Vail: No role in suspension of worker who shot half-naked-skier photos
By Bill Scanlon, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published January 7, 2009 at 9:48 a.m.
Updated January 7, 2009 at 1:32 p.m.
Vail Resorts officials today said they put no pressure on one of their subcontractors, Sharpshooters, which on Tuesday suspended the man who took the widely distributed photos of a man dangling half-naked from a Vail Mountain chair lift.
Marty Odom told the Vail Daily News that he has been suspended until further notice from Sharpshooters, a company that takes pictures of skiers at numerous ski resorts.
"We all know what that means," Odom told the Vail Daily News. "I guess it embarrassed Vail Resorts, and they called (my) shop."
But Kelly Ladyga, director of corporate communications for Vail Resorts, said her company "absolutely did not" put pressure on Sharpshooters to suspend Odom in the wake of the incident.
Ladyga did acknowledge that "we have talked to them since learning he is a Sharpshooter employee, and they informed us he was suspended due to their company policy."
Odom said he'd been skiing on Jan. 1 and happened to run across the rescue attempt.
Odom's photos showed an unidentified man dangling from a lift on Vail Mountain's Skyline Express lift.
He apparently fell through the seat and was suspended by his ski. His pants had been pulled down in the mishap.
The photos showed up on the website thesmokinggun.com.
The incident happened about 10:30 a.m. on January 1, the man was suspended for seven minutes, then was rescued, said a statement from Vail Resorts. He suffered no injuries.
An official with Sharpshooters referred calls to the company's human resources department, which hasn't yet returned calls.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
January 7, 2009
10:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
ebyrner writes:
What a joke. The photographer should not have been suspended just because the skier is a gaper! Who gets stuck on a chairlift with thier pants down? Go back to Michigan! Candid camera moment.
January 7, 2009
10:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
temurlan writes:
"Who gets stuck on a chairlift with thier pants down?"
A man that sits and falls through a faulty chairlift.
January 7, 2009
10:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
NotUrFriend writes:
So it begins: Penalized for doing his duty and capturing unexpected moments on camera.
I expect a full apology and a payment for damages done to soon be issued to the 'injured, humiliated, and defeated' victom who had the sad misfortunate of giving the world a wake up laugh over coffee.
I.
January 7, 2009
10:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
I've seen these "Sharpshooters" as I get off the lifts at the top of the mountain. I wonder how the company would feel if I took a posterboard sign with me next time I go up and stand next to them with a protest sign....maybe we should all do our best to discourage patronage of their photographers.
Lighten up. Nobody would have even known that it was a "Sharpshooter" picture had they not suspended the guy.
What a horrible company.
January 7, 2009
10:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
creezee writes:
So when they suspended the photographer, did they suspend him upside down with his pants pulled down?
January 7, 2009
10:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Jim writes:
gaper
" A beginner skier or snowboarder who has no clue as to what they're doing on the mountain. They crash all over the place and get in your way. Refered to as a gaper because of the gap between their hat and goggles, also known as a gaper-gap."
Thanks Urban Dictionary.
Bring on the lawyers!
January 7, 2009
10:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
gary writes:
So now it is not "politically correct" to take pictures??
What a sorry country we are turning into!!
Nuff Said!
January 7, 2009
10:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
Everyone please stand up for this guy and shoot a quick email to the company.
humanresources@sharpshooterimaging.com
sales@sharpshooterimaging.com
customerservice@sharpshooterimaging.com
January 7, 2009
10:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
fifty writes:
I'd really like a full and honest account of what happened. Perhaps this guy will overcome his modesty and collect some big bucks appearing on Extra.
If the seat was up as reported, how come the little kid stayed and the big man fell through? Or did the man break the seat? And why didn't he end up in a breach position? How did his head get through such a skinny seat?
January 7, 2009
10:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
sweetater writes:
A photographer is suspended for thaking a photo? Take the suspension send it to America's Funniest and collect your paycheck there
January 7, 2009
10:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
primafacie writes:
Dude goes all the way to Vail to ski and forgets his belt?
January 7, 2009
10:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
buffsblg writes:
A private employer decided that the actions of its employee, which include taking pictures of someone in a compromising position and then posting them on the internet, did not meet the company standards. That is the right of every employer. I will not really cry for this guy. Paparazzi who make their living deliberately embarrassing people are pretty low. He has a legal right to take pictures and his bosses have a legal right to decide that someone with that level of morality should not represent their company.
January 7, 2009
10:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
trinidad writes:
Im sure the guy will be suing the photographer, the company he worked for and the Vail resort soon. He'll more than likely will get alot of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$(for his pain,suffering and humiliation) and in the end everything will be alright.
January 7, 2009
10:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
kevinjjones writes:
People have no respect for this poor fella's privacy. Why should his indignity be mined for laughs and profits in such a visually explicit manner? At least in spoken jokes and written accounts the man remains largely anonymous and the extent of his awkward situation remains obscure.
