To Sell On Faa Or Not - Ethical Lines

I fully understand your concerns. Aside from your original question (I, personally, stay away from people street scene shots altogether) I would see this having potential to sell as editorial in the stock photography marketplace more than I would as a fine art print.



Good luck!

Thanks Jeffrey, I agree that it has no to limited potential as a fine art print. When out walking the streets, I come across some ugly things sometimes. This is one of them.

Changed the thread title in edit.

I spent many port visits in Thailand while in the navy and know exactly what you mean!

To me it definitely IS exploitative.
Following my ethics I would never ever offer such a shot for sale except for editorial use, which is not on sale for FAA to start with.

The people and things in these images are not released. For that reason, they cannot be used to sell anything. I don't see how they could ever be art. They are snaps of people someone else (the photographer who is going to sell them as "art") is taking advantage of.
It's not about "ugly" .... it's about taking advantage of a situation on someone else's expense ... someone who neither can't defend himself nor hire a lawyer to take care of it .

Not my kinda thing!
It's a "cute" shot, although I doubt it someone wants to really really have it on their walls as art. It's not an un-ethical shot though if you're a press or news photographer and need to tell a story.

Since the photo was shot on the public street I don't need permission, so that's not really an issue here. So it's OK for me to sell this as editorial and make money from it but not as art? What's the difference? Doesn't the photo in itself tell the story here? Isn't art in the eye of the beholder? Would you feel different if the work was more in line with what you consider "art" but still featured the same subject?

Not picking a fight Christine but your point is exactly what I have been asking myself - why would editorial be OK and not art? And I also doubt that someone would want this on their walls, but I've thought that about other works too and they have sold.

That's awful!!!! Not your image, the story behind it. How incredibly sad

You need the relase for the people in the photo, at least for the stock photography.

iStockphoto Photography Standards: Model Releases: http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=648

It's not offered or available as stock

Ah ok sorry :)

Well, as fine art print i don't know if this image have the right potential, it's difficult to say. But i don't think you are "crossing the line", this is a picture that shows a reality.

Andrea, this image definitely does not have mainstream appeal but I'm sure there would be some small niche market for it as art. You make a good point about showing a reality; life is not just good but can also be ugly. What I find difficult about this is the kid, but I'm also wondering what really is the difference between showing a kid in this situation and a happy kid for example playing in a fountain on a summer's day. Is it the uncomfortable setting, the fact that it makes the viewer uneasy?

Well that's my first and only question for the ethics of selling it in any way: Did you get a model release form from both of them?

Yup, that's my first and last question. All of the ethics on it kind of begin and end there for me. I walk around with model release forms in case I come across something like this.

Dean, I think this better suitable for editorial as people should see such candid scenes.. I had the same doubts when I got the whole session in Mauritius during Thaipusam celebration.
Here you can see the picture: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jenny_rainbow/8422288961/
And I should say its interesting as an illustration for the tradition but looks so very painful as I give the title - Not Enough Pain?

approach national geographic with it... it looks perfect for that venue.

Of course my initial reaction is: "who would buy this as an art print" to hang on their wall?

I have a whole stack of NG magazines - don't see how this would fit their venue - perhaps as cultural whatever

as for a "model release" - you are supposing the person would even understand what you wanted - unless you speak Thai or had an interpreter - and supposing that were me and you were going to make money off my misery - I'd want to know where's my cut. The person might sign anything for money. Although I don't see how you would get money from this image IF it is a fairly common sight in Thailand - children and maimed people begging.

Exactly, Roy! I think the same way...This is the first question what we must ask ourselves before upload anything for the sale..

Dean - I would find it unethical of me to try to sell it as an art print. I would feel like I'm making money off of the misery of someone else and that just strikes me as wrong. I think this would go well with a news story in regards to their situation.

This is editorial photography plain and simple. And there is nothing wrong with selling editorial photos as prints. In fact a lot of what I sell here has also been sold as editorial through my stock photo agent. There is a market for reprints of editorial photos like this. I have never heard of a model release being needed for editorial. In fact that is a contradiction in terms. Where I sell they won't allow me to offer photos of children unless accompanied by adults. As for model releases for fine art, that is editorial in most cases. It is generally called street photography but is a form of editorial photodocumentary in my opinion.

Personnally i would not use it. If I feel uncomfortable about something I generally dont do it. I would say if you are doing a lot of photodocumentary along these lines and want to be known for it then yes it is perfectly ethical.

I am reminded of a New York gallery owner who told me they only take photodocumentary photography. (And only B&W). Almost everything was of young men hanging around on the street in third world countries. Art is not just about rainbow colored flowers and HDR effects.

exploit the exploited .. many will hate me for what im going to write, and thats ok .. because i will explain the logical trap to you

1- we agree that this pic provokes emotions
2- we are aware that the subject is part of mafia kind structures
3- the method why this pic works, is because of emotional manipulation

how to break this circle - dont allow profit for them, so that it will become useless playing those emotional manipulative games, easy to say ... but how to achive ?

when the head of this mafia like structures realize, that their "teardrop soldiers" earn more for somebody else .. as a photo model .. they wont put em up the street , as long they dont get a share, which wont happen .. as we the photographers deal with other kinds of structures

sell the pic for the most amount of money you can, get to the head of them a let him know how good you earned hard dollars ...

it wont stop otherwise, and it cant ... and because of all that "we in the modern world" gonna write some threads about moral and such ... there is no moral in the mafia .. damn!

I remember seeing a beggar laying on the ground like that, but no child, on the footbridge as I went into the MBK Center. When I came out about an hour later he was still there, but being kicked in the ribs by two policemen. Eventually, he got up and walked away. There was nothing wrong with him, and I assume he was known to the police. I've seen similar in Vietnam too.

As for 'would anyone hang it on their wall'? I knew someone who had a large print of a heap of rubbish hanging in their office. It was taken somewhere in India, and on closer inspection the heap of rubbish housed a family, complete with a small cooking fire near the entrance to the hovel. He said it was a constant reminder of how lucky he was. So maybe there is a small fine art market for poverty images.

Would I try to sell it as fine art? I think not. Editorial stock? Absolutely.

Stanislav Killer- Just because you sell art does not mean you are necessarily doing it for profit. Taking pictures of celebrities is for profit. Wedding photography is for profit. Photo documentary of the human condition is art for arts sake. Just because you offer the art for sale does not make it exploitative. It makes it communicative. While there is no moral in the mafia as you say there is also no moral in being silent about it.

As editorial stock, yes. As fine art for someone's wall? I don't think so, although many sales end up in offices. Maybe it would work in an International Charity headquarters. In an art show it would be best wrapped around a theme of world poverty.

As long as the subject is treated with respect. I saw a local photo exhibit at a retirement village recently where a guy entered a bunch of photos of poor people with the mocking title of "Dentist's Dream". Jeez!

This goes along with my earlier post about New York art galleries selling photo documentary. It was 20 years ago when I learned that collectors like it and galleries specialize in it. Here is something more recent. I never made a distinction between photo documentary and fine art. I have never made the presumption that art is for living rooms only.

http://theliteratelens.com/2012/05/22/is-it-art-documentary-photography-at-the-new-york-photo-festival/

as a documentary its ok, but how many would want it on their wall?

legality would depend on the location of the shoot, its doubtful that a beggar would sue you... he um doesn't have a leg to stand on... i know that's terrible but when will i get to use that? anyway, it really comes down to a reflection of your own work, how you want to get your money and how it reflects against the rest of your work. if you have nothing but hard hitting documentary type shots, then it goes right in. but otherwise it might look out of place.

---Mike Savad

bradford :

comparing this pic with those pics i took a different war zones - this pic is art to me, we have the main players, we have the audience, and we have those who profit by it; to me its the same as going into a theater and watching goethes faust , no ethical problem with me ...

the only question is, will it sell

and yes, there is no other reason for me than to profit, thats the only reason im here at faa


btw the worst images (when talking about moral and ethics) are from war zones, and really many of them have become fine art, so i ask you which is the smaller evil ?

edit: i read your next post which explaind more about your point of view, forget this lines up there ^^

If it's legal why not sell it?

Are we to avoid taking pics of rich people because they are rich and we are exploiting their wealth? Are we to avoid taking pics of thin/fat women because they might have an eating disorder? Are we to avoid taking pics of normal people because they are "normal". Are we to avoid taking pictures of little people (formerly known as midgets)?

How far do you want to take this?

If it upsets you, don't do it. It does not upset me in the least nor tens of thousands of my fellow street photographers the world over. We show the world as it is.

This is an awareness kind of photo and should be shown everywhere to whomever would see it. Acknowledgment is the first step to change. These poor children need more people to "see" them and their pain. Sell it to whomever would buy it national geographic etc. If you feel guilty about receiving money for it just put it into a fund to help these poor innocents.

my picture "liquid natrium - yellow abstract" has value about 7 000 000 $ [!?] . the other one - "interstellar tunnel" - 781 $ . so , where is this money , i ask ?

if you look at one of the stock companies here, they have images from the war, jews in nazi death camps and in piles in mass graves. this is really tame compared to that.


---Mike Savad

When did... "who would buy this as an art print" to hang on their wall? , become a criterion for Fine Art????

I would post it here as a:" Not for Sale " original......Slightly pixelize the boy's face.....Tell the whole story in the description box...Hope the bots get a hold of it...Publicize the hell out of it...and maybe something might get done.......Giving your truly fine and very provocative photo a reason for being.

I could see this in a lot of places, not so much a home. Would I sell it on FAA? Yes, and set it on the commercial sales, and license sales.

I agree with Robert. I would sell it but you have to tell the story with it! Depriving yourself of payment for you efforts is not going to do those people any good, telling the story of their exploitation may! The more people that are educated, through any venue, including FAA, the more likely there may be enough people or the right peopl, that get moyivated to do something.

I for one, have never heard the story of the mafia drugging kids to be exploited this way.

I personaly belive you have a moral and ethetical obligation to publish the image, WITH the description, everywhere you can. If you feel it is wrong than donate the monies to an organzation that is addressing the issue.

You can trun it into a one artist, one photo campaige to address the problem and maybe raise some money for the cause.

Coming from a big city I see many staged homeless scenes, not by the photographer, but by the actors. Some of us want to see if we can get emotional images that tell a story and revert to shooting homeless at one point. Its not an easy thing to do, or safe if done right. I decided to try this in 2000, and it took my 6 months to figure out what would work and how to actually shoot a whole story that would have meaning. I did a whole series over 3 years, and never exploited one of them, didn't have to. You can see in their emotions who they are, they don't have to lay on the ground with a child being exploited by them or any other nonsense like that. I for one sell one of the images because of what it meant to both of us. The others are not sold, and only used if a shelter wants them for educational purposes to help with funding or things of that nature. Never sold.

If you really want to shoot this type of photography, you will figure out what is sincere or not. Its easy to spot and certain ways to tell that most wont think about.
Best

Dean, My only issue with that image is that you can see the child's face. If it was turned away, it would make it less "personal".

Bill,

Re: the child's face

That's why I suggested it be slightly pixelized.

Why would you want to make in less "personal"? If you want it less personal take pics of flowers. Personal is the key to that image...But if the image you took upsets you, then don't try to sell it and don't show it. Keep it or dump it.

I agree with Robert and Floyd, it's story art, strong, provoking and necessary... Is this one shot Fine Art? maybe not but you are a Fine Art Artist who captured a compelling story that needs to be told. Not all art is pretty, that does not make it less then a beautiful sunset, just different. I personally would not want it on my wall because it brings tears to my eyes at the thought of those poor people. However, I would go to see an exhibition that show cases this issue, and I would enjoy meeting the people who are trying to help.

Do you have more shots of this scene? Enough to approach a socially conscious gallery for a show?

I'd be surfing the net looking for non-profits spearheading a charity to help these people...and then submit the images and story to them... same holds true for other editorial avenues.

It's a story worth telling, sad as it is....

Cheers, Barbara

If the child had his face turned away from the camera, this discussion would probably not be taking place, because then there would hardly be a story to tell. The face of the child is the only real emotional connection we have to the picture.

Censorship is a sad thing especially in today's world. How can we grow as people and understand the world around us?

