A question of ethics...

Interesting discussion. I guess one of the main issues was that what was once an anonymous shot became not so by the links on Facebook. I think you make a good choice in the circumstances though. I also think that street photography requires a careful touch and one must have a sound moral compass. And, based on the images you post, I have no doubt that you do Alfie. I think the fact that you often engage with your subjects says a lot.
 
The legal rights are here Is it legal to take photos of people without asking? | PhotoRights.org

To publish for commercial use would need a modal release. Generally speaking, commercial use means a use that is intended to sell a product, raise money or promote or endorse something, I believe! But If they are for editorial or personal sharing they do not need a modal release!

Just to add (in case it isn't covered in the later messages), you can also exhibit and sell street photography as art and I have done so in the past...
 
Street photography for me is


1. Humour as in Jim's photos
2. Arty as in HCB, Paul Strand
3. Cultural Social commentary as Robert Frank, Vivien Maier.
4. Particular event of significance as Glen's of Boston.
5. Documentary reportage.
6. Cultural social event where pepole want their photos taken eg Mardi Gras.
7. Asked permission of a person.


(For me anything outside of these which passes as street is uncomfortable).
 
Last edited:
A very good definition I think Ahmad and I would follow the same principle. The photographers that leap in front of people are just rude as far as I'm concerned. I am even slightly uncomfortable with the shots I took on the Prague Metro but I can see no other way of illustrating a fascinating illusion. I like these sorts of images to have a purpose or show an engagement with the subject (as Alfie's always do). A difficult subject all round.
 
Back
Top