Links I Refuse to Click

"Topless Photographer Countersues Empire State Building for $5 Million." Oh, Lawd, what now?

Not gonna click. Don't wanna know. Whatever it is, do not tell me!  :-)

Mike

[UPDATE: Okay, here's the story. It's a guy whose schtick is photographing a topless woman or women in public at various locations in New York City. He did so on the observation deck of the Empire State Building and got sued by the building management, which claimed the photographer "intentionally violated rules of the Observatory, [and] intentionally engaged in unauthorized, objectionable, and inappropriate conduct in full view of ESB's customers, tenants, visitors, including families with children, and employees, and caused ESB to suffer economic losses and damage to its reputation." He's countersuing, claiming that people attempting to jump to their deaths from the observation deck already cause more damage to the building's reputation than he could.

So it's not as bad as I thought, and it's a real story, such as it is. You've got to admit that that headline looks like a tabloid come-on, though, doesn't it? —Ed.]

Original contents copyright 2014 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Ben Rosengart: "I feel bad for any photographer so unfortunate as to be TOPless."

Mike replies: Isn't that funny—I didn't even get that double meaning when I posted this.

Comments

[Michael Ryan]

I refuse to click on any link for any story that promises to be; jaw dropping, mind blowing, or SHOCKING.

[toto]

It's really quite interesting. And of course, being topless (for males and females) is completely legal in NYC.

BTW, it's the model who was topless, not the photographer.

[MarkB]

So... a photographer who doesn't read your blog ("TOPless") is litigious? Somehow I'm not surprised. If said photog read this blog, they'd be much less prone to histrionics, methinks.

[Roger Moore]

You don't want to know how the photographer is lost now that the Empire State Building is blocking access to TOP?

[Roger]

A topless photographer would be someone who does not visit this site. Easy to figure out without following the link.

[Richard]

This post is just plain mean.

[olli]

You should have clicked. It's quite a funny story.

[Gene Spesard]

The kind of weather the east coast has been having I think the model should get the $5 million.

[Ed Devereaux]

They said he was a veteran, well there goes that better to ask forgiveness then permission mantra a lot of my former military veteran friends have.

[ctein]

Dear Mike,

A terribly amusing article, but it strikes me as a good object lesson in corporate PR, under the heading of “Don't do this!”

When you're in the business of making money off of public relations, as a major tourist site is, there are a couple of things you should learn early on. The first is don't get involved in controversy. The second is don't make enemies.

It is one thing to take measures (of which there are many) to ensure that unwanted activities don't occur on your private property. There are many sensible ways to do that. This is not one of them. Trying to make an example of someone when there is not actually a direct threat to the income stream, the safety of the facility, or the safety and well-being of people there is a really bad PR move.

pax \ Ctein
[ Please excuse any word-salad. MacSpeech in training! ]
======================================
-- Ctein's Online Gallery http://ctein.com 
-- Digital Restorations http://photo-repair.com 
======================================

[jim woodard]

we were just there, a week ago. there were no topless anyones! it was low 40's with a 20mph wind! there are no benches inside and security kept coming through and making people who were sitting on the floor get up!

[Bill Tyler]

+1 to Ctein's post. The only reason the vast majority of the public know about this incident is the news around the lawsuit. If the ESB PR folks were really concerned about reputation, this was exactly the wrong move.

[Dave Ralph]

NY's top court, the Court of Appeals, says that women going topless in public is constitutionally protected,as men can do the same. That was in a criminal prosecution. So, this lawsuit is based on what? Some kind of rules list posted on a wall or the back of a ticket? First, defining the conduct in an actionable way probably not found in the contract. Even if some sort of breach of contract occurred, one still has to prove damages? Free publicity for the EST and the photog? Everybody is a winner. My bet is no more is heard of this alleged lawsuit.