Nude Model Kathleen Neill Gets Off After Getting Naked in Met for Photog Zach Hyman

By: Edecio Martinez
Topics: Daily Blotter

(ClintSpaulding.com)

(Facebook Photo)

(ClintSpaulding.com)

(Zach Hyman/CBS)

Photo: Zach Hyman snapping model Kathleen Neill at The Met.

NEW YORK (CBS/AP) Nude, yes. Lewd, no.

A New York judge dismissed public lewdness and other charges Monday against 26-year-old model Kathleen Neill who posed for a nude photo shoot at the Metropolitan Museum of Art while visitors looked on.

Neill, also known as "K.C.," was arrested in August during photographer Zach Hyman's shoot in the arms and armor department in the Met.

Photo: Zach Hyman.

"Well, how else could I feel aside from ecstatic!," the 22-year-old photographer said to CBS News Crimesider when asked about the dropped charges. "I'm wondering how much artists might be able to use this case to their advantage in the future."

It was the first time one of Hyman's models has been arrested, though the young artist has been snapping nudes in public spaces for the last several months. An earlier photograph of a model disrobing in a subway car received media attention.

Photo: Zach Hyman snapping model Kathleen Neill at The Met.

For the Aug. 26 museum shoot, Hyman assembled a team of six to help make sure guards were not watching. Once the guards left the gallery, Hyman directed Neill to disrobe in full view of visitors for a 15-second photo shoot.

But a female guard quickly returned and entered the gallery mid-shoot. Neill grabbed her clothes. The team dispersed. But Neill didn't make it out fast enough.

Photo: Art by Zach Hyman (modified by CBS News).

She was removed from the museum in handcuffs, the only one of the team that was arrested.

"It's ironic to get caught in an art museum, since that's what we're doing here," Hyman explained.

Defense lawyer Thomas J. Hillgardner says Neill did nothing indecent while posing in an institution full of depictions of nudes.

He says she was making art and he noted court rulings saying public nakedness isn't necessarily lewd.

"The charges were completely ludicrous in the first place," Hyman said in the interview with Crimesider. "To see that everything was dropped is just a testament to the fact that, in this instance, a nude portrait was legally a-ok."

Prosecutors say they aren't sure they could prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

Hyman, a 22-year-old acting-school dropout, has taken nude photos almost everywhere in the Big Apple, including Chinatown and the heavily patrolled Time Square, in which he strategically placed friends near oblivious officers. During another August shoot on a subway car, one woman screamed while an elderly man started to shake. But most passengers seemed unfazed, according to the artist.

The models are unpaid. Hyman says they pose because they believe in the art.

"I'm just glad K.C. isn't behind bars," Hyman said. "I'm sure this is a huge weight off of her shoulders."

MORE ON CRIMESIDER
August 27, 2009 - Decent Exposure? Nude Model Arrested at The Met
August 20, 2009 - Naked Subway: Art or Indecent Exposure?

26 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment

See all 26 Comments


by Brokennews November 30, 2009 10:19 AM EST: You just know that the people that are saying "It was fine, no biggie" would sing a far different tune if it was some fat slob of a person (Rosie O comes to mind) exposing an acre of nude flesh to the public.
But, because she's pretty she gets a pass. Ahhh, beauty sure does have it's privileges. Just ask any of the Lindsey Lohans & Paris Hiltons of the world.; Reply to this comment


by gman1951 November 29, 2009 7:29 AM EST: I don't know why you have to blure the images when the police already daid it was OK. If your trying to protect us viewers, "BING" the word nudes and see what comes up!; Reply to this comment


by AnnieDanny November 28, 2009 8:40 PM EST: Yeah, there's always those who want to push the limits. The limits have been stretched all out of proportion in my lifetime. Legally maybe people can pull it off, but I don't think these people are contributing much of anything to civilization or decent society. The photo of the gal in the subway: is that about the beauty and art of the human body, or is it about sex? Not that there's anything wrong with sex, but naked in the subway... I'm just not willing to be conned about all this.; Reply to this comment


by rwsmith29456 November 28, 2009 3:38 PM EST: I don't have problems with the human body but feel that in this case the photographer got the publicity he wanted. It would be better had he gotten his publicity through making great photographs.; Reply to this comment


by caeric November 28, 2009 10:00 AM EST: There is a difference between nudity and sex, and a difference between pornography and art. Many of you who don't understand that difference could never visit a number of places in Europe, like, for example, beaches and public parks in Germany where clothing is optional and the body is seen as something completely ~natural~. Nobody even bats an eye, because it's *normal*.

It's not sinful, it's not evil, and it's not wrong. Remember that many Germans are Christian; they just don't tend to be as priggish and judgmental as American Christians.

The artists and models have to have team members, devise time frames, etc. because of you prudes who have made the human body illegal, and who invite and foster a culture of shame.

It is that ingrained shame that causes Americans to have so many self-image and low self-esteem problems. No person, and no child, should ever fear or feel shame about simple nudity, especially around persons of their own gender. Yet, we have a culture of people who are scared of their own bodies, who hate the way they look because the only thing they know are the artificial bodies they see in ads and pornography, and who equate nudity with sex because that's the only time they see a naked body.; Reply to this comment


by Noval53 November 28, 2009 3:47 AM EST: What an excellent method to get more men interested in museums or using the mass transit system. Works for me. Every new museum, new mass transit system, or newly opened business can learn from this. Just be sure to get the nude permit squared away first; or clear out before the cops show up.; Reply to this comment

by idontbuyit November 28, 2009 2:47 AM EST

by NoWayJose9999 November 27, 2009 4:26 PM EST
"It's ironic how our culture-which glorifies violence considers the naked human body to be 'obscene'"

it's also hypocritical of those who claim such behavior is "okay" when in fact their own behavior speaks to the contrary: why do these pigs need a "team" to secure the area when photographing? why do these pigs devise a time-frame to carry out their perfectly acceptable conduct? why do these pigs RUN AWAY to evade the authorities to AVOID getting caught? why doesn't the model walk into these public places already disrobed? why do the models grab their clothes in a mad dash to cover their nakedness if it is true they believe what they are doing is perfectly natural and right? and why then would there be a law drawn-up and implemented in the first place publicly condemning such conduct if it is "harmless" to begin with??? hmm...if there's any new yorker out there who really buys this crock is art, i challenge you to test your belief by taking off with the models clothes mid-shot and see if she is okay with it. why, you would be helping her out...you know, contributing to the art and allowing the shots of her to be more "natural."

just goes to show you idiots and pervs are the majority and they breed at an alarming rate--no intelligence required. they don't even believe their own crock, why then would they respect the authority or rights of others? this is just yet another form of SWINE FLU in this country. to the intelligent few: you can pull a pig out of the mud, bathe it, put perfume on it and even dress it with a nice bow. it's still a pig. it will return to the mud. don't waste your time tossing pearls to pigs, folks. (a special encore to the creepy photographer who left his naked model "friend" behind to get arrested. nice touch, pig.)

Reply to this comment


by AOCGUY November 28, 2009 9:28 AM EST: idontbuyit - believing their actions are "OK" and understanding that they may also be illegal is not contradictory. Please tell me what harm comes from seeing someone nude. And if there is harm shouldn't that harm also come from seeing depictions of nudes that were on display throughout the gallery?


by gregorybrian November 28, 2009 5:07 PM EST: Wow! You're pretty angry about this and clearly in the minority according to the story; the people around the events didn't get all freaked out like you.

As for why they don't just walk around like that all the time: do you walk around on the streets in your swimming trunk or bikini after you finish swimming in a public pool? How about wearing a tank top and shorts in 20 degree weather? Clearly the intent was not to shock people but to get a nude photo in a public place, which is out of the ordinary photo.

I'd be willing to bet you'd be turned on if you were in the crowd that witnessed it. Maybe you're just jealous you didn't get the chance.


by BobbyFunnDude November 28, 2009 12:37 AM EST: Have you been to a museum before? I took my 7 and 9 year old and they were pretty good at pointing out the nudity. So live nudity is wrong? But its OK carved in stone or painted?; Reply to this comment


by Mikem400 November 27, 2009 11:40 PM EST: Judge got it right. Nothing wrong with a beautiful naked lady.; Reply to this comment


by ll2owt November 27, 2009 9:32 PM EST: "the human body is often seen, but never looked upon." tell that to your preacher and watch him ring them bells and take up a collection...; Reply to this comment