There's limited access. Access is free, or at least it used to be. I
don't think that advertising is in their best interest. Huge crowds
would require crowd control.
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
--
A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the crazy,
crazier.
- H.L.Mencken
--
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.
