. If they had done nothing their bread and butter might avoid going there because they are... well... afraid of bewbs.

I still say the guy is a self interested sleaze so whatever. F*ck him.


So....

Motion to Dismiss Granted, for Failure to State a Claim for Which Relief Can Be Granted, then?

If I were the photog's counsel I'd advise a counter-suit for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress for being saddled with this nuisance suit.  Don't be surprised when it happens.
 
2014-01-14 05:00:38 PM  
img.fark.net

img.fark.net

Just because.
 
2014-01-14 05:51:30 PM  

d23: Found it.

http://gothamist.com/2013/08/11/nsfw_photos_topless_woman_atop_empi. ph p#photo-1

yeah, NSFW, but the final line in the story is right.


Meh, I've seen bigger.  In fact there used to be two giant ones just down the street.  I do love me some architecture porn though!


I think the building management is going to have some problems on this.  They allow photographs, and the woman is allowed to be topless.  On the other hand, they do seem to have a policy on commercial photographing:  http://www.esbnyc.com/licensing.asp and controlling their image and technically the photos were taken on commercial property.  If he didn't profit from the photos, I think their case is finished, but if he did, it may be more interesting.  The boobs are a sideshow.  (I'm talking about the management, but I guess it could apply to the legal argument too.)
 
2014-01-14 07:03:23 PM  

Badgerlad: Banned on the Run: Badgerlad: Banned on the Run: Badgerlad: I think I see what Banned on the Run did up there, but I'm not going to be spoiling the lols. If it wasn't intentional and I'm right, it's funnier.

Nothing was intentional.  What did I do?

If I remember my infamous 4chan traps correctly, one of those chicks is hung like a horse.

Really?  The only 2 it could be look incredibly natural.

Ok, some very confusing GIS and liberal use of the TinEye plugin for chrome has confirmed my theory. Who's your suspect?


The second one is Laetitia Casta, and it can't be the Met Art girl or the one in the bikini (you can see cameltoe)
 
2014-01-14 07:23:32 PM  
Having read TFA... it seems that the point is not the boobs, but the building. You're apparently not supposed to be doing a commercial photoshoot on top of the Empire State Building. They wouldn't have noticed, or cared, except that the boobs meant that everybody + dog saw the picture.

He's claiming that he was just snapping a pic on his cell phone camera, so even though he's a professional photographer, this picture wasn't taken in a professional capacity.

No idea what the law is, but "one meeelyun dollars" can't possibly be what they're legally allowed to fine him for breaking their "no commercial photoshoot" EULA when he got into the elevator.
 
2014-01-14 07:51:08 PM  
Done in one.  Hours go by.  And then Banned on the Run saves the day.

/here's to those who go above and beyond putting forth the minimum effort required.  Those who aren't afraid to give it their all, their best.  Those who selflessly serve others.
//here's to you Banned on the Run, and a few other Farkers.  We salute you!
 
2014-01-14 08:06:49 PM  

Banned on the Run: Badgerlad: Banned on the Run: Badgerlad: Banned on the Run: Badgerlad: I think I see what Banned on the Run did up there, but I'm not going to be spoiling the lols. If it wasn't intentional and I'm right, it's funnier.

Nothing was intentional.  What did I do?

If I remember my infamous 4chan traps correctly, one of those chicks is hung like a horse.

Really?  The only 2 it could be look incredibly natural.

Ok, some very confusing GIS and liberal use of the TinEye plugin for chrome has confirmed my theory. Who's your suspect?

The second one is Laetitia Casta, and it can't be the Met Art girl or the one in the bikini (you can see cameltoe)


Redhead in the pool. Sarina Valentina.
 
2014-01-14 09:30:31 PM  
Badgerlad: Banned on the Run: Badgerlad: Banned on the Run: Badgerlad: Banned on the Run: Badgerlad: I think I see what Banned on the Run did up there, but I'm not going to be spoiling the lols. If it wasn't intentional and I'm right, it's funnier.

Nothing was intentional.  What did I do?

If I remember my infamous 4chan traps correctly, one of those chicks is hung like a horse.

Really?  The only 2 it could be look incredibly natural.

Ok, some very confusing GIS and liberal use of the TinEye plugin for chrome has confirmed my theory. Who's your suspect?

The second one is Laetitia Casta, and it can't be the Met Art girl or the one in the bikini (you can see cameltoe)

Redhead in the pool. Sarina Valentina.


Oh.  Thought you were talking about one of the NSFW images.

That's impressive.  Most dudes with boobs have extraordinarily fake looking ones.  Must've used a skin expander first.

They're still great tits.
 
2014-01-14 09:36:15 PM  
For the color version of one of the pics from The Gothamist, follow their link to her Twitter account,
THAT'S how you know it was "art" (or social experiment or whatever) these are in B&W,  Ahhhhh.
 
2014-01-15 02:16:11 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: WhyteRaven74: kertus: Would be legal in Canada

being topless is legal in New York

That just means they can't stick you in jail for it.


So what does the jackass have to sue over? Space open to the public, no stated rule that tops must be worn at all times, etc. What? 'Cos he feels bad now? Aww......
 
2014-01-15 08:59:31 AM  

HoratioGates: d23: Found it.

http://gothamist.com/2013/08/11/nsfw_photos_topless_woman_atop_empi. ph p#photo-1

yeah, NSFW, but the final line in the story is right.

Meh, I've seen bigger.  In fact there used to be two giant ones just down the street.  I do love me some architecture porn though!


I think the building management is going to have some problems on this.  They allow photographs, and the woman is allowed to be topless.  On the other hand, they do seem to have a policy on commercial photographing:  http://www.esbnyc.com/licensing.asp and controlling their image and technically the photos were taken on commercial property.  If he didn't profit from the photos, I think their case is finished, but if he did, it may be more interesting.  The boobs are a sideshow.  (I'm talking about the management, but I guess it could apply to the legal argument too.)


I think it is very clear that even if he did not generate revenue directly from the photos, the national publicity he is getting is clearly a desirable commodity.  His twitter feed, which describes his profession as well, is lit up with references from this event.  There is zero question that he is profiting from this.
 
2014-01-15 04:29:54 PM  

tennyson: Having read TFA... it seems that the point is not the boobs, but the building. You're apparently not supposed to be doing a commercial photoshoot on top of the Empire State Building. They wouldn't have noticed, or cared, except that the boobs meant that everybody + dog saw the picture.

He's claiming that he was just snapping a pic on his cell phone camera, so even though he's a professional photographer, this picture wasn't taken in a professional capacity.

No idea what the law is, but "one meeelyun dollars" can't possibly be what they're legally allowed to fine him for breaking their "no commercial photoshoot" EULA when he got into the elevator.


Egads, man... the point is always teh b00bz. What the hell were you thinking?!?
 
ecl
2014-01-15 09:18:41 PM  
He may be forced to admit he just talks chicks into taking photos for his own sexual thrill.
 
Displayed 160 of 160 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report