Irish Times front page (1 Viewer)

[7 - No tomorrow]

It would have been okay if they'd painted the guy.

I actually think I detect a faint smile on his face.

 

[dleacht]

http://www.pobal.ie/DAF/Pages/1106.aspx

This was the only public funding put forward to support the homeless strategy. I realise I'm completely off topic but I dont care. Once off payments only totally €1.5m. That wont be reducing too many statistics for them.

 

[hugh]

Really? thats interesting. We held alot of intregrated sports events and always have to get permission slips signed from parents. Anywork I've done with kids and photography has always required permission.

How is it defined that you dont do you know? just that you have to be in a public space. I mean we could have said the football club we used was a public space as it was funded through public funds

Well there's a difference between the act of taking a photograph and then what you go on to use that photograph for. It might be perfectly okay for me to take a photograph of a kid in a public place but not okay for me to publish that photograph without seeking permission. But even that is less well defined than you might think .... see previous thread on this topic here!

Most photographers and organizations seem to operate on the basis of asking permission/obtaining release forms and so on if the picture is going to be used for anything and that seems like the correct thing to do. Otherwise you really piss people off and leave yourself open to them bringing you to court ..... and since the law is very undefined that might go either way .. again see previous thread.


I'm not sure how public place is exactly defined. Obviously the street is, public parks are etc etc ... I would imagine that just because somewhere is funded by public money that does not mean it automatically becomes a public place. That would mean I could waltz into a lecture theatre in UCD whenever I felt like. Or into your football club.

 

[hugh]

Would it not be more probable for a paper like the Times to operate in a more ethical manner than just sticking to the minimum the law requires?
Wouldn't there some policy of getting some names to go with the 'art'? If not for permission then at least for follow up.

Yeah absolutely. I've no idea whether they do or not though. I would imagine they do have such a policy .... but then again newspaper photographers can be pretty hard-nosed-get-the-picture-at-all-costs and ask questions later ...

 

[magicbastarder]

the IT have more stringent rules on the use of (and taking of photos) than any other irish paper, afaik. maybe permission was asked before taking that photo, but i've always found opportunistic photos of homeless people to be boring and discomfiting.

 

[taubstumm]

i've always found opportunistic photos of homeless people to be boring and discomfiting.

nail on head

 

[classic seanc]

the photographer, presumably, saw a potential visual pun which made for a neat image.

the editor is the one who chose to put this on the front of the paper -- to contextualise it.

i'm assuming that none of us know the guy in the photo, but here we are talking about him on the internet. we're doing that because of a decision made by the editor, not the photographer. if anyone assaulted this guy's dignity, it was the editor more than the photographer.

it's hardly the most extreme example, but in this context, it is a cruel image.

but i've always found opportunistic photos of homeless people to be boring and discomfiting.

Spot on, spot on.



A guy I know showed me a photo he took of a homeless guy. He was extremely proud of it. It was your standard pic of a homeless dude, on the ground, surrounded by blurred people in motion. After a while the photographer told me that the photo was posed and the homeless guy in it was actually he's mate from college, but "isn't it good??". Dickhead.

Whether this picture was posed or not I don't know, but looking at that cynical manipulative hackneyed shit really annoys me.

 

[GO]

Maybe it's posed

Sherlock Holmes

you might be right, he's wearing shoes with a tracksuit! seems a bit off to me.

Miss Marple

Yeah that cup looks a bit too clean if you know what I mean.

Jackie Chan

 

[Lili Marlene]

calling something 'boring' really is the ultimate criticism these days, it's the 'in your opinion' of commentary, no comebacks-ies.

Sorry grandpa i'd love to hang around but but me, Oscar Wilde and Jeremy Clarkson are off to be entertained elsewhere

 

[classic seanc]

Actually I is John, the ultimate no comebacksies of criticism is commenting on one single word within a post, and following it up with cultural references, both from the present time and the past, in order to imply both your hipness AND your well-readness.

Isn't it, you sneaky devil?

 

[plug]

you might be right, he's wearing shoes with a tracksuit! seems a bit off to me.

shoes and a tracksuit aren't that unusual are they? it is cork after all.

 

[Lili Marlene]

Actually I is John, the ultimate no comebacksies of criticism is commenting on one single word within a post, and following it up with cultural references, both from the present time and the past, in order to imply both your hipness AND your well-readness.

Isn't it, you sneaky devil?

no, it is not. don't bore me with your accusations

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

This is the kind of thing they love on Tara St

Behind bars, you see?

 

[Froog]

twisted bars aswell, like his soul.

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

We need to talk about Jihad.

 

[therealjohnny]

Well there's a difference between the act of taking a photograph and then what you go on to use that photograph for. It might be perfectly okay for me to take a photograph of a kid in a public place but not okay for me to publish that photograph without seeking permission. But even that is less well defined than you might think .... see previous thread on this topic here!

Most photographers and organizations seem to operate on the basis of asking permission/obtaining release forms and so on if the picture is going to be used for anything and that seems like the correct thing to do. Otherwise you really piss people off and leave yourself open to them bringing you to court ..... and since the law is very undefined that might go either way .. again see previous thread.


I'm not sure how public place is exactly defined. Obviously the street is, public parks are etc etc ... I would imagine that just because somewhere is funded by public money that does not mean it automatically becomes a public place. That would mean I could waltz into a lecture theatre in UCD whenever I felt like. Or into your football club.

Interesting

in the TV version of this the beggar on the Ha'penny Bridge has his face blurred out..though he is wearing some sort of mask/scarf over his face anyway

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

ok, maybe not so interesting

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

They also cut out the 'hilarious' willy-getting-caught-in-the-bin shtick when it's shown in cinemas.


Even less interesting.

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

This is on the top of the IT homepage

Are they going for a Krays thing?

Or am I reading too much into it?

 

[Janer]

Since it's that type of thread.

Johnny's bubble speech comments would fit this picture quite well.

 

[spuded]

http://www.pobal.ie/DAF/Pages/1106.aspx

This was the only public funding put forward to support the homeless strategy. I realise I'm completely off topic but I dont care. Once off payments only totally €1.5m. That wont be reducing too many statistics for them.

Dont even get me started, Ive worked in the homeless services for almost 10 years now and I've never heard a bigger case of putting the cart before the horse here. They are cutting funding across the board without actually opening up many move on options, if anything they have lowered them with transitional housing pretty much to be scrapped. What the fucking homeless agency fail to realise is the basic nature of humans, that we fuck up, that we make a mess of things and that there will never ever ever be no homeless. They seemingly think the only reason people are homeless is cause they have no houses, thats bollox, and anyone in the field will tell you that. Its probably true that maybe 25%-35% of the clients I work with can live independently with supports (and I stress a multi disciplinary team style support) and the majority of ther rest cant at the current 'place' they are at in their lives. I wouldnt mind if they had opened up more housing first, seen how many people they can actually move on and then start lowering the funding in a year or two to the agencies. There are so many problems with their idea its unreal, they also seem to fail to realise that ireland has such a large history of institutionalisation, alot of these people come through the services, many are 45+, at this point it will take years to integrate them back into the 'community' (and thats a false term if ever I heard one, community = joke). And now more than ever social problems are increasing, anyone who walks around dublin, even the city centre can see the increase in alcohol/drug abuse and also the blaringly obvious increase in people with acute mental health problems. Back in the 'glroy days' around 2005 there was many people who were binge drinkers who dropped in and out of homelessness all the time, binging for two months say and then getting dry and then straight away being able to get a well paying job in a site and a flat, the options and routes of of homelessness for people are less and less as the years go by.

Truly I would love to see a country where homelessness has ended, but shoving people into shitty flats miles away from the city centre or any amenities is just plain stupid. The increase in anti social behaviour will be huge. I dunno, I kinda despair of the whole situation right now.