How can street photographers sell their work, legally and ethically?

[Vaughn]

Documentary rather than street. And privacy issues followed the image...perhaps still does.

 

[Helge]

As blockend mentioned it is a niche market and most of the buyers will be other street photographers who appreciate the style, chances of any subjects ever even coming across a picture of themselves is very unlikely and then they may not even be bothered. Costs a lot of money to sew someone, so you want to be sure its worth it.
I was taking a photo once and a guy walked into my shot and put up his hand and shouted don't shoot! Shot anyway as you would and he come up to me threatening to call the police if I didnt delete the photo, tried to explain that it was a film camera and I couldn't delete an individual picture, didn't understand, kept on arguing, so I looked at the back of my 1957 range finder, pretended to push some buttons, said its gone and he walked away.....all part of the excitement.
Happy to do street photography as an amateur, have a job don't need another, but am always surprised at how many seem to want to sell pictures or are waitingto be discovered. Think they should probably work on their marketing and worry less about getting sewed.

When someone asks not to be shot, you don’t shoot them.
That goes whether it’s your girl or a complete stranger.
Whether it’s lawful or not.
And that is for a number of reasons, apart from the moral.
You have basically fucked up as a photographer if that is where you end up, in that kind of setting.

If I happen to shoot and the subject asks for deletion, no matter how angrily, I do a double exposure over the photo and very quickly explain to them what that means.
For example show them the counter before and after, and point the lens at the sky and let them hear the click. That shows good faith/intent on your part.

Of course if you sense the subject is just out for a fight or is drunk. Get away as fast as you legs will carry you, without further explanation.

 

[awty]

When someone asks not to be shot, you don’t shoot them.
That goes whether it’s your girl or a complete stranger.
Whether it’s lawful or not.
And that is for a number of reasons, apart from the moral.
You have basically fucked up as a photographer if that is where you end up, in that kind of setting.

If I happen to shoot and the subject asks for deletion, no matter how angrily, I do a double exposure over the photo and very quickly explain to them what that means.
For example show them the counter before and after, and point the lens at the sky and let them hear the click. That shows good faith/intent on your part.

Of course if you sense the subject is just out for a fight or is drunk. Get away as fast as you legs will carry you, without further explanation.

Its OK you win moral supremacy. He could of waited till I took my unbelievably good picture, instead he chose to walk in front of my camera and demand that I wait till he passed, oops, slow reflexes. I calmly tried to explain, but he was a little precious, didnt want to have him stand on his tippy toes trying to intimidate me for too long, so I pretended to delete the picture and all was good again. I think I did well to diffuse the situation. Was a long time ago and would probably do a little differently now, maybe.
Never run away from anything.
Have zero interest in being a photographer, and love fuck ups.
In the end your only as good as your last picture.

 

[Helge]

Well some situations are just pathological. I think that goes under “looking for a fight”.
Just say your picture didn’t include him. You were using a tele lens. Clueless people like that don’t know the difference.
Some situations only warrant walking away from. Life is too short and precious to invest yourself emotionally in shit like that.

 

[Pieter12]

Then there is the story of Dorothea Lange's Migrant Mother from 1936. She would be called homeless today. Supposedly, Lange never talked to the subject, except to promise her the photo would never be published or sold (which it obviously was). Lange wrote the caption later, getting the facts wrong, according to the subject. A signed print sold for nearly a quarter-million dollars 1n 1998 and also became a U.S. postage stamp.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Then there is the story of Dorothea Lange's Migrant Mother from 1936. She would be called homeless today. Supposedly, Lange never talked to the subject, except to promise her the photo would never be published or sold (which it obviously was). Lange wrote the caption later, getting the facts wrong, according to the subject. A signed print sold for nearly a quarter-million dollars 1n 1998 and also became a U.S. postage stamp.

Not to mention Walker Evans American Photographs. Two pictures of same homeless.

 

[Helge]

Then there is the story of Dorothea Lange's Migrant Mother from 1936. She would be called homeless today. Supposedly, Lange never talked to the subject, except to promise her the photo would never be published or sold (which it obviously was). Lange wrote the caption later, getting the facts wrong, according to the subject. A signed print sold for nearly a quarter-million dollars 1n 1998 and also became a U.S. postage stamp.

It was posed. The mother just wanted additional attention and money.
She initially said she didn’t want her name published.
Ever wonder why the children are facing away? They where smiling too much.

 

[Pieter12]

It was posed. The mother just wanted additional attention and money.
She initially said she didn’t want her name published.
Ever wonder why the children are facing away? They where smiling too much.

Based on what?

 

[Sirius Glass]

It was posed. The mother just wanted additional attention and money.
She initially said she didn’t want her name published.
Ever wonder why the children are facing away? They where smiling too much.

The books with the photograph said the children were shy and nervous.

 

[jtk]

Load o' BS.