January 7, 2009
10:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
buffsblg:
And as a private citicen, I have the right to protest their company.
What was so wrong? The fact that he was "naked"?
Would they have done the same had the guy not lost his pants?
Such a trivial thing to to fire someone for, especially in an economy such as this. We are all lucky to even have a job.
January 7, 2009
10:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Who_Me writes:
I don't think it was because he took the pictures, but what he did with them after the fact. If he was working for the company at that time, the company owns the pictures. If he is using company property to take the pictures (on his own time or not), the company more than likely owns the pictures. Was it Sharpshooters who sold the pictures to smokinggun and elsewhere, or was it the employee who did that man a "service?" If the company felt the employee brought discredit upon the company, it is entirely within their right to do whatever it wants. What is so hard to understand about that?
How is this any different than, for example, your bikini-wearing daughter at the beach who has her top removed from a wave and some photographer happens to be filming the event, and then post your kid's topless visage on the Internet?
I can definitely see the humor in this situation because of its oddity, and if the man involved had no problem with the posting of the picture, then no problem. Did he have that choice? Doubt it. The photographer is lucky he doesn't get his a*ss kicked for selling the pictures. You wouldn't feel that way if it was your daughter on the Internet?
January 7, 2009
10:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
If this had been me, I would be able to laugh at it, hell, it would even be on my Facebook page for all to see. The whole country has heard about this. The guy's imfamous!
January 7, 2009
10:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
cheech24 writes:
Who_me is right. The photo is the property of Sharpshooters, not of the photographer. The photo, tasteless or funny, is not the issue. To whom it belongs is the problem, and I guarantee you the photographer did not have the right to use the photo in any way, shape, or form. Especially for financial gain or any other enrichment.
Now, that said, I think I would have snapped the photo too. It was a funny sight.
January 7, 2009
10:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
mojambo writes:
Taking the pictures is one thing.
Selling, or distributing to "news" outlets so they circle the globe inside of 24 hours is another. Somebody should, and will, be toast for doing that.
January 7, 2009
10:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
Taking c4l2a0's suggestion I just fired off the following email to Sharpshooterimaging:
"I thought that you might like to know that I've sent the link to the Rocky Mountain News site that states that you fired the photographer that shot the photo of the half naked skier to all of my skier pals. See,
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news...
ots-half-naked-skier/
Yes, yes, yes, I know that you have every right to fire him and your [CENSORED BY RMN] (lawyers) can back that up in court. BUT, us consumers have every right to NOT patronize your company.
Have a nice day,"
Scott
January 7, 2009
10:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
I think this guy may be grateful to this photographer. There was a report that the seat was not down which caused this guy to fall through the opening. Well look at the pictures real close. It looks to me like the seat is up. I'm sure he didn't have time to turn around and lift it. And why would he? So blame this guy all you want but the facts of what happened needs to come out.
January 7, 2009
10:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
To all of those posting about it being "company property":
Are you making these posts from your company's computer? If so, you are you are STEALING from your company!
(reference Dwight Schrute)
January 7, 2009
10:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
buffsblg writes:
My issue is that this skier did not choose to put himself out in public, whether or not he had some role in causing this. I still feel that taking pictures of someone in a difficult position and then posting them on the internet in an attempt to make money off them is pretty low. I would not fire him, but I will not criticize his employer for doing so. And if you choose to post pictures of yourself that is your choice but surprisingly, not everyone wants to be infamous. This skier did not get the choice, the photographer made it for him and that is offensive.
January 7, 2009
10:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
c4l2a0 sez:
"buffsblg:
And as a private citicen, I have the right to protest their company."
I think buffsblg is just trolling for some business. It wants to get the racket of defending Sharpshooterimages in court. Any position ... for a price ;-)
Scott
January 7, 2009
10:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
ebyrner writes:
Ski naked!
January 7, 2009
11:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
sunshinestate writes:
We loved the image!!
-Florida Chamber Of Commerce
January 7, 2009
11:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Who_Me writes:
What you laugh about privately versus publicly in this case should be your choice. Everyone loses the right to privacy in the public domain, up to a point, and then concepts like decency or respect for someone else's privacy come into play. Can't wait to laugh at your daughter's privates should they someday be posted on the Internet without her consent, c4l2a0.
January 7, 2009
11:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
Thanks Scott, who cares where the picture came from!
Sharpshooters should have kept their mouth shut and nobody would have even know it came from one of their photogs.
They were so afraid of negative press, but even negative press can work in a company's favor. I've seen these photogs at the resorts before and just ignored them. Now I know their company name. Too bad it's now a negative view of them. Not only will I not patronize their business, I will do my best to discourage others from using them.