The child's face IS the story... No need to protect the child in this photo... It is the child's face that tells the story that he needs protecting, not from
photogerphers, but from those that are exploiting him!

Censorship is usually NEVER a good thing in art or anywhere else. Censorship in this case works in the favor of the abusers and does nothing for abused.

You are so right Floyd...artists have been telling their stories and the stories of others since time began!

I agree with Floyd and Cathy, and the others, the child's face is the story, censoring it would take the whole story out of the image, and make it worthless. No insult meant there Dean. Censoring is like a virus, it does nothing bet destroy.

I now completely agree with Floyd.

I rescind my suggestion for "pixelation".

so , "do , what you can , we're still looking , and always remember , you are a stranger here .'' . o.k. :]

Folks, thanks ever so much for your wonderful and insightful comments so far. Definitely a lot of food for thought.

To clarify: I am not saying the beggar is fake although the kid is clearly used to gain more sympathy = more money. Not all beggars are controlled by organized crime but lots of them are, especially the ones in busy, high-tourist areas. I know all the beggars in my neighbourhood by face, always the same people, same place. The only thing that changes is the children. They are only used up to a certain age, not sure what happens with them next. Children are drugged, especially those still dependent on breast milk. Since the women handling them are not the real mothers, they cannot feed the babies when they are crying and hungry. And maybe sleeping kids garner more sympathy. No idea what the story is of the unfortunate gentleman above; could be legit but my experience so far tells me it probably isnt.

This style of photography is not usual for me but I do want tot move more towards street and documentary photography. However I decide to use this photo I will not pixelate or obscure the photo though. It's either as is or not at all.

I really enjoyed Bradford's link (thanks!) as it touches upon some of the dillemas I have here. Yes, art doesnt have to be pretty. Sometimes you go looking for a subject, sometimes - like here - it seems almost as if the subject finds you. This was shot during Chinese New Year in Bangkok's Chinatown and the place was crowded. I spotted the man and just took the photo, almost without thinking.

Mike also has a good point. There is far more horrible stuff on FAA then this photo and the sellers probably don't think twice about monetizing on the holocaust and such.

I am in the process of building a website and I think I will definitely exhibit it there, perhaps as part of a bigger series on urban poverty or Life in the Big City. Submitting it to the attention of NGOs or charities is also a good idea; as a POD/fine art work probably not.

Dean.. in isolation I don't think I would offer it.. but as part of a series.. defiantly.

If it makes you uncomfortable don't sell it…simple as that. You could also consider selling it and giving any sales you get to CARE , Save the Children, or any of the many charities out there that help people like this in need. It's a powerful editorial image…kudos.

I haven't read everything here but I'll add my 2 cents.

First, the picture seems to be reality. Like the subject or not, it is what it is. Is it any different than a picture of a landscape or car? The camera just captures what is there.

But, saying that, I do wonder WHO would buy it to hang on their wall?

Sell it, make a lot of money, get sued, make more money! What is art anyway? It's should be exploitive with highly charged emotions...would I want it on my wall? Yes or maybe. The child looks well fed and has clothes. I really like macabre reality because I see it in the world of science. I would love it if someone in my field would exploit our world; it would educate people about the horrors of science, what we do to animals and how we torture humans, and injure the environment as well, all in the name of progression. If people were more brave, the result: compassion and education. Isn't that what you photographers are for anyway, why do you care if people get angry...isn't that more business for you?

Lisa,
If it's in the public domain, it is legal to take the image (in the United States).
I, as a street photographer, do not want anyone angry at me. I avoid confrontation to the max.

Generally speaking,
“Do you believe,' said Candide, 'that men have always massacred each other as they do to-day, that they have always been liars, cheats, traitors, ingrates, brigands, idiots, thieves, scoundrels, gluttons, drunkards, misers, envious, ambitious, bloody-minded, calumniators, debauchees, fanatics, hypocrites, and fools?'
Do you believe,' said Martin, 'that hawks have always eaten pigeons when they have found them?”
― Voltaire, Candide

Known to make inappropriate comments on this forum, I'm about to make another....

And I apologize ahead of time to any and all who find this following comparison totally insensitive.


