An uplifting backstory
December 12, 2008 10:24 AM   Subscribe

A homeless man on Queen Street, Toronto cuddling his dog, was photographed by Kirsten Starcher (née Kirsten Bole) and is also the subject of another iconic web photo by Liz Corkery. Kirsten Starcher's photo was even posted inadvisedly on Faildogs.com. After Kirsten Starcher's photo was used by the charity Feeding Pets of the Homeless, it was published in Pet Product News. There it was seen by the man's mother who had thought him dead.

Noel Crowley's mother had not heard from him for over two years, since he left for California to find work. He had disappeared without trace and police thought that he was dead. His mother immediately contacted the editor of the magazine and the Feeding Pets of the Homeless charity. She traced the photographer and posted a message on the photo's Flickr page asking if anyone had seen him recently. Through information from the photographer and people who followed her blog and the news stories, the man has been located and reunited with his family.
posted by Susurration (50 comments total) 40 users marked this as a favorite
 
WIN
posted by resurrexit at 10:28 AM on December 12, 2008 [9 favorites]


Holy shit.
posted by cortex at 10:29 AM on December 12, 2008 [1 favorite]


Awesome! I hope it works out.
posted by small_ruminant at 10:32 AM on December 12, 2008


Seeing all those comments bashing the posting of that picture on faildogs gives me a bit of hope about the human condition.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 10:34 AM on December 12, 2008 [9 favorites]


"Reunited" is probably stretching it a bit, but at least he called her.
posted by chlorus at 10:35 AM on December 12, 2008


win indeed. That's a cool story.
posted by gaspode at 10:43 AM on December 12, 2008


Wow, everything about this is awesome. The photo is great (I'm not much of a dog person, but I'm secure enough in my sexuality to admit that I totally wub my widdle meow-meows, and I'm sure the dog-human bond is similar), and the happy ending is also great. Just in time for Christmas!

Seriously though. It doesn't say whether he went home, or stayed on the streets (some people would actually choose that), but if he went home, this has gotta be the best Christmas ever, for both of them.
posted by greenie2600 at 10:49 AM on December 12, 2008 [1 favorite]


ahh geez. dog stories like this always choke me up.
posted by M.C. Lo-Carb! at 10:53 AM on December 12, 2008 [2 favorites]


In Starcher's blog, she writes: "Last year I got an email from Feeding Pets of the Homeless to use it on their website and newsletter, and I said sure. Then it was picked up by Paw Prints Magazine. Since then I've also had a request to use it in a deck of inspiration cards, a sociology textbook, and an online course."

While it's heartening that Crowley may be reunited with his family, it's disturbing that a photographer would commercialize Crowley's photo without written consent -- something Starcher likely would have properly secured from a "regular" citizen. She claims she can't find Crowley to pay him. That's not justification for circumventing a person's legal rights.
posted by terranova at 11:10 AM on December 12, 2008 [4 favorites]


...it was published in Pet Product News. There it was seen by the man's mother who had thought him dead.

What are the odds that she would be one of the 25 subscribers?
posted by dgaicun at 11:12 AM on December 12, 2008 [1 favorite]


This is good. Toronto is a bitter place to be homeless in the winter.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:25 AM on December 12, 2008 [1 favorite]




So the moral of the story is "Call your mother"?
posted by FuManchu at 11:32 AM on December 12, 2008


So the moral of the story is "Call your mother"?

The moral of the story is "Be more like dogs".
posted by Joe Beese at 11:36 AM on December 12, 2008


This is amazing. Both the photos themselves and the coincidence of his mom seeing his photo and being able to find him.
posted by Tehanu at 11:37 AM on December 12, 2008


Yes. This is awesome, in the most literal sense.

The photo itself ain't half bad.

Me, I wouldn't have framed it so central/thirds-y. Hell, I'd have probably vetoed the subject entirely on grounds of exploitation and/or overflowing pathos. But there is something that makes it work aesthetically and then some, beyond mere documentary street photography: That little patch of dog-yellow paint.