 

[awty]

Gossip.
What ever the method was, was justified by the end result.
If others profited thats a separate issue.

 

[Helge]

It’s never been a secret that it’s posed.

At this point anything said about the image can be cast doubt on, since everyone is long dead. Even the secondary receivers of the story have told it so many times, they don’t even remember the original version handed down to them.
Look at the other photos from the series though.
Not just the Migrant Mother series, but the whole series of photos taken in that camp.

 

[DonJ]

It’s never been a secret that it’s posed.

At this point anything said about the image can be cast doubt on, since everyone is long dead. Even the secondary receivers of the story have told it so many times, they don’t even remember the original version handed down to them.
Look at the other photos from the series though.
Not just the Migrant Mother series, but the whole series of photos taken in that camp.

Here is the Migrant Mother series:

http://www.loc.gov/rr/print//list/128_migm.html

Where are the smiling kids?

 

[Helge]

Here is the Migrant Mother series:

http://www.loc.gov/rr/print//list/128_migm.html

Where are the smiling kids?

Well actually one of them is smiling on the last image in the back of the tent, the one photo that didn't get used.
It's not easy to make children stop smiling without frightening them, it's easier to just make them turn around.
That had the benefit of making the whole thing seem extra cheerless.
Look, I'm not saying Dorothea did anything wrong here, or that anything nefarious went on. Just saying that everybody involved had an interest in making this look as authentic and raw as possible.

Here for further analysis:
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/migrant-mother-dorothea-lange-truth-photography/

 

[Pieter12]

Whether it was posed or not is not the point of this topic "How can street photographers sell their work, legally and ethically." The sub-topic of photos of homeless came up, and whether is was ethical to photograph them. As an example, I brought up Migrant Mother because she was homeless and Lange did end up selling the image. The ethics issue here is that the image was used as propaganda (it was made on a government grant to document the plight of people during the depression) and became well-known, much to the regret of the subject.

 

[DonJ]

Well actually one of them is smiling on the last image in the back of the tent, the one photo that didn't get used.

That's an odd-looking smile.

 

[Helge]

People opinions change.
We will never know what Lange told Florence to let her take the pictures, but at the point in time it must have crossed her mind that it might somehow be beneficial for her personally. By attention money or otherwise.

It is a real problem, and the mother and all other people being immortalised in non flattering situations (or what they feel is not flattering, because the mother comes off downright heroic in the images) should be able to have their say. How do you keep contact though? Problem is even worse in third world countries.

If you as the photographer had to go through a whole legal spiel every time you wanted to take a picture, you would potentially scare off your subjects, and you would waste an enormous amount of time.

 

[Helge]

That's an odd-looking smile.

It's an odd situation for them. And they might have been told to not smile.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Load o' BS.

How can it be BS when she wrote it in her book?

Oh, you are talking about your posts again. Got it.

 

[John Koehrer]

Lange didn't profit directly from publication, she didn't own the negatives, the library of congress did.
She did the work on the migrants as a result of the grant.
A statement in the review says the family sold the tent, Lange says tires. it also says they drove off
before food relief was provided.
10 minutes?' Time passes very quickly when you're busy so the time passing is just an estimate or guess. Another
description of camera usage assumes individual film holders but could she be using Grafmatic or film packs?
There are too many assumptions in the review How many here have remembered exact details of any
years ago experiences and remembering childhood experience in detail is pretty much BS.

 

[jtk]

How can it be BS when she wrote it in her book?

Oh, you are talking about your posts again. Got it.

The thread is a load o' BS. Sirius has the attention span of a gnat.

 

[Helge]

Lange didn't profit directly from publication, she didn't own the negatives, the library of congress did.
She did the work on the migrants as a result of the grant.
A statement in the review says the family sold the tent, Lange says tires. it also says they drove off
before food relief was provided.
10 minutes?' Time passes very quickly when you're busy so the time passing is just an estimate or guess. Another
description of camera usage assumes individual film holders but could she be using Grafmatic or film packs?
There are too many assumptions in the review How many here have remembered exact details of any
years ago experiences and remembering childhood experience in detail is pretty much BS.

For an image as stupidly famous, there is always a lot of money involved, either directly, or far more importantly indirectly. Remember how George Lucas in his greatest struck of genius insisted in merchandise rights?
This photograph basically made her career. It would have been a disaster if they had to pull it completely.

 

[pbromaghin]

Of all the versions, this one is my favorite.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The thread is a load o' BS. Sirius has the attention span of a gnat.

Then state what you are talking about.

 

[jtk]

fwiw the OT has to do with "street photoraphy" and the "ethics" that are purportedly attached to whatever "street" might be.

American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP) provides legal advice. Nobody here does that...online wannabe lawyers don't provide legal advice either, no matter what they quote about local laws.

Lange wasn't a "street photographer" ... she was a GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE who had a specific kind of assignment. IMO she did good work.

I admire professional photographers and other working people, even government employees (much of the time).