trixcalhoun
New Member
it appears tomms is getting his 15 minutes...
http://www.thestar.com/news/article...otographing-cities-from-atop-skyscrapers?bn=1
http://www.thestar.com/news/article...otographing-cities-from-atop-skyscrapers?bn=1
|
|
|
Ethics and Legality of Publishing Rooftopping Pics
- Thread starter trixcalhoun
- Start date
khris
Senior Member
And yet we celebrate his illegal choices here at UT. Only a matter of time before one of these ****** falls.
Last edited:
trixcalhoun
New Member
Renegades like tomms keep life interesting. Here's a guy who (literally) lives life on the edge.
wopchop
Building Toronto
He's also the reason why contractors need to spends thousands upon thousands of dollars on security every year, which further drives up the costs of development.
Twenty-four hour security at a site the size of Trump easily costs the contractor a cool $60K a month, and likely more.
The sad fact is, a guy like him could fall off the top of Trump, and his benefactors could potentially successfully sue the contractor / developer for damages.
Twenty-four hour security at a site the size of Trump easily costs the contractor a cool $60K a month, and likely more.
The sad fact is, a guy like him could fall off the top of Trump, and his benefactors could potentially successfully sue the contractor / developer for damages.
Last edited:
gei
Active Member
Why - is he damaging or stealing from the construction sites? I think not.
If he can indeed (illegally) break in, climb to the top, and then fall and sue the contractor/developer, that's a fundamental problem with our legal system IMO - not what he is doing.
wopchop
Building Toronto
It has nothing to do with him stealing or causing damage. One of the main reasons (beyond deterrence of theft) that we have security on construction sites is to keep unauthorized people out of them. It's a mandate from our insurance companies. All I'm saying is that people who do that kind of thing are partially responsible for a lot of added costs to construction projects.
Did you know that, at the time of the break-in, the scaffolding and stage on the onion dome had yet to be commissioned and fit for people to climb upon? At that time, anyone using them still had to be tied off to a separate lifeline system. Most of the people breaking into construction sites have no business being on them, as they have a fundamentally non-understanding of many of the dangers that exist on them.
I respect the photography, but I still think that it's irresponsible.
Northern Magus
Active Member
I think it's more than "irresponsible". Let's consider three hypothetical scenarios:
(1) Tomms climbs to the top of a crane and drops something, killing someone below. Tomms is charged with manslaughter, is convicted, and spends 2-3 years in prison.
(2) Urban Toronto is aware that photos posted by roof-toppers are more than likely the result of committing an offence. Urban Toronto keeps permitting these photos to be posted. Subsequently Urban Toronto finds itself legally liable for inciting or encouraging said offence.
(3) Tomms or another roof-topper climbs to the top of a crane and slips and falls, either killing someone below or causing (from that height) significant property damage. The victim's estate or insurer comes after the building and construction company, whose insurer(s) comes after Urban Toronto.
Originally I'd thought that Tomms was a professional window cleaner or construction worker. Given what I've now seen and read in this article, I think that anyone who roof-tops is a f------ idiot.
And personally, I'd be very keen to make sure all three of these hypotheticals remain just that -- hypothetical. IMO publishing these kinds of photos could very well be indirectly encouraging the commission of an offence.
Last edited:
Xray_Crystal_Junkie
Senior Member
I'm no lawyer but I think it'd be very difficult to implicate UrbanToronto in any legal action. I'm sure it says somewhere in their disclaimer that they are not responsible for the postings of members (really how could you expect them to be). As long as their not paying tomms to post his material on this site (or providing some other form of material assistance to take those shots) they're not directly involved in his actions. But like I said, I don't have a law degree. My good friend does though, I'll ask him lol
Edit: Sorry for contributing to this off topic exchange.
Edit: Sorry for contributing to this off topic exchange.
khris
Senior Member
Urban Toronto can definitely be in trouble for allowing the photos to be displayed on their site, even if they are not hosted on the site. This is what moderators are for. However, the admins of UT are okay with illegally obtained photography, as are many other sites apparently. Not only are they okay with it, but they encourage more of it.
Maybe tomms is harmlessly going up to these rooftops and cranes and taking photos, but not everyone may be so harmless. Maybe some actually are up to no good, and trying to cause mischief. I wouldn't want to buy in a building where people who weren't suppose to be on site during construction, were able to gain access.
Maybe tomms is harmlessly going up to these rooftops and cranes and taking photos, but not everyone may be so harmless. Maybe some actually are up to no good, and trying to cause mischief. I wouldn't want to buy in a building where people who weren't suppose to be on site during construction, were able to gain access.
adma
Superstar
Well, if someone were to fall from up top, maybe Mr. Trump's hair will be there to break his fall
whatever
Senior Member
Um... Actually? There's kind of a link at the top of this page to buy prints of his photos (Vertigo Included!)
I just don't get why he wouldn't spend the $50 on a harness. They really aren't that expensive, I mean, I've got like four of them sitting in a pile in my closet. And it's not like it's that onerous a task to tie off. Either carry a cooning cable or use a lanyard with a nice big rebar hook and it's not that difficult to find something to tie to.
Tuscani01
Senior Member
There is no way UrbanToronto would be held liable for that, unless there was proof that UrbanToronto commissioned the photos. It was a photo obtained from another website, which is posted on other websites. These photos have been featured in newspapers and on tv, as well as BlogTO. None of these outlets can be held responsible. Only the owner of the photo's can (if caught), and Trump Tower staff themselves (by their superiors).
egotrippin
Senior Member
Somehow I don't think you were in the Trump purchasing arena anyway though, so don't worry too much about it.
Boy, some of you people sure are dramatic.
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
Tomm's photos have not only appeared on UT but on various blogs, local and international newspapers. Would everyone be liable? Doubt it.
On another matter I'm positive I read way back in here somewhere that the Trump penthouse was sold. Tonight's news indicates the 3-storey penthouse is still available for "around" $22 million. I'm not sure which is true now.
On another matter I'm positive I read way back in here somewhere that the Trump penthouse was sold. Tonight's news indicates the 3-storey penthouse is still available for "around" $22 million. I'm not sure which is true now.
vegeta_skyline
Senior Member
Oh please, are you intentionally spreading BS or are you just plain ignorant? Because it seems you failed to read the disclaimer that you were required to sign regarding the "Forum Rules" when you registered. It reads as follows;
Encouraging the commission of an offence right?
Its plainly clear to see that the user bares the entire responsibility for the content of their postings.
Last edited: