Photographer is sued $1.22 million over topless photo on top of Empire State Building

When you have a private erection like the empire state building and someone puts a nude model on it, then I guess you do have the right to sue.

Seems like common sense to me, you know some things you just shouldn't do

icepics wrote: I don't think he was charged with a crime. I found a couple of other articles about this and apparently he discovered that there isn't a law specific to this; he wasn't just taking one impromptu photo - I saw more than one (see the Village Voice blog), and he apparently has done this same type thing elsewhere with the same model.

He seems to have been posting these photos a lot of places online which to me seems as if that could have been purposeful in being attempts to gain public attention; not sure whether that would show that he was doing this with an intent to promote and benefit his business or not.

I think the amount was based on him being a professional fashion photographer who does commercial work; even if he didn't license usage of these photos directly he seems to have used their private property to shoot photos that may have been used to help promote his business.

This is why it's beneficial for a photographer to get a property release signed. You can't assume you can use someone else's property to conduct your business or make money.

I already figured this was a publicity stunt, but hearing about his additional behavior does put this in a different light.  I still think the sum is outrageous for the crime, but he seems like he was intentionally taunting the owners of the building by spreading it out like that.

Well considering this man is a professional he knows that in the NYC area that to do such shoots you need a permit from the owners. He is just one of those attention whores who is choosing to make a name for himself as a rebel. Well he got the attention he wants, time to pay the piper. The owners of the ESB do not really care that he did the shot from there, they only got mad because he did not do so through channels, in which they get a fee for closing the observation deck to the public for such shots. And they do that type of thing regularly for movies, and fashion shoots, so for them it is a matter of lost income.

This is a joke right?  

Tim Dordeck wrote: This is a joke right?  

No as this guy is finding out.

I think you're probably right Dennis, if someone wants to use the property to shoot photos or a scene for a movie etc. they would need to get permission, pay to rent or use the property, etc.

It is a large amount for a lawsuit; we don't know how much they charge to close the observation tower for private use; we don't know the amount of this photographer's annual commercial income. And I'm not sure how much that comes into play - I don't know how an amount is determined for a lawsuit but I imagine it's a huge amount to discourage anyone else from trying this. I read that they needed to call in extra security because of this, if so, that cost them money as well. Depending on the outcome of the lawsuit, the judge may not have him pay the entire amount but a portion of it.

I suppose there isn't a law regarding this (so they can't have him charged so maybe that's why they initiated a lawsuit) because probably it never occurred to lawmakers that someone would decide to go up there, bring along a model, and take photos of her topless, when it was open to the public and kids and other people were using the observation deck.

I agree, it was not very professional behavior for a professional photographer.

I'm sorry but this is comedy, it's amazing what topics people are suing over these days.  15 years ago, this photographer would have just been warned about not doing this again.  People are so happy to sue one another today.  The infamous quick buck.

Joves wrote: Well considering this man is a professional he knows that in the NYC area that to do such shoots you need a permit from the owners. He is just one of those attention whores who is choosing to make a name for himself as a rebel. Well he got the attention he wants, time to pay the piper. The owners of the ESB do not really care that he did the shot from there, they only got mad because he did not do so through channels, in which they get a fee for closing the observation deck to the public for such shots. And they do that type of thing regularly for movies, and fashion shoots, so for them it is a matter of lost income.

You know, framed like that it makes a lot more sense.  I'm not saying I agree with it at all, but "fine" vs "lost income" and the number makes a bit more sense.  I still think it's silly and way too much money for the crime, but it's a much more logical way to see how they got to that extreme number.

Everything about this is crazy. The price he's being sued, the action itself, the reaction, and the quality of the photograph. All if it. Nuts. Just nuts.

StephanieW wrote:

Joves wrote: Well considering this man is a professional he knows that in the NYC area that to do such shoots you need a permit from the owners. He is just one of those attention whores who is choosing to make a name for himself as a rebel. Well he got the attention he wants, time to pay the piper. The owners of the ESB do not really care that he did the shot from there, they only got mad because he did not do so through channels, in which they get a fee for closing the observation deck to the public for such shots. And they do that type of thing regularly for movies, and fashion shoots, so for them it is a matter of lost income.

You know, framed like that it makes a lot more sense.  I'm not saying I agree with it at all, but "fine" vs "lost income" and the number makes a bit more sense.  I still think it's silly and way too much money for the crime, but it's a much more logical way to see how they got to that extreme number.

Well there are a couple of reasons for such an extreme amount as well. First you sue for twice as much as you want so you get a settlement for half of it. Second and this is the one they want to drive home to the people like the shooter, is that when you know better, and try to get away with something and do not, that is discourages this from others who think about doing it. If he ends up paying half of this, then others like him will think twice before they do it. The photographer who shot it knew what he was doing was wrong, but chose to proceed. Now he will be famous like he wanted, but having to pay out the nose for it.
Also think about it this guy makes his bones thumbing his nose at people. For the owners of the ESB if they had kept quiet about it then others would most likely decide it is okay to do the same. All this does is say that it is not acceptable use of their property.

Joves wrote:

StephanieW wrote:

Joves wrote: Well considering this man is a professional he knows that in the NYC area that to do such shoots you need a permit from the owners. He is just one of those attention whores who is choosing to make a name for himself as a rebel. Well he got the attention he wants, time to pay the piper. The owners of the ESB do not really care that he did the shot from there, they only got mad because he did not do so through channels, in which they get a fee for closing the observation deck to the public for such shots. And they do that type of thing regularly for movies, and fashion shoots, so for them it is a matter of lost income.

You know, framed like that it makes a lot more sense.  I'm not saying I agree with it at all, but "fine" vs "lost income" and the number makes a bit more sense.  I still think it's silly and way too much money for the crime, but it's a much more logical way to see how they got to that extreme number.

Well there are a couple of reasons for such an extreme amount as well. First you sue for twice as much as you want so you get a settlement for half of it. Second and this is the one they want to drive home to the people like the shooter, is that when you know better, and try to get away with something and do not, that is discourages this from others who think about doing it. If he ends up paying half of this, then others like him will think twice before they do it. The photographer who shot it knew what he was doing was wrong, but chose to proceed. Now he will be famous like he wanted, but having to pay out the nose for it.
Also think about it this guy makes his bones thumbing his nose at people. For the owners of the ESB if they had kept quiet about it then others would most likely decide it is okay to do the same. All this does is say that it is not acceptable use of their property.

I have never sued anyone so I  no idea how settlements work lol.  But that does make sense.