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
    More: Amusing, Empire State Building, boobs  
•       •       •

20516 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Jan 2014 at 7:05 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



160 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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 I live with my mom
 
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 I live with my mom


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.
 
Displayed 50 of 160 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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