John Morris says he was standing on a sidewalk opposite the U.S. consulate near the famed hotel around noon on Tuesday, waiting for some clouds to arrive to get the perfect shot…
He then goes on to say that officers told him that he can’t be standing there for a half hour, and was fined for loitering.
To be honest, if he was, by his own admittance, standing on a public sidewalk for 30 minutes with his gear, then he earned that loitering fine. This was also explained to him and it written on his ticket, so he’s contradicting himself by saying they never explained what law was broken.
Being a professional photographer doesn’t give someone the right to take ownership of the public space.
He could snap a photo and move on, but he decided to block a public sidewalk for as long as he wanted to get a shot… if they didn’t stop him after 30 minutes, he could have been there for hours. Who knows? Either way, he’s acting entitled.
What an asshole, how dare he stand on a public sidewalk like he fucking owns the place. Entitled piece of shit taking ownership of that sidewalk by exisiting on it.
Do you know the area he was blocking, as described in the article? I do, and if he was blocking any section of that sidewalk, it would be very inconvenient for other users of that sidewalk to get around him, especially since that particular sidewalk also has fire hydrants and light poles.
There’s a literal wall/railing on one side, and a street on the other.
How he could feel ok blocking it for over a half hour SCREAMS entitlement “because he’s a professional photographer.”
I think the police were right to say he was loitering, but a warning would have been good enough. Unless he was really being a prick about it, and maybe he was playing dumb, which ultimately prompted the ticket.
He wasn’t simply “in a public place”, he was blocking the sidewalk with gear for over a half hour, just standing there waiting for the clouds to be right for his photo…
I get that not everyone will agree with him being ticketed, but he really needed to use more common sense.
So a photo staged after the event for the news report is your evidence he was blocking the sidewalk before the newsworthy event was happening.
You’re an idjit. Go crawl back under the bridge you call home.
(For those of you who are not this idjit: when a photographer is waiting for proper lighting, they generally don’t sit there with all their equipment out, tripod legs spread, etc., precisely because they don’t know when—or even if—the lighting will go their way. They just stand to one side, using a minimal footprint, waiting for the right conditions before they snap out the equipment to take their shot. This guy is talking out of his asshole. By which I mean out of himself.)
So a photo staged after the event for the news report is your evidence he was blocking the sidewalk before the newsworthy event was happening.
No.
The photo shows the gear he blocked the sidewalk with. I’ll note that it’s not a typical tripod, but a much larger one that has a considerable footprint.
The report itself, going by the testimony of the accused, is the evidence. The ticket with the admitted infraction further bolsters this evidence.
What more do you want? What exactly are you in denial about?
To the evidence, it’s literally all over the article, from the title even!
P.E.I. photographer handcuffed, fined after taking pictures of Quebec City’s iconic Château Frontenac
John Morris, a professional photographer from P.E.I., said he was trying to get the perfect shot of the iconic hotel when police approached him.
A professional photographer from Charlottetown, P.E.I., has been fined $230 for “loitering” while he was taking pictures of Quebec City’s iconic Château Frontenac hotel.
I’m not a professional photographer, but it would seem that someone in the process of taking photos, would probably have to have their equipment out. Perhaps even the equipment that he showed off for that photo in the same article. 😀
You’re right. If he wanted to impede foot traffic, he should have been a property developer. They get to block off public spaces for years at a time, and it’s ok because in the end they’re generating profit. /s
To be honest, if he was, by his own admittance, standing on a public sidewalk for 30 minutes with his gear, then he earned that loitering fine.
According to this very article, with emphasis added,
Quebec City’s municipal bylaw says that is “prohibited for a person, without a reasonable motive … to loiter, wander or sleep in a street or a public space.”
[Criminal defence lawyer Florence Boucher Cossette] said Morris likely has a good shot at winning his case, as people accused of loitering when they were sunbathing or drinking coffee on a bench were acquitted in previous cases.
Those two examples are quite a bit different than “waiting for clouds” while blocking a sidewalk with camera gear for over a half hour.
Here’s how I personally look at bylaws and when they are appropriate: if 100 or 500 more people were doing what he did, would that acceptable?
I would hope most people see that blocking a public walkway for an inordinate amount of time without a reasonable motive (i.e. an eldery person catching their breath, or a mother tying her child’s shoelace), would need loitering bylaws to be enforced for the benefit of everyone else.
FYI, he wasn’t taking photos, he was standing idly and was blocking a public sidewalk with his equipment while he waited for a good shot. He claimed that he was out of the way, but that particular sidewalk doesn’t allow for any room to be “out of the way” because it has a street on one side and a wall on the other.
Granted, he had a massive tripod and a pro camera right outside the US consulate building for at least a half hour, which is why the police were called. He had been asked to move along, and he just argued, so he got a ticket.
A pro photographer, with intention to shoot commercial photography in a public place, might have applied for a permit first. Especially if the shoot required blocking public walkways for such a long time.
He can certainly challenge this in court, but to what end? He seemed to be clearly in the wrong.
What’s the matter ? You can’t read too many word ??
He is explaining his opinion dude. Relax. If this gets to court we will see what the outcome is. Both opinion are validm blocking the sidewalk is bad but I can see why someone would want to take time to take a good shot of chateau Frontenac.
He then goes on to say that officers told him that he can’t be standing there for a half hour, and was fined for loitering.
To be honest, if he was, by his own admittance, standing on a public sidewalk for 30 minutes with his gear, then he earned that loitering fine. This was also explained to him and it written on his ticket, so he’s contradicting himself by saying they never explained what law was broken.
Being a professional photographer doesn’t give someone the right to take ownership of the public space.
He could snap a photo and move on, but he decided to block a public sidewalk for as long as he wanted to get a shot… if they didn’t stop him after 30 minutes, he could have been there for hours. Who knows? Either way, he’s acting entitled.
What an asshole, how dare he stand on a public sidewalk like he fucking owns the place. Entitled piece of shit taking ownership of that sidewalk by exisiting on it.
Do you know the area he was blocking, as described in the article? I do, and if he was blocking any section of that sidewalk, it would be very inconvenient for other users of that sidewalk to get around him, especially since that particular sidewalk also has fire hydrants and light poles.
There’s a literal wall/railing on one side, and a street on the other.
How he could feel ok blocking it for over a half hour SCREAMS entitlement “because he’s a professional photographer.”
I think the police were right to say he was loitering, but a warning would have been good enough. Unless he was really being a prick about it, and maybe he was playing dumb, which ultimately prompted the ticket.
In your ideal world, what is the maximum time one is allowed to spend in public?
He wasn’t simply “in a public place”, he was blocking the sidewalk with gear for over a half hour, just standing there waiting for the clouds to be right for his photo…
I get that not everyone will agree with him being ticketed, but he really needed to use more common sense.
Your evidence that he was blocking the sidewalk with gear is what, precisely.
Provide details. Show your work.
Did you read the article? It’s all there, including a photo of the gear he was using.
So a photo staged after the event for the news report is your evidence he was blocking the sidewalk before the newsworthy event was happening.
You’re an idjit. Go crawl back under the bridge you call home.
(For those of you who are not this idjit: when a photographer is waiting for proper lighting, they generally don’t sit there with all their equipment out, tripod legs spread, etc., precisely because they don’t know when—or even if—the lighting will go their way. They just stand to one side, using a minimal footprint, waiting for the right conditions before they snap out the equipment to take their shot. This guy is talking out of his asshole. By which I mean out of himself.)
No.
The photo shows the gear he blocked the sidewalk with. I’ll note that it’s not a typical tripod, but a much larger one that has a considerable footprint.
The report itself, going by the testimony of the accused, is the evidence. The ticket with the admitted infraction further bolsters this evidence.
What more do you want? What exactly are you in denial about?
And your evidence the gear was fully-deployed is…?
Nothing.
You’re just an asshole.
Fuck off.
Firstly, why are you taking things so personally?
To the evidence, it’s literally all over the article, from the title even!
I’m not a professional photographer, but it would seem that someone in the process of taking photos, would probably have to have their equipment out. Perhaps even the equipment that he showed off for that photo in the same article. 😀
You’re just mad for no reason. Relax.
You’re right. If he wanted to impede foot traffic, he should have been a property developer. They get to block off public spaces for years at a time, and it’s ok because in the end they’re generating profit. /s
deleted by creator
According to this very article, with emphasis added,
Those two examples are quite a bit different than “waiting for clouds” while blocking a sidewalk with camera gear for over a half hour.
Here’s how I personally look at bylaws and when they are appropriate: if 100 or 500 more people were doing what he did, would that acceptable?
I would hope most people see that blocking a public walkway for an inordinate amount of time without a reasonable motive (i.e. an eldery person catching their breath, or a mother tying her child’s shoelace), would need loitering bylaws to be enforced for the benefit of everyone else.
deleted by creator
FYI, he wasn’t taking photos, he was standing idly and was blocking a public sidewalk with his equipment while he waited for a good shot. He claimed that he was out of the way, but that particular sidewalk doesn’t allow for any room to be “out of the way” because it has a street on one side and a wall on the other.
Granted, he had a massive tripod and a pro camera right outside the US consulate building for at least a half hour, which is why the police were called. He had been asked to move along, and he just argued, so he got a ticket.
A pro photographer, with intention to shoot commercial photography in a public place, might have applied for a permit first. Especially if the shoot required blocking public walkways for such a long time.
He can certainly challenge this in court, but to what end? He seemed to be clearly in the wrong.
deleted by creator
What’s the matter ? You can’t read too many word ?? He is explaining his opinion dude. Relax. If this gets to court we will see what the outcome is. Both opinion are validm blocking the sidewalk is bad but I can see why someone would want to take time to take a good shot of chateau Frontenac.
I agree that putting him in handcuffs and ticketing him seems extreme, as a warning could have been enough.
He is still in the wrong, regardless.
Say “I didn’t read the article’s actual words” without using those words.