My partner (an author and artist, who can also operate a camera at need) raised a question for which I don't have a handy answer: how can street photographers sell their images?
The general rule, both legally and ethically, as I understand it, is that except for photojournalism one needs a model release to sell recognizable images of people. While this might not be the case if, for instance, you shoot a large format image of a crowded grandstand or stadium (in which, due to the resolution of the lens/film system, many individuals are recognizable), if you do traditional street photography, many of your images will include one or more recognizable individuals.
Now, shooting in public, the individuals in general can't legally or ethically demand you "delete" the images (though they might well have hired gorillas who will do it for you, perhaps "deleting" some of your equipment and possibly some of your body parts in the process), but selling the resulting images to any market other than journalistic publications runs into, at best, a legal gray area, and at worst the potential to be sued into bankruptcy -- lose everything you own beyond what bankruptcy laws protect, which would surely include photo equipment.
Yet we see street images, occasionally, in art venues. This isn't HCB, who did most of his work so long ago that the subjects are likely dead and gone (and descendants or relatives can still sue a generation or more later in today's environment). I'm talking photos made within, say, the past decade.
Are these photographers just depending on the low probability of anyone in the image ever knowing it's been sold, until or unless it's "great art" like some of HCB's iconic shots -- and simply ignoring the ethical concerns? Or am I missing something important about street images?
The general rule, both legally and ethically, as I understand it, is that except for photojournalism one needs a model release to sell recognizable images of people. While this might not be the case if, for instance, you shoot a large format image of a crowded grandstand or stadium (in which, due to the resolution of the lens/film system, many individuals are recognizable), if you do traditional street photography, many of your images will include one or more recognizable individuals.
Now, shooting in public, the individuals in general can't legally or ethically demand you "delete" the images (though they might well have hired gorillas who will do it for you, perhaps "deleting" some of your equipment and possibly some of your body parts in the process), but selling the resulting images to any market other than journalistic publications runs into, at best, a legal gray area, and at worst the potential to be sued into bankruptcy -- lose everything you own beyond what bankruptcy laws protect, which would surely include photo equipment.
Yet we see street images, occasionally, in art venues. This isn't HCB, who did most of his work so long ago that the subjects are likely dead and gone (and descendants or relatives can still sue a generation or more later in today's environment). I'm talking photos made within, say, the past decade.
Are these photographers just depending on the low probability of anyone in the image ever knowing it's been sold, until or unless it's "great art" like some of HCB's iconic shots -- and simply ignoring the ethical concerns? Or am I missing something important about street images?