Contrasting the Starcher against the Corkery, the difference is striking. The color is an obvious and important change. Corkery's earlier version is shot straight-on, so there's more of a connection with the subject. Starcher sees him begging, hat in hand, on a sidewalk; Corkery is more ambiguous. Starcher shows the man's face, and we see that he is a man--dejected, resigned, disheveled--rather than the boy Corkery captured. There, he's clinging to the dog--hugging it, cherishing it, protecting it--whereas here they're less connected, like the dog has become a burden.

But burden be damned; the dog stays. It is all he has. It's the last reminder of better days. It's hope. It's a yellow patch on an otherwise cold, grey, empty street corner.

(A tad plastic-bag-in-the-wind, I know, but wow.)

While it's heartening that Crowley may be reunited with his family, it's disturbing that a photographer would commercialize Crowley's photo without written consent -- something Starcher likely would have properly secured from a "regular" citizen. She claims she can't find Crowley to pay him. That's not justification for circumventing a person's legal rights.

Offer valid only in Quebec.
posted by Sys Rq at 11:43 AM on December 12, 2008 [1 favorite]


There, he's clinging to the dog--hugging it, cherishing it, protecting it--whereas here they're less connected, like the dog has become a burden.

The dog looks to be at a healthy body weight and appears quite content in both photos. I think it's more that the dog's gotten older and doesn't quite fit in his lap as well. It's still pretty young in the earlier photo.
posted by Tehanu at 11:55 AM on December 12, 2008


Photographs of homeless people are usually lame, and I don't think this photo is any exception. It's tricky to get a photograph of a homeless person that isn't kitschy and exploitive. (Corkery's photograph is much better, in that at least she got down to the homeless person's level to snap it.)

That said, this whole story is freaky awesome.
posted by chunking express at 11:58 AM on December 12, 2008


I thought Canada was all socialists...why do they have homeless there?
posted by Postroad at 12:04 PM on December 12, 2008 [2 favorites]


You truncate it at a misleading spot. She goes on to say: "When it's a commercial publication, I've charged for it; otherwise I've let it be used for free. I haven't received my payments yet for the commercial items, but I intend to give a chunk of it to a local homelessness organization. Since I can't very well go to Toronto and find this guy and pay him, I should give it to someone who's trying to help people like him, at least." I daresay that's a very fair compromise.

I hope you would feel that way if you or a loved one ever became homeless, and someone photographed you alone, starving, disheveled, and unaware -- then mass-distributed your image and financially profited from it.
posted by terranova at 12:04 PM on December 12, 2008


Crikey - this reminds me of a conversation I overheard at a vets office. We were taking our toy poodle in for some eye exams (long story short: he was reduced to half vision in one eye, the other was replaced with a rubber ball, but he lived to a lively 14 years old), and a guy had brought his dog in with some concern. All I heard was that the bill would be $3,000 USD, and he couldn't pay it. He was angry, and didn't have many options. I was young, but I've thought of him from time to time, wondering what was the result.

Caring for healthy pets can get expensive. Paying for pet insurance seems like a bizarre notion, but I imagine it could be greatly less costly (and heart-wrenching) than having no real way to pay for a multi-thousand vet bill. But being homeless and trying to take care of a pet could be compounded misery.
posted by filthy light thief at 12:07 PM on December 12, 2008


I hope for his mother's sake that he isn't suffering from schizophrenia.
posted by moonbiter at 12:12 PM on December 12, 2008 [1 favorite]


And for his sake as well, obviously.
posted by moonbiter at 12:13 PM on December 12, 2008 [1 favorite]


And the dog's. There's certainly love in that photo. How amazing that his mom found him.
posted by woodway at 12:15 PM on December 12, 2008


I hope you would feel that way if you or a loved one ever became homeless, and someone photographed you alone, starving, disheveled, and unaware -- then mass-distributed your image and financially profited from it.

Well, speaking as someone who was actually homeless once: I have no rights to my own image in a public space. A photographer can take my photo without my permission and use it for whatever they like, and they owe me nothing. In a private place, where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, yes, they would have to get my permission and have me sign a release. In public, no.

