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  
•       •       •

20507 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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.)
 
Displayed 50 of 160 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and 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