News   Nov 04, 2024
UrbanToronto Launches New Map Experience – Explore New Features Today!
 383     4 
News   Nov 04, 2024
13 Storeys Proposed on The Queensway East of Kipling
 536     0 
News   Nov 04, 2024
News Roundup for November 4, 2024
 482     0 

Ethics and Legality of Publishing Rooftopping Pics

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.
 
Last edited:
wopchop said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
gei said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
wopchop said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
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.
 
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.
 
Well, if someone were to fall from up top, maybe Mr. Trump's hair will be there to break his fall
 
Xray_Crystal_Junkie said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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).
 
khristopher said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Northern Magus said:
IMO publishing these kinds of photos could very well be indirectly encouraging the commission of an offence.
Click to expand...

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;

Although the administrators and moderators of Urban Toronto will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this site, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of Urban Toronto, nor vBulletin Solutions, Inc. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message.

By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.
Click to expand...

Encouraging the commission of an offence right? :rolleyes:
Its plainly clear to see that the user bares the entire responsibility for the content of their postings.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top