And this is an important right for photographers, because it is essential to the freedom of the press. If everyone could claim a traveling bubble of exclusive content around them at all time, no photojournalist could ever take a photo of anybody without their consent, and it would make their jobs impossible. I am sure the people who were photographed being tortured in Iraq were not happy with how they looked in those photos, and certainly did not give their consent. But without those photos, we might not know it ever happened.

While I can't speak for the homeless in general, I can speak for myself, and what I would say is -- don't apply unique rights to me because you think my condition is so squalid and embarrassing and terrible that it would just be hugely embarrassing for anyone who knows me to see that image, especially when that unique right undermines someone else's essential right. Sometimes the most powerful photos are also quite painful. Those are sometimes the ones that change the world.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:16 PM on December 12, 2008 [36 favorites]


I hope you would feel that way if you or a loved one ever became homeless, and someone photographed you alone, starving, disheveled, and unaware -- then mass-distributed your image and financially profited from it.

First of all: Profited? Did you even read the blurb you quoted?

I haven't received my payments yet for the commercial items, but I intend to give a chunk of it to a local homelessness organization

Secondly, in your earlier comment, where you write, That's not justification for circumventing a person's legal rights? Yeah, hate to break it to you, but citizens (which Crowley is not, btw) -- "regular" or otherwise -- have no such legal rights.
posted by Sys Rq at 12:20 PM on December 12, 2008


While it's heartening that Crowley may be reunited with his family, it's disturbing that a photographer would commercialize Crowley's photo without written consent -- something Starcher likely would have properly secured from a "regular" citizen. She claims she can't find Crowley to pay him. That's not justification for circumventing a person's legal rights.

She didn't violate his legal rights. And by taking that photo, various homeless organizations may be getting some cash, a woman was reunited with her son, and more people became aware of the issue of homeless pets.

I wish my photos could have as much of an impact.
posted by sandraregina at 12:22 PM on December 12, 2008 [1 favorite]


The consent requirements for photojournalism markedly differ from that required for photography used for commercial purposes.
posted by terranova at 12:23 PM on December 12, 2008


It does not sound like the intention of this photograph was to create an image for commercial use, and she states that, since she does not know how to track the man down, any money should would make from it she would donate to homeless causes.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:28 PM on December 12, 2008


Holy fuck, terranova, give it up. You sound like a douche.

I've seen this guy many times, though not in a few years. Never on Queen Street, though. I used to alway see him on Bloor east of Bathurst.
posted by Manhasset at 12:36 PM on December 12, 2008


Does anyone know for sure that he's back with his family? The "reunited" link only actually says that he's called home.

I'm just gonna tell myself he got home safe to his family. Cuz I can barely look at that picture without bawling my eyes out, so that's what I need to believe just to get back to my day here.
posted by dnash at 12:39 PM on December 12, 2008


Well, come on now, terranova isn't being a douche. I am glad that some people would like to make sure that homeless people are treated with the same sort of respect as anyone else.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:39 PM on December 12, 2008 [1 favorite]


East Manitoba RJKC94: You aren't kidding. It's really interesting to me to see how bad it's gotten. In March, when the site first got started, I wrote a little bit [self-link] about how LOLcats had started out fresh but quickly grew stale because of unfunny people latching onto the fad, and I wondered aloud how the same process would look in the case of the much more conceptually simple FailDogs' case:

I'm curious how the Fail Dogs concept will get corrupted...it's literally only pictures of unimaginably stupid dogs with the word FAIL written beside them. In theory they could run forever and still retain the same essential spirit they had on Day One.

But just because I can't imagine how the meme could possibly degrade doesn't mean it won't happen: the lamest and most hackneyed minds of our generation are undoubtedly working on it even as we speak.

Now I see that it was, in fact, possible to fail at FailDogs.
posted by Ian A.T. at 1:05 PM on December 12, 2008 [1 favorite]


"Commercial purposes" does not mean "photographer got paid" or "publication made money." Usually it explicitly means using the image in advertising.

As I hinted upthread, yes, it's different in Quebec, where the whole Image Rights debacle began in 1988. "Image Rights" have been eroding freedom of expression around the world ever since. It's always a civil case: Subject sues photographer; "didn't have permission." Then, no matter the outcome of the case, artists (and journalists) are forced into censoring themselves to avoid trouble. And for what? The supposed "right" of some quasi-Amish crybaby. Fuck that.

There's a HUGE debate to be had about the ethics of street photography and the right to one's image. Certainly it doesn't hurt to get releases and cross all the t's and dot all the i's just for CYA purposes, but it can be rather crippling given the spontaneous nature of the medium.
posted by Sys Rq at 1:09 PM on December 12, 2008 [2 favorites]


This story had me tearing up. This may have something to do with me having slept incredibly poorly last night and being a frazzled mess but this is great, great story.

Like filthy light thief I am also reminded of an overheard conversation, but that was in a hospital, not a vet's office. A doctor was trying to dissuade a man from leaving the hospital. I don't know what ailed him but from the conversation I understood that it was life-threatening. He wanted to return home because he couldn't keep his dog with him in the hospital and he said that the dog was all that he had in this world, no friends and no family. The doctor and the man went back and forth for a while and the doctor got more and more distressed and the man got more and more curt until eventually he said that he was going to go and that the doctor couldn't do anything about it. The doctor tried to plead with him one more time to stay but the man cut him off and walked off.

I thought of interjecting myself into the conversation to make the point that the dog would need someone to look after him and who would if the man died, which the doctor didn't bring up, but a combination of not wanting to butt in and my own worries (my then-girlfriend was getting her stomach pumped) kept me from saying anything. I've sometimes thought back to this incident and I regret not having said anything, though I doubt I could have changed the man's mind.
posted by Kattullus at 1:20 PM on December 12, 2008


Bloke cuddles fish (posed and off topic)
posted by marvin at 1:25 PM on December 12, 2008 [1 favorite]


Now I see that it was, in fact, possible to fail at FailDogs.

The MetaFail.
posted by bookish at 1:26 PM on December 12, 2008 [11 favorites]


in the one by corkey, his face is not seen, so he is not easily identifiable, and so there isn't really an invasion of privacy. in the one by kirsten, his face is visible, and he is identifiable, and so it could be argued that there is privacy invasion. however, that "invasion" allowed his mother to find out that he is still alive (which is presumably a good thing). and honestly, photographers don't go around passing out consent forms to every person they take a passing portrait of on the street. take a look at flickr, you think all those people who are "stranger" portraits signed consent forms? i realize you're irked because of the profit angle, but she's donating much of it to homeless charities. so really, it's win all around. stop being grinchy.
posted by misanthropicsarah at 2:02 PM on December 12, 2008


Well, come on now, terranova isn't being a douche.

Maybe not, but they're being awfully belligerent, and I'm curious to know if they'd prefer that the photo hadn't been published and the mother hadn't found out her son was alive.

Great story and post!
posted by languagehat at 2:22 PM on December 12, 2008


1, 2, 3 ... awwwwwwwwwww!
posted by liza at 2:22 PM on December 12, 2008


I am a lawyer for the humming litigation branch of the RIAA. I require that people have a signed permission slip if they wish retain any fond memories of me. Strangely, it hasn't been required yet.
posted by srboisvert at 3:15 PM on December 12, 2008 [1 favorite]


Apologies to all if my prior posts seemed "grinchy," as this was not my intention.

My concern is for Mr. Crowley. A Hallmark fairytale is being woven around him, but he remains a silent, unknowing participant.

What does Mr. Crowley want? More importantly, what does Mr. Crowley need? Did he forget his family's phone number years ago, or did he move away from them intentionally? Is he mentally ill or has he fallen on hard times? Does he want to be featured on a deck of inspirational cards?

We all love happy endings. We appreciate beautiful artistic images, particularly those that move people to do good things. But I hope we never relinquish individual rights nor objectify human beings in pursuit of those endeavors.
posted by terranova at 3:47 PM on December 12, 2008 [1 favorite]


Let me make sure I've got this straight:

A photographer takes a picture of a homeless guy.

Said picture helps homeless guy's mom find him: a heartwarming story.

Based partially on said heartwarming story, the photographer is making money (giving an unspecified "chunk" of it to charity) off the photo.

Somebody asks why she doesn't give some of that money to the homeless guy.

Photographer says "because I can't find him."

