Everyone had fun reading yesterday about the cease & desist letter sent (via email) (with lots of misspellings) to DCFoodie on behalf of the chef of Buck's Fishing & Camping, a neighborhood restaurant in Washington, D.C. He's now taken down the post, and the poorly-spelled letter, because (he states) he wants to move on. He encourages you to try the restaurant, without camera phone, if you like. But as you all should know, if you want to get the real scoop on what went down, go to the spouse.

I just happen to read Amalah 'cause she just had a baby, and he's cute. Evidently, Noah was along for the event, sleeping soundly in his car seat, while his parents had their very uncomfortable dessert. It's an entertaining read, and truly amazes me. With all the photos I've snapped of my food, with and without a respectable-looking camera, I've never once had anyone request that I not take them. And in most cases, the staff looks at me with the connotations ofwhat a geek, and pays me no mind.

What happened was basically this: two people had dinner, snapping a few photos of it with their camera phone. Mostly it was amazing (the fish especially, "and pretty"), a little wasn't. There were no signs anywhere, or notes on the menu, prohibiting photography. During dessert, the chef came out and confronted the diners. Says Amalah: "She asked us why we were taking pictures, did we ask if we could take pictures, and did we know that we couldn't use the pictures without her permission, because she didn't want them ending up on (eyeroll) the Internet. We thought she was kidding around, even though her tone was kind of...well, prickly."

The co-owner tried to smooth things over, and gave them some dessert wine free of charge.

The next morning, after DCFoodie had written his review, he received the aforementioned cease and desist letter, asking that he not publish his photos. Amalah has a nice review of the legalities involved - as she says, once you take the photos (if you're allowed to do so), the photos are yours to keep and do with as you will.

The chef, who stirred up all the fuss, came off seeming like a "prickly" kook and the poor owner came off looking... well, misguided. It's nice to have a really great chef but this one seems a little more high-maintenance than it's even worth. Blog readers from all over the country are vowing never to eat at the restaurant.

I wouldn't care to eat there now that I've heard the story, mostly because I like the ability to take photos of my food, and would feel hugely awkward were I approached about it. But there's the theory that there's no such thing as bad publicity. What do you think: will this be positive or negative for the restaurant? Would you eat there, now, given the opportunity?

[oh yeah: photo Sarah Gilbert, far, far from Washington D.C.]