Unreleased street photos

[Tim Ayers]

I’ve been  a cityscape photographer up till now, so most of my photos haven’t got a property or model release, but generally my photos don’t have a lot of models in them.

Well now I would like to have a go at street photos, I won’t be getting a model release (sometimes impossible anyway) but does anybody buy these unreleased yet undeniably interesting street scenes?

[Steve F]

Yeah, I've seen them sold in the photographer's own books and in examples of how to do street photography. It's not the sort of thing you generally see used elsewhere. 

 

Pro tip, hire a bodyguard and a lawyer 😉 

No, but seriously, good luck!

 

Title is a bit clickbait...

 

 

Edited September 16, 2022 by Steve F

[Ed Rooney]

 

I almost never disagree with Steve's advice . . . but I have no releases at all. None. Yet I have a healthy number of sales every month. I just click the editorial sales only. 

 

Good luck to you both.

 

Edo

[Steve F]

1 minute ago, Ed Rooney said:

 

I almost never disagree with Steve's advice . . . but I have no releases at all. None. Yet I have a healthy number of sales every month. I just click the editorial sales only. 

 

Good luck to you both.

 

Edo

 

Edo, 'street photography' sales, or sales of streets with people in?

One's arty, the other not so much...

Edited September 16, 2022 by Steve F

[Jose Decio Molaro]

Congratulations Steve, the video is very good. The difference I see is: street photography: Are you going to sell it or not?
If you're going to sell and you don't have authorization, get a lawyer

[Ognyan Yosifov]

This video was made only to help the creator generating views and the generic stock audio was a crap... I've seen better than this!

Edited September 16, 2022 by Ognyan Yosifov

[Steve F]

14 minutes ago, Jose Decio Molaro said:

If you're going to sell and you don't have authorization, get a lawyer

 

That was a bit of a joke. The question of ethics comes in if it's an identifiable person in the image and if they take up most of the image. And the law varies from country to country, but you can legally take images of people in public places in the UK generally.

[Steve F]

9 minutes ago, Ognyan Yosifov said:

This video was made only to help the creator generating views and the generic stock audio was a crap... I've seen better than this!

 

It wasn't about how to do street photography, just an interesting perspective on the ethics.

[Robert M Estall]

The French are pretty hot on privacy, the Germans a bit less. America? well they are a bit hot on litigation in most areas. In the UK, we are getting increasingly keen on litigation in areas we used to leave alone. As Edo says, editorial only helps your odds.

[Harry Harrison]

2 hours ago, Tim Ayers said:

but does anybody buy these unreleased yet undeniably interesting street scenes

I really like street photography but I wonder how this type of picture might be found on Alamy. Alamy pictures are usually of something rather than in a particular style. Without a model or property release (and my definition of street photography would rule those pictures out anyway) then I would think that the much vaunted Creative market wouldn't be able to use them. Of course there are many cases of high profile street photographers being commissioned to reproduce their style for commercial assignments, Elliot Erwitt,  (the late) William Klein or even Martin Parr for example, but I don't think that's what you are thinking of. 

 

Hoping I haven't used an Oxford comma there.

Edited September 16, 2022 by Harry Harrison

[Ed Rooney]

 

I had not viewed the video when I made the above comment. 

 

I assumed Tim was asking about Street for Stock, not Street Art or whatever we are calling it. The video guy is talking about what he considers to be a type of Art Photography. Those San Ho images could be either. 

 

I do find it somewhat odd that the French, who gave us Daguerre and HCB, are advocates of the right to privacy in public. Like all of us, I tend to play by my own rules as well as follow the Alamy rules. For example, I don't tag a person as homeless unless they have a sign saying that or I've asked them about it.

 

Edited September 16, 2022 by Ed Rooney

[spacecadet]

I have plenty of unreleased people on the street, and they do license from time to time. Not  flash-in-the-face stuff.

Oddly enough, German images license in Germany, which as Steve says has right of privacy. But that's not my problem, I'm not the publisher.

This.                                                                                           And this

And this (press call so not really street, but I just wanted to put it up as I like it, and we've just failed to visit Germany again).

Oddly enough, German images license in Germany, which as Steve says has right of privacy. But that's not my problem, I'm not the publisher.

Edited September 16, 2022 by spacecadet

[Steve F]

Tim,

If you're not talking about arty street photography, then yes, it's quite common to sell street scenes with people in.

Steve

[Tim Ayers]

Thanks for all your comments and Steve no I'm not thinking of arty photos just your common garden variety unreleased people photo. I think I'll give it a go as a sideline, also noticed that most of the portfolios here are like mine, and people aren't in most of the photos at least not in a recognizable way. 

[Steve F]

11 hours ago, Tim Ayers said:

Thanks for all your comments and Steve no I'm not thinking of arty photos just your common garden variety unreleased people photo. I think I'll give it a go as a sideline, also noticed that most of the portfolios here are like mine, and people aren't in most of the photos at least not in a recognizable way. 