Well, give the money to his mom. She's obviously capable of doing it.
posted by Shepherd at 4:38 PM on December 12, 2008


Re want he might or might not want, one of the great mysteries of my life is homeless folk who, some of them, are clearly not well organized enough for much else and yet are consistent enough in their day to day ways to have a stable relationship with a pet. Having never known a local homeless person who managed this for years, previously thought that the person eventually falls apart and their relationships with the pet deteriorates.

Mr. Crowley has raised this dog from a younger pup to it's currently healthy, and apparently well-adjusted size.

And like so many homeless dogs, the shepherd is not wearing bailing twine as a leash - he has a nice choke chain that is shiny and clean. His dog is more "normal" than he is. Looks like any ol' household, suburban pet.

I do think there is something to be said for being with a dog 24/7 - that has to help. But how can it be that his relationship with humans is such that his own mother believes him dead, and yet he can be a whole person to this dog?

(There is a spare-changer near me who has had the same cheerful dog for a couple of years, but I don't know where this guy sleeps - it's entirely possible he is not, despite the sign, homeless and instead lives in a rathole apartment.)
posted by Lesser Shrew at 6:32 PM on December 12, 2008 [1 favorite]


I thought Canada was all socialists...why do they have homeless there?

Because people with mental illness may resist treatment, even if it is available to them for free.

I recognize this man, since I spend most of my working life around Queen Street. Sometimes, he had cans of dog food with him, sometimes not. If it was cold, the dog either sat in his lap or on a blanket. I remember feeling that as long as he has to take care of the dog, and was able to do so, then he was going to be okay.
posted by typewriter at 6:35 PM on December 12, 2008 [1 favorite]


I wonder if Feeding the Pets of the Homeless attracts more in terms of donations than the average Feeding the Homeless charity?

I bet it does.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 3:48 AM on December 13, 2008


The story is heart warming and I hope the guy gets the help he needs to get off the street. At the very least he should hop a bus and go stay with Mom.

The issue of the photographer selling the image for commercial use is pretty cut and dry here in the states. If the photog doesn't have a signed model release she's leaving herself open to a world of hurt. The scenario would go something like this: homeless guy cleans up and a few years down the road sees the image of himself plastered on an ad soliciting funds for the local homeless shelter. He gets upset because he doesn't remember a photog taking his photo and now that he's cleaned up he doesn't want to be recognized as that guy anymore. He hires a lawyer. Lawyer asks if the photog has a signed release from former homeless guy. Answer is no. Lawyer then sues the photog, the homeless shelter, the design firm that designed the ad, etc. Cha-ching!

Editorial use is a whole different matter. Homeless guy is sitting on the street and photog snaps a photo. News mag buys it and puts it on their "OMG there's homeless people" issue. Same scenario and lawyer sues but there's a bunch of legal precedent defending the use of like images in an editorial context so the lawyer is wasting his time. Doesn't mean the lawyer can't bleed the photog dry by filing suit but it will never make it to trial.

Here's more on model releases from the ASMP and a cute story illustrating my point.
posted by photoslob at 8:51 AM on December 13, 2008 [1 favorite]


Just to emphasize - it does not say anywhere that she profited from any commercial use of this photo. Permission to use it by the charity and by the magazine appeared to have been given free, to support a cause. The only mentions of money were related to the photographer's general copyright statement (in the hope, presumably, that she can sell other photos shown on her blog) and her wish, in retrospect, that she had woken the guy to give him some cash. At the time she suffered from a very human reluctance to do so.
posted by Susurration at 10:55 AM on December 13, 2008


How heartbreaking for her, even if he did sway and make bad decisions where maybe he was kicked out of his home. But still, every time I see a homeless person, I think that they were once kids with hopes and it's heartbreaking to see what happened to them as adults. No one ever thinks that they'll be homeless when they grow up.

At least he has a companion. I hope they are both safe.
posted by dasheekeejones at 6:55 AM on December 15, 2008 [1 favorite]


Faildogs was sold on eBay for $6500 back in May and has been awful since.
posted by null terminated at 11:00 AM on December 16, 2008


« Older So long and thanks for all the flips   |   "Bailiff, whack his pee-pee!" Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments