Ethics and Legality of Publishing Rooftopping Pics

[drum118]

My only comment on people going up onto roofs of buildings under construction, I hope you have a good lawyer and bail money as a well a good insurance policy for your love one.

When you work on these roofs in the first place, you are doing under safety condition and supervision. Even when you have permission to shot, safety comes into effect.

I would love to be on top of a number of buildings considering I have all the safety gear in the first place, but don't have the contacts like others do.

 

[Northern Magus]

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

As a generalization, a publisher could very well be held liable for the content an author writes, even if the author is unpaid.

Whether or not a disclaimer would suffice to shield UT from liability would be but one part of an intriguing and possibly lengthy advice from Counsel. I suspect a disclaimer would be in no way determinitive of potential liability per se. In the abstract, and dealing with open ended hypotheticals as we are here, I highly doubt that a black and white yes/no decision could be reached re merits by anyone. The merits would probably be highly sensitive to the unique facts of a specific case.

My gut feeling is that if a particular set of real-life circumstances were combined with a particularly bright litigator, the dog could hunt.

In any event, knowing what we now know, I think it a very bad idea to continue to allow roof-toppers' photos to be published here. Sooner or later one of them will either fall or cause significant harm or damage. And then those hypotheticals could very well start being real.

 

[khris]

Let's say UT allowed a member to post child porn images. That would be illegal, and UT would be in trouble too.
Child porn and rooftopping are both illegal. Of course unless you have permission to be on the roof.

 

[khris]

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.

Have you seen the posts in the news section where photos by him were posted? They definitely encourage more of the same. Those aren't posts by a member, but by the staff themselves.

As for those rules? Well, there has been many bit torrent sites taken down, even though no files are hosted on the website themselves.

 

[Northern Magus]

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.

Thanks, smart guy. You clearly know little about exclusion clauses, huh genius?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

khristopher:

I believe there are specific subsections of the Criminal Code that deals with the hosting/displaying of materials pertaining to child pornography online. Don't believe there are the same for photos taken while trespassing. Really, the former is in a whole different category of illegality - to even suggest that the two issues are comparable is beyond belief.

Quite frankly, it's probably easier for us to get into trouble for hotlinking to copyrighted images and reposting articles.

AoD

 

[Northern Magus]

Oh and as for Ramako's point about being youtube being sued -- have you ever heard of cease and desist letters?

I've no doubt youtube gets them every day, just as I've no doubt they get sued regularly.

Btw, do you really think megaupload didn't have some kind of disclaimer? Worked pretty well for them, huh?

 

[Northern Magus]

khristopher:

I believe there are specific subsections of the Criminal Code that deals with the hosting/display of materials pertaining to child pornography online. Don't believe there are the same for photos taken while trespassing.

AoD

Agreed. But publishing roof-toppers' photos opens up legitimate moral and ethical questions, as well as potential legal ones.

Given the degree of harm that rooftopping can cause others, I think it's clearly distinguishable from most other kinds of trespassing.

 

[Wwwest]

I've been reading here for a few months, I had to register to say something.

Let's say UT allowed a member to post child porn images. That would be illegal, and UT would be in trouble too.
Child porn and rooftopping are both illegal. Of course unless you have permission to be on the roof.

<deleted>

 

[Thanos]

Let's say UT allowed a member to post child porn images. That would be illegal, and UT would be in trouble too.
Child porn and rooftopping are both illegal. Of course unless you have permission to be on the roof.

Are you seriously comparing child pornography to rooftopping? Please show me where in the law code does it state that rooftopping is illegal.

Btw, do you really think megaupload didn't have some kind of disclaimer? Worked pretty well for them, huh?

Megaupload was the main target of governments around the world and large corporations.

Some people are beyond silly. Loosen up and remove whatever you have stuck up your you know what.

I actually spoke to a couple of lawyers regarding this just for shits and giggles and they both laughed at the thought.
I'm sure the Star, Telegraph and NY Daily News that pictured several of the photographs would not be held liable.

 

[khris]

khristopher:

I believe there are specific subsections of the Criminal Code that deals with the hosting/displaying of materials pertaining to child pornography online. Don't believe there are the same for photos taken while trespassing. Really, the former is in a whole different category of illegality - to even suggest that the two issues are comparable is beyond belief.

Quite frankly, it's probably easier for us to get into trouble for hotlinking to copyrighted images and reposting articles.

AoD

Obviously they are two different things. They are both illegal though. Which is exactly what I stated being the only thing they have in common. I was trying to think of something involving images being posted on websites, that are both illegal, that could involve trouble for not only the publisher, and the host, but also the site the images are posted to. Obviously if there was an issue with them being on the site, the police would most likely ask for the images to be removed from the site.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

You don't get it Khristopher - there are specific legislation against posting the forementioned. The act of trespassing is illegal - not so sure about the photos taken, much less the hosting of such. And besides, UT hotlink those photos, we don't store them.

AoD

 

[wopchop]

Are you seriously comparing child pornography to rooftopping? Please show me where in the law code does it state that rooftopping is illegal.
.

In the case of a construction site (and likely for any other occupied building where the roof is not open to public access), it is considered trespassing, and is indeed illegal.

 

[alklay]

There is nothing "illegal" in posting pics of "illegal" acts like trespassing.

 

[wopchop]

There is nothing "illegal" in posting pics of "illegal" acts like trespassing.

I'm speaking about the actual act of rooftopping.

You'd certainly be hard pressed to actually prosecute a newspaper or website for printing or posting photos taken by rooftoppers.