 

Ah ha, I got all excited about arty stuff😆Errrmmm... I think you're looking at the wrong portfolios. I regularly have people in shot, Edo too. You should find it quicker, you won't have to wait for popular areas to be empty. But then you find yourself waiting for people to be in the right area...!

[Inchiquin]

I take photographs in streets all the time. In most, people are merely incidental to the subject; occasionally they are more prominent and are the main focus of the photo. In 14 years with Alamy I have only ever licensed one picture of a prominent person and that was a Russian soldier in the Kremlin holding a bird of prey.

 

Alan

[Harry Harrison]

The right area - and the right people

[Steve F]

26 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

The right area - and the right people

True enough

[Dave Richards]

On 16/09/2022 at 13:46, Steve F said:

Yeah, I've seen them sold in the photographer's own books and in examples of how to do street photography. It's not the sort of thing you generally see used elsewhere. 

 

Pro tip, hire a bodyguard and a lawyer 😉 

No, but seriously, good luck!

 

Title is a bit clickbait...

 

 

I have seen this before. It's a good video and food for thought.

I've done street photography for years but you won't see any of it in my Alamy port. Probably wouldn't be suitable for stock and that aside it would really p..s me off to see it sold for peanuts. I've never experienced any problems or confrontations but I'm not doing Bruce Gilden stuff so bodyguard not required. I have a rule that I steer clear of photographing the disadvantaged or homeless, disabled people and children.

Edited September 18, 2022 by Dave Richards
corrected text

[Rebecca Ore]

4 hours ago, Dave Richards said:

I have a rule that I steer clear of photographing the disadvantaged or homeless, disabled people and children.

 

I don't steer clear of children (and have some released of a red haired campesino girl (paid the family C$100 for the release).  I don't take photos of homeless people (the street being their home, I prefer to respect their privacy).   I ask permission.   The tricky problem would be photographing two people who aren't supposed to be together.   Only released one licensed was of me, for $3.  Nicaragua had the same laws about photography in public as the US, but as one Nicaraguan pro said, local interpretation by individual cops trumps whatever the law is.

 

 

[Jose Decio Molaro]

Brazil today is one of the most closed countries in the world to photograph people.
There are many laws most are not enforced but you can be prosecuted if you take pictures of people without permission.
In the case of children, don't even think about it. You can be accused of pedophilia.
We only take pictures when there is a large group of people (don't focus on any)
The police do absolutely nothing. But if a photo of someone that was taken without authorization appears: you can be sued.

[John Mitchell]

It sounds as if traditional street photography is still fine in the UK. It's now a bit iffy in Canada, especially in Quebec. I love candid street photography, but I tend to take more images like this one (somewhat boring) these days where the person is not identifiable. 😕

 

Edited September 25, 2022 by John Mitchell

[John Mitchell]

On 18/09/2022 at 09:50, Rebecca Ore said:

 

I don't steer clear of children (and have some released of a red haired campesino girl (paid the family C$100 for the release).  I don't take photos of homeless people (the street being their home, I prefer to respect their privacy).   I ask permission.   The tricky problem would be photographing two people who aren't supposed to be together.   Only released one licensed was of me, for $3.  Nicaragua had the same laws about photography in public as the US, but as one Nicaraguan pro said, local interpretation by individual cops trumps whatever the law is.

 

 

 

I have lots of images of children from travels in Mexico and Central America, including Nicaragua. However, in Canada and the USA, I shy away from photographing kids except in groups or if accompanying adults give the OK. I do have some images of homeless people in my collection, but I tried to make the subjects unidentifiable. Don't do this type of photography any longer due to ethical concerns and guilt feelings even though the images do license, hopefully to support a good cause.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 25, 2022 by John Mitchell

[Bryan]

I don't think that I have any photos of homeless people, but I do have a shot of a protest where someone was living in a tent within a city to make a point. On one occasion I photographed a building unaware of a bloke begging to the side of it. He took exception and began haranguing me. I guess he was mentally disturbed or drunk or high on drugs. I had no intention of using the photo and after a verbal exchange he backed down. I also recall being accused of being a pedo while shooting a pier on a beach, there was a young family in the area, but not in my field of view. Indeed they were behind me when the father made the remark. I ignored him and nothing more was said, but it's worrying that a section of the community views photographers in this way.

 

Generally I have many photos on sale with which include people and they sell. If the person is the subject of the image I often ask permission to shoot, particularly if they are for example a market trader trapped within their stall, or a family. Most people are happy to oblige. 

 

Over the years I've had a few instances where I've been asked to remove a photo from my collection, but none have included shots of people. From memory, a sculpture in France, a building in the UK that was shot from private land, the interior of what I thought was a public building, and a sign within the window of a B&B. They all went with the exception of the sign, shot in a public place. It remains on sale.

[Betty LaRue]

Here in the US, traveling from coast to coast, the only time anyone took issue with me was in California when the guards of a contested property thought I was the Press. And I was photographing birds, not people. Nobody has ever challenged my photographing people or children.