January 7, 2009
11:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
buffsblg writes:
Not a single story posted that you cannot turn into a personal insult huh Scott? Still avoiding maturity I see.
As this is an employment at will state, a company can fire anyone for any reason (except those prohibited by anti-discrimination laws.) so I doubt any lawsuit from this employer will be forthcoming. anyway, I am more inclined to defend employees.
January 7, 2009
11:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
ridiculous writes:
I don't understand why this photographer would want to humiliate someone like this. I support Sharpshooters for suspending this guy. And I think it is despicable that he sold the photos, if he indeed did. This guy wasn't a celebrity and wasn't thriving off people taking his pictures and he wasn't making any money off this, so the photographer deserves to be fired.
January 7, 2009
11:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
sweetater writes:
Who-Me,
yeah since you put it like that I understand. I also understand about the teen-age daughter also. I would of also not found this so entertaining had they given the name of the skier or you could see his face.
Never stopped to think the pictures were the property of the company he worked for.
January 7, 2009
11:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
It's amazing how so many people are so easily offended....(or potentially offended)
January 7, 2009
11:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
buffsblg writes: "My issue is that this skier did not choose to put himself out in public, whether or not he had some role in causing this. I still feel that taking pictures of someone in a difficult position and then posting them on the internet in an attempt to make money off them is pretty low. I would not fire him, but I will not criticize his employer for doing so. And if you choose to post pictures of yourself that is your choice but surprisingly, not everyone wants to be infamous. This skier did not get the choice, the photographer made it for him and that is offensive."
Well said!
January 7, 2009
11:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Who_Me writes:
Here's an analogy: Everyone knows Columbia's crew died horrific deaths, and no doubt there are gazillions of autopsy photos and forensics reports detailing the likely cause of death (report listed five lethal events, the first or the second were sufficient to have killed everyone). Detailed timelines and clinical reconstruction of the events are available in the public domain, but what about pictures of the bodies? Not released because they are private, being, obviously, quite personal to the survivors.
What's the difference here? The photographer violated the skier's privacy. And so does the RMN by posting the link to TSG and contributing to the "humor" of the situation.
January 7, 2009
11:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
If you can't even laugh at yourself, you need to lighten up!
Taking pictures of a nude teenage girl is against the law as it is considered child pornography--so that arguement doesn't fly.
This guy is an ADULT in view of the public. Oh poor him!
I can't wait to hear his reaction.
January 7, 2009
11:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
hikingartist writes:
Fifty fifty says the dangler is from Texas.
January 7, 2009
11:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
Who me:
I can't believe you even make the comparioson to dead people. There is no comparison.
OH MY GOSH! An unknown naked man with his face not even visible! How humiliating.
People's embarrasement by the human body is laughable.
January 7, 2009
11:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Who_Me writes:
You are quibbling over a minor detail - your "kid" is 18 when the picture is taken. Do you lack the mental wherewithal to make that conclusion or imagine that scenario on your own - that we are not talking about child pornography?
January 7, 2009
11:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Who_Me writes:
I am comparing privacy issues, not living or dead, funny or unfunny. Jeez, how dense are you?
January 7, 2009
11:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
No, my kid would be 19?!?
When that hypothetical was posed, I imagined a young vulnerable teenager, under eighteen. (Hmm,,what does that infer?)
You can pose hypotheticals all you want. Let's stick to what ACTUALLY happened. (Would it be any different if it was my 80 yo grandma?)
January 7, 2009
11:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
STUCK_IN_DENVER writes:
Wow there are a lot of anal retentive repressed yuppy schmucks in here. You saw the pictures, you laughed, get over it.
January 7, 2009
11:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
temurlan writes:
If "Everyone loses the right to privacy in the public domain" then why do people that don't give their consent have their faces blotted out on TV?
January 7, 2009
11:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
vYRaL303 writes:
7 minutes in heaven
January 7, 2009
11:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
ebyrner writes:
Warren Miller needs to get a hold of this just ike the good ole' days. Chairlift bloopers.
January 7, 2009
11:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Who_Me writes:
Okay, what did happen? How old is the skier? Did the photographer know his age before selling the picture? Did he assume the man was over 18 because of his size?
January 7, 2009
11:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
bobby_b writes:
this is ridiculous. If a naked man dangling from a ski life isn't newsworthy i don't know what is!
January 7, 2009
11:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Independent123 writes:
Don't suspend the photographer. FIRE him.
Think about it. He works for a company whose client (probably their biggest) employs this company for a specific purpose. Is that purpose to take pictures that embarrass both the client (Vail) and its paying customers (upside down/no pants guy)? Not a chance.
This photographer must be an idiot to think he could take these pictures while “on the clock”, post them to TheSmokingGun and not deal with any repercussions.
January 7, 2009
11:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
psychoChicken writes:
temurlan wrote at 11:21 a.m., 'If "Everyone loses the right to privacy in the public domain" then why do people that don't give their consent have their faces blotted out on TV?'
I can't see his face in the picture. Who released the dude's name? That is more of an invasion of privacy than anything.
At least he has a nice image to send everybody on next year's Christmas card.
January 7, 2009
11:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
Who me:
I think somone knew he was 18 due to his "size"!!
And the length/depth/hairyness of his buttcrack..
January 7, 2009
11:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
stumanchu writes:
I have to admit that as I was eating McDonalds breakfast and reading my newly purchased edition of the rocky mt news, I had a quiet chuckle at the expense of this poor man . As a boy I payed $6.50 for a half day lift ticket. You would think that with todays high prices, everything would be in tip-top shape!
January 7, 2009
11:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
eagleeye writes:
Does Vail have faulty equiptment the ski lift should have been put out of order.The camaraman did that guy a favor SUE VAIL . The proof is this pic, This gentleman can make a whopping big bucks for this happining to him, Vail is responsible for all accident's Unless he's a crybaby and taking it out on the camara man. Put it aside CRYBABY why did the seat break who own's the lift, contact the camaraman and say THANK YOU!! may the best man win CAMARAMAN YOU WAS DOING YOUR JOB !!!GREAT I SUPPORT YOU!!! If i got hurt in Vail i would want that camaraman there .
January 7, 2009
11:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
horsinaround writes:
Does anyone know for sure the photographer was actually "on the clock" for the company? The article says he was skiing and came across the rescue attempt. Sounds like he could have been on his own time. The pictures could have come from his cell phone. The Sharpshooter guys are usually standing at the top of the runs near good scenery without skis. These days anyone out in public has the possibility of having their picture taken; it's just life these days. I would think the naked skiier would welcome the pictures as proof of what happened for his day in court although I'm sure he would rather them not travel the internet around the world, but that's life these days. I would hope he'd also think about wearing underwear next time, might save some embarrassment ;~)
January 7, 2009
12:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
stumanchu writes:
Not all "danglers" come from texas.
January 7, 2009
12:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
kris writes:
The seat might have been pushed up by the wind coming back down. Would the lift operator be responsible for not seeing this? There are usually two liftees working the chair.
January 7, 2009
12:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Daughter_of_Liberty writes:
Silver lining--the unfortunate individual now has photographic proof of the ski lift mishap...which could be used as evidence should he decide to sue Vail Resorts. Which, come to think of it, might be part of the reasons its subcontractor, Sharpshooters, suspended the photographer. Sharpshooters, after all, depends on keeping their customer happy to keep the money flowing their direction. One can't help but wonder, however, what would have happened had the victim been a celebrity.
January 7, 2009
12:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
For all of you trying to defend this crap company Sharpshooters, check out the Vail Daily News.
http://www.vaildaily.com/article/2009...
A quote from the guy who was fired for taking the picture:
“I was out on my own with my own camera, so I didn’t think it was a big deal,” Odom said.
January 7, 2009
12:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
datbinnurick writes:
Seriously people - there is no way anyone can in any way identify that person!!! I think it is pretty pathetic - the TV shows and News papers/magazines that make money are those that show/report the most graphic and sensational pictures and news...how is this any different? All of you that claim you want privacy, compare this to a nude picture on the beach etc- you know what - if you can't identy the person - whether the person is 5, 15, 35 or 50 it does not matter! To fire or suspend a "reporter" of sorts of doing his job is pretty silly... He gave America the news that everyone wanted to see...to laugh at...
January 7, 2009
12:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
JaneyMary writes:
If I were to put myself in the "ski bum"'s shoes, I would laugh at the fact that my picture was taken in such a compromising position, and maybe secretly relish my 15 minutes of anonymous fame. But as soon as someone leaked my name along with the pics - that is when I would start to be humiliated.
January 7, 2009
12:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
I don't know if the guy in the mishap should sue anybody or not, but I do know that would have been an extremely long and humiliating seven minutes for me, and I think the photographer is a schmuck for exploiting it.
"Do unto others..."
January 7, 2009
12:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
ColoradoClaire writes:
Re "...an attempt to make money off them is pretty low." The photographer probably didn't make a nickel from the images if he put them out there in the public domain. If he owned the images, he should have copied them onto a CD and FedExed the disk copyright office and sold them -- just as the aforemention paparazzi do. If Sharpshooter does own the images, the photographer had no right to sell them.
Re "If "Everyone loses the right to privacy in the public domain" then why do people that don't give their consent have their faces blotted out on TV?" It wasn't his face that the world has seen.
Re "How old is the skier? Did the photographer know his age before selling the picture? Did he assume the man was over 18 because of his size?" The dangling upside-down skier was reportedly the parent of the younger individual who was stranded on the chairlift while lifties, patrollers, whoever performed the "rescue" and the photogapher clicked away.
Re the man's age, thesmokinggun.com, one of the sites that posted the images (and is owned by Court TV, so is presumably quite law-savvy), posted: "In a bizarre incident that will surely lead to litigation (or an out-of-court settlement), a skier at Colorado's ritzy Vail resort was left dangling upside down and pantsless from a chairlift last Thursday morning. The January 1 mishap apparently occurred after the male skier, 48, and a child boarded a high-speed lift in Vail's Blue Sky Basin...."
Re "These days anyone out in public has the possibility of having their picture taken; it's just life these days." It's not just "these days," tho' today, myriad security cameras posted all over the place add the the random chance that an individual w/ a camera (or even a cell phone that captures images) might capture an embarrassing situation.
January 7, 2009
12:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
uskam writes:
Was he fired for doing his job or for posting it to Smokinggun.com? In either case, noone can see the man's face. No true embarrassment should be recorded. No suspension should occur. I do, however, question the rescuers and why they didn't at least throw a jacket or blanket over him.
January 7, 2009
1:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
FriendlyFire writes:
"How did you get fired on your day off" - Friday
January 7, 2009
1:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
BigSky182 writes:
Seems to me that if the guy was working for sharpshhoters then the pictures were the property of sharpshooters in which case, selling them to smokinggun.com is not only against company policy but probably illegal too.
Doesn't look to me like he was fired for taking the pictures, but rather for selling them without permission.
January 7, 2009
1:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
7y8u9i writes:
Anyone thinking that this mishap needs to turn into a greedy grab for money by suing Vail should lighten up. Accidents happen, and the victim (if there is one) should be compensated appropriately. But lets face it, wanting to get rich from this type of thing is repugnant. It just drives up lift ticket prices and insurance rates for the rest of us.
To the enterprising photographer, I say "Go for it!" Sure you risk angering your employer by embarrassing his customer, but if it's worth it to you, you probably don't give a rip about your job or other people's feelings anyway.
January 7, 2009
1:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
HowieStupid writes:
Do you know how many people were taking pictures of this? I heard about it before the dude had even hit the ground. lol It was already on the internet before the whole thing was over. why suspend this guy. It was an "oh my god" "how funny" everyone wanted and got a picture, it was a race to get the pictures posted online.
January 7, 2009
1:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
User_Name writes:
This photog stands out from the crowd. He'll be fine and will get better employment down the road.
In the mean time, expect to get calls from the NY times, The Today Show, plus others that will place Sharpshooters in very bad light.
Enjoy the 15 minutes!
January 7, 2009
1:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
The photographer said that he took these pictures with his OWN camera while he was "out on his own", not at his assigned workstation. HE owns the pictures and didn't use company equipment or presumably company time.
Boycott Sharpshooters!!!
January 7, 2009
1:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
I have been advocating for this photographer, but now with all of this attention I am sure he will get a few job offers.
Congratulations Mr. Odom! Keep up the good work!!
Sharpshooters is obviously a horribly managed company. You are better off without them.
January 7, 2009
1:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
HankReardon writes:
It's probably just a publicity stunt for the Vail ski area. Didn't it happen on New Year's Day, and the talk continues up to today. "Staged event" is my guess. Wasn't Vail whining about a slow season earlier this year?
January 7, 2009
2:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
LockNLoad writes:
The photographer was on his own time and used his own camera.
The company should not fire him.
The poor (stupid) victim was not identifiable in the photos and Sharpshooter Images was never mentioned. I smell a wrongful termination lawsuit brewing.
BTW. This was a hilarious photo, and the photographer should get an award.
January 7, 2009
2:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Beau writes:
I'm glad the poor man is okay. We are a cultural step away from cheering on the lions ripping apart the Christians in the Coloseum in Rome. Our culture is sick. If we don't start behaving better and becoming more civilized, we deserve what we're going to get. Those who laugh at the lions one day may end up in the Arena later on.
January 7, 2009
2:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
Actually Beau, I think most of us are laughing at the silly Christians...
Lighten up!
January 7, 2009
2:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
FriendlyFire writes:
thanks for the insight beau better start fixing our culture by getting america's funniest home video off the air
January 7, 2009
2:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
temurlan writes:
As I predicted yesterday, it is now on youtube. It is in a slideshow format with music.
I feel even more sorry for him now.
January 7, 2009
3:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
davies: "schmuck"? There you go again, showing your age! ;)
January 7, 2009
3:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
tchoupitoulas writes:
Five bucks says there is already a pending lawsuit against either Vail Resorts, the company that installed or is responsible for maintaining the lift (or do you call them gondola's?), and the photographer's company. Guaranteed.
January 7, 2009
3:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
lthomasco writes:
Thanks c4l2a0. I sent emails with my opinion that the photographer was in the wrong. I would not have bothered if it were not for your posting of the addresses.
