On 1/15/2014 12:17 PM, D. Glenn Arthur Jr. wrote:
Bill <anotherdrunken...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 15/01/2014 8:45 AM, Yolanda Rowe wrote:
Talk about an over-reach! Sure, the pair (pardon the pun) showed
poor judgement. Issuing one indecent exposure ticket and banning
the subject and her cellphone shooter from the site would have
been sufficient.
They don't have a hope anyway. It's a frivolous lawsuit. It is
perfectly legal for a woman to be topless in New York City, and the
observation deck of the Empire State Building is a well known
destination for people wanting to take pictures. The pictures were
taken for non commercial purposes, just like any number of pictures
taken on the deck of people in front of the skyline.
The management of the building are idiots.
It occurs to me that they might _not_ be idiots. This may be an
attempt (so a successful) to _deliberately_ invoke the Streisand
effect. However popular it remains as a sightseeing spot, how often
do we hear the Empire State Building talked about these days? If
they push this just enough to get everybody thinking about the ESB
but drop it before people work up enough Serious Indignation to harm
them, they get free publicity and without having to _look_ like
they're trying for it, or to look like they condone (legal)
shirtlessness there).
This may well be why the photographer has only heard through the
media and not directly from the buldng owner's lawyers yet. They
might not even get around to sending that letter.
-- Glenn
It's called "abuse of process". The photographer can counter-sue, and
likely would have a better case.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