January 7, 2009
3:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Darwin writes:
Where do so many of you posters get the idea the cameraman was fired? He is on an indefinite suspension according to the article.
January 7, 2009
3:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
Too funny! The dangler was suspended for 7 minutes and the photographer was suspended indefinitely!
January 7, 2009
3:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
Darwin: Semantics.
January 7, 2009
3:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
AC writes:
"We all know what that means," Odom told the Vail Daily News. "I guess it embarrassed Vail Resorts, and they called (my) shop."
Duh! Do ya THINK so, Einstein? Suppose Foley's had photographers taking pix of kids on Santa's lap, and one of the kids threw up all over Santa and the photog started snapping away and rushed out and put them in the internet... Do ya think that's right?
Odom was a complete jrk. He should NOT have taken the photos and he should NOT have put them on the freakin' WORLD WIDE WEB. That man's misfortune is not for Odom's profit. When he grows up he'll realize what an ugly thing he did to another person.
January 7, 2009
3:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
HankReardon writes:
Good one, Heidi!
January 7, 2009
3:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
Hank,
Fashion that one into a clever headline!
January 7, 2009
3:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
vendari01 writes:
Had this been me dangling up there, I'd have been profoundly embarassed, but I also think I'd have wanted a copy of the photo. I wonder what company policy he broke, when he took the picture.
January 7, 2009
3:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
SPL writes:
I seriously doubt the photo would have been published if it was a female skier. Dude should sue.
January 7, 2009
3:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
America is so sick, soon some will ask to ride the lift upside down, naked up the mountain; it could be an exhilarating feeling like the priest jogging naked down a city street! LOL!
January 7, 2009
4:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
HankReardon writes:
Heidi, I think you already did, but here goes...
Headline:
Man Suspended for Exposing Exposed Suspended Man
January 7, 2009
4:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Thetrainer090 writes:
Folks he wasn't hurt. I have seen the pictures and you can't make out his face. Nobody will know who it is if he doesn't tell anyone that it is him. He wasn't hurt and if you can't laugh at yourself then you can't laugh at anyone. Life happens.
January 7, 2009
4:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
Wow, Hank, it's like listening to a record backwards!
January 7, 2009
4:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
I kinda wished that would have happened to me. I wouldn't have sued anyone but I could get a lifetime ski pass plus an occasional free place to stay.
January 7, 2009
4:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
HankReardon writes:
Yes, Beelzebub, what is your bidding?
January 7, 2009
4:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
BigSky182 writes:
vendari01 writes:
Had this been me dangling up there, I'd have been profoundly embarassed, but I also think I'd have wanted a copy of the photo. I wonder what company policy he broke, when he took the picture.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
My bet is that he broke Company policy when he SOLD the picture to SmokingGun.com rather than when he took it.
January 7, 2009
4:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
squeakywheel writes:
Positively palindromatic!
January 7, 2009
4:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
Does anyone remember the story back in early December where a man was shot by the police and the RMN took a picture of the deceased's mother as she was shown her son's dead body?
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news...
The picture is there. Take a look.
Makes me wonder why everyone is so up in arms about this naked guy hanging upside down and what a jerk this photographer is.
So it's ok for the RMN to post pictures like that under the guise of "journalism", but you guys jump all over this one.
You are all so pathetic.
Some things in life are funny. We all need to just laugh a little. There are many more pictures in the news that truly deserve your criticism.
January 7, 2009
5:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
newsjunkie writes:
c412 - apparently you are unable to accept the fact that not everyone finds this incident and the photographs amusing. Some of us are horrified by the danger presented by this man dangling by one foot from a ski lift. Imagine that. Some of us are concerned about the child seated next to him who undoubtedly was scared silly and will never forget the horror he/she experienced on this ski lift. go figure - off-base and humorless, aren't we? Well I will accept those two descriptions any day over being lumped in with a bunch of voyeuristic creeps (the predator - oh, I meant, photographer, being the worst of the lot) who take jr. high level delight in this man's life or death predicament (you cannot deny that had he fallen from this position he would have done so on his head and surely have been paralyzed, if not dead - really funny, isn't it??)and ultimate exploitation.
I shake my head at the world we are becoming with youtube, tabloid journalism and reality t.v., etc., etc. We are fast becoming a culture in which the private agonies and humiliations of our fellow human beings is the subject of entertainment across the globe via the worldwide web. and that is very disturbing. this man did not ask to be put in this situation - and as so aptly put by bluffsbrg - did not ask to become an "instant celebrity" via this incident. those of you getting off on this incident should be ashamed of yourselves. if this had been your child - even an adult child - or your spouse, you would be screaming from the rafters.
January 7, 2009
5:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
newsjunkie writes:
oh and I have a great idea, c412. since you seem to think this whole episode is such a gas - let's dangle you from the backboard at the next Nuggets game - pantsless - and just have ourselves a ball. Sounds fun, doesn't it? heck, I may even spring for the beers if you invite your family and closest friends.
January 7, 2009
5:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
newsjunkie,
The guy wasn't hurt, e.g. fell from the lift and end up in the hospital, therefore we can now look back at this incident and laugh. If he had been seriously hurt, then it would not have been funny. Also, can you identify the person from the photo? If not, then STFU! BTW, I have been caught in public in embarrassing situations, I get embarrassed and then I get over it.
Anyhow, if the report in the Vail paper is correct, photographer on his own time with his own camera, then Sharpshooter deserves all the bad publicity that they can get. Also, a phone call or email to the Vail resort expressing dismay on how one of their contractors treats its employees also would help. Companies understand that what their contractors do also reflects upon them.
Scott
January 7, 2009
5:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
pete10000ft writes:
"bummer"
January 7, 2009
5:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
snow writes:
The Denver Post reports this man was not working at the time he took the picture and used his own camera, why is he being fired? The photo is funny as hell and doesn't show the man's face. I saw a man in a ski lift chair ahead of mine at Heavenly at Lake Tahoe try to get off the chair at the top, fell, and the chair caught his pants from behind and dragged him clear around the lift before the lift attendee saw what was happening, funny, funny, funny! These things never happen to snowboarders, just dorky skiers.
January 7, 2009
5:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Creative_N_Denver writes:
Anyone can take a photo at any time. "Sharpshooters, a company that takes pictures of skiers at numerous ski resorts." So everyone skiing is a snow bunny? Get real and where is that photograph of me slamming into a tree?
Photographers hound movie stars all the time and movie stars have no control of the publishing photo. This happened in the public view. To fire the photographer is an act of cowardness on Sharpshooters. This person was on his own time- his lack of judgement on his own time is no reason to fire him from his job. If he was doing a lousy job for them then consider the dismissal, but otherwise drop it. If employers could fire you for your lack of judgement on your own time, most people wouldn't be working. The only employer I know that can get away with that is the military!
January 7, 2009
5:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
TYoungman writes:
I understand that we live in an employment-at-will state, that the company has every reason to fire an employee for any reason (other than race, religion, gender, etc.), or for no reason at all; but it floors me that some people here think this photographer should be sued. Sued for what? Providing, for public consumption, a photo that might be embarrassing to someone? Are they suggesting that the flow of information in this Country should be restricted based on whether the potential exists for someone's feelings to get hurt? I don't want to think about the corrosive effect that would have on journalistic freedom. There is only one standard -Truth. If the truth is em-bareass-ing, so be it.
January 7, 2009
5:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
TheDenverB writes:
newsjunkie, you assume way too much -- noteably that the photog posted the pics to embarass the guy.
maybe he was in the right place, at the right time, got some stunning pictures of a scary accident and posted them showing the dangers and errors of the lift ops.
your second huge assumption is that this photographer is a 'predator' like he waits at chair lifts all day for stuff like this to happen -- when we all know that isn't the case.
and if he had fallen, the photog would have gotten the shots. again giving visual PROOF of the accident.
if anything, i bet the guy is glad SOMEONE was there with a camera.
really though, you need to take a deep breath, calm down, and -- if you are so opposed to this becoming such a media ordeal -- click on a different story and ignore this one.
January 7, 2009
5:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
coskibum writes:
Boy I bet Warren Miller is trying to recruit this guy! Whoever you are, you are the epitome of a true sharp shooter! LoL
January 7, 2009
6:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
newsjunkie writes:
Denver B - that is laughable, are you really that naive to think that this photog took this photo of a "stunning accident" instead of because the guy was bare a** hanging upside down in public??? please. but I do tend to agree with you - the photog did this guy a huge favor b/c (1) it could provide some measure of proof that the seat malfunctioned (we don't know yet) and (2) by sharing this photo with the world - he just increased this man's potential damages exponentially. without the exposure - case is not worth near as much. and that, folks, is why Sharpshooter suspended this employee. read carefully here: Vail has got to be one of Sharpshooter's biggest accounts. one of its employees - on-duty or off, it doesn't matter - took photos that are very damaging and embarrassing to Vail's business adn reputation (like the tongue-in-cheek post from the "Florida Tourism Board" demonstrates - I DID laugh at that take on this incident) - and posted them to the world. he took actions that were very damaging to his employer's big account - and that alone warrants his suspension or whatever they decide to do. this idiot should have thought that through that before he posted these on the web. what is so difficult to understand about that? if he just wanted to help the guy with his potential case against Vail - then contact his attorney and turn over the photos. the photos were posted on the web just to give everyone a cheap thrill. period.
once again - if I'm not going to comment here - how else am I supposed to express my outrage at the very public exploitation of this man and his predicament??? I guess the comment board must only be for people who think the incident is funny.
January 7, 2009
6:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
newsjunkie writes:
STFU? why so defensive Scotty? could it be b/c maybe you get a homoerotic thrill from these photos, buddy?
oh well, you are consistently one of the most hostile and unreasonable people on these comment boards. especially when we are having to endure one of your never-ending rants against the legal profession.
January 7, 2009
7:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
stumanchu writes:
Why couldnt this have happened to a beautiful woman ?
January 7, 2009
7:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Spuds writes:
HaHaHa that was do damm funny I bout pee'd my pants.
January 7, 2009
9:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
toph writes:
So...despite having blatantly incorrect information, some of you wish to organize a boycott of sharpshooters...I happened to witness this incident firsthand and saw the Sharpshooter photographer standing there in uniform snapping away. I also saw this same photographer shooting action photos on this same day..Now I'm wondering if this guy simply lied to the media in order to claim ownership of the photos that he sold. The truth, according to some of the sharpshooters I spoke to in Vail, is that Odom was in fact working, did in fact take these photos with the company's equipment, stole the images (property of Sharpshooters), and then sold these images to the media.
I don't really think the photo, the victim, threat of lawsuits, or any of the other reasons listed had anything whatsoever to do with the suspension. It seems to me that this guy stole company property, violated copyright laws, and sold the stolen property. I think Sharpshooter probably should have fired him immediately and called the cops. Their property was stolen and sold...plain and simple.
January 7, 2009
10:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
CalClann writes:
So let me see if I'm following this correctly.
Unnamed man goes skiing.
Unnamed man falls through skilift.
Unnamed hangs upside down by one ski.
Unnamed man's pants/underwear get ripped/fall off while hanging upside down.
Photographer takes picture of unnamed man dangling from the back.
We can't see unnamed man's face.
Unnamed man will need to out/embarrass himself in order to file suit claiming damages that weren't actually damages prior to him outing himself with photo co.
Right.
January 8, 2009
12:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
jaybyrd writes:
Funniest photo of the year...why so uptight, Sharpshooters?!!! What else you got in your archives that hasn't been published?
January 8, 2009
12:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
lesliezgrant writes:
News photos require no "model releases" to be signed. Such photos also may be sold.
Also, no one has mentioned the possibility that, given the opportunity of a secluded lift ride, was it possible that the man's pants were open prior to the fall? Should child protection agencies be investigating?
There are a cacophony of possibilities here.
January 8, 2009
1:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Creative_N_Denver writes:
"Odom said he'd been skiing on Jan. 1 and happened to run across the rescue attempt."
No where does the article say anything about Odom being on the payroll at the time that he snapped the photographs of the rescue. If in fact he was and using his empoyers equipment, and placed the pictures on the web, then by all means he was wrong on all accounts. Based on what I had read, I too like many others felt if he was on his own time, was using his own equipment and that he should not have to lose his job because of the pictures he took. In light of the facts, which were not present above, he knew the rules of his employer, and therefore the employer is in their rights to let him go.
January 8, 2009
2:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
1logicalthinker writes:
I don't know why the photographer was suspended. It wasn't his fault that the picture was "over-exposed." It was just another skier going "ball's out" on the slopes.
January 8, 2009
6:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
CyberHostage writes:
Free Willie!
January 8, 2009
11:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
mrNiceGuy writes:
Odom has stated in interviews that he was not on the clock when he took the pictures nor did he make reference to the company he works for when he posted them. Sharpshooters blew their own cover.
January 8, 2009
8:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
CreepPhotog writes:
Aw, poor CREEP didn't make his $100,000.
You're just as much a STAIN ON HUMANITY for siding with the scumbag over his lost job.
Instead of RESPECTFULLY and DISCREETLY HELPING the victim, idiot-who-knew-he-had-a-no-compete-clause Marty Odom still wanted to chance MAKING A BUCK.
I hope that he never works again in pro photography in Vail or anywhere else, and I wish that someone takes advantage of him and his supporters in their worst moments.
January 9, 2009
8:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
280Pagoda writes:
The salient facts are coming out, and toph's posting seems to have it right:
He was on company time, in uniform, using company Nikons. He lied to the Vail Daily about ownership, who should have done due diligence about ownership before posting regardless, to claim his 15 minutes of fame - ethics be damned.
He lied to his employer about being on his own that day, so as to have some defense for this misappropriation of company property. This gave him more time to post the photos on more web sites, do some more bragging - like he did on the Transworld Snowboarding site where he claims it was his best shot of the year, and if he gets fired, "It was worth it."
He callously held the guest up for ridicule for his own personal pleasure or profit. He didn't care how it made the resort look, or his employer, or how it would make the poor man feel.
He deserves a lot worse than suspension.
Vail and SharpShooter are the ones acting honorably. Let's be thankful the skier is alright and was rescued in just a few minutes.