This touching photo, reminds me of a repeating scenario back in the 80's

My friend Rush, being one of the original "Mud Beggars" on the renaissance fair circuit, had this gig, at the end of the show, as the public exited the site,where he would be lying down, prostrate, as the gentleman in the photo but without the child and instead of the bowl, he would be holding a credit card knuckle buster.

I know..I know...I'm sorry

Whoa...shut the front door! Robert...

One always has to worry about who purchase their images and for what purpose. I've been all around the world and love traveling to third world countries but I've not used any of those images for stock or POD.

Joe,
You can't use street images with people for stock unless you have model releases.
You can sell your street image as art in an art gallery or here on Fine Art America. There is a difference which most folks here on fine art america just don't get for one reason or another.

I was approached by an aggressive panhandler the other day. She was foreign and dressed in expensive clothes that reflected her ethnicity. And she was wearing gold jewelry! Had a toddler on her hip that she was using as a prop. I didn't want to take her photo. I wanted to take a swing at her for pimping her kid.

Philip...
What's right then becomes what is moral or ethical.
I prefer to abide by the law. If it's legal, I take the pic, if not I don't. Makes my life a lot easier. Should I wish to break the law (I don't) then I would accept the consequences.

If street images of people are made illegal, then I will stop taking street images of people. As of now, it's legal to take pics of people in public places (but no up skirt, down blouse shots for the most part)...When I do street photography I make it a point to be as invisible as possible, as harmless as possible, as a quick as possible (I am from the old school and not the new school of in your face street/like Bruce Gilden, etc).

Dean, I think there is another subject in your photo that if you can find a way to make the focus would take this beyond the particular.

It's actually why I think this image is so provocative and disturbing to some, and it has nothing to do with exploitation. I mean there is that - there is the idea they, as weak and vulnerable, are being exploited to make money for their "boss" - and that furthermore, pyramid style, an artist might do the same - which is a subject in itself. And then that critics of your photo and your possibly making money off it, might go on to do the same, simply with their criticism.

Which just points to the greater truth about the picture.

Which is... All men are beggars, whether they are rich or poor, and they don't want to see that about themselves. This is why it is so disturbing to us, and why beggars annoy people so. That man and that child is all of us.

You could also say that all men are exploited and all men exploit. It's an unfortunate truth of our fallen nature.

But those people walking behind, they likely don't see themselves that way. And we don't see their heads, their faces, but those two faces on the bottom belong to all of them.

So there you go, there are more workable subjects, if you can find a way to frame the bigger subjects with this shot, working with it, it would uplift this to the universal from the particular - and make it a noble endeavour - unless the particular is what you like about it. But if you can find a way to bring the viewer face to face with himself in this, that's great art.

sorry for not getting back to your comments, I've been away from my computer for a couple of weeks. Thanks for the interesting points made, especially by Anita. Some good food for thought there!

Dean,
Problem is most folks don't know the history of photography and what has been photographed and what has not been photographed. Your powerful image is just the type of image that the great Lewis Hine (American sociologist and photographer) brought to the attention of the public. Do research on Mr. Hine and his photographs of children being exploited by the rich.

Also research Jacob Riis, American social reformer, "muckraking" journalist and social documentary photographer.

Why you may encounter such negative feedback here is that FAA generally caters to images that are pleasant to look at (nothing at all wrong with this). Your powerful photograph is out of place on FAA but would be in place and talked about and appreciated on other image sites.

I will never forget the woman with a baby who came up to me while I was playing a slot machine in downtown Las Vegas and begged for a quarter for "food".... Being young and naive at the time (and on my first trip to Vegas) I gave her some change which she promptly managed to lose at a nearby machine :(

As for pictures like the one in this thread:

I am not a lawyer but my understanding is that no model release is needed. I would post it for sale as "editorial stock", which does not require a release on most stock sites - I know Dreamstime does not require releases for editorial images. If I had a series of such images that told a story I might want to exhibit them in a gallery or similar venue. I may also consider publishing a book or magazine on MagCloud or CreateSpace, provided I had enough such pictures to tell a story

I'm not sure that I would post the image for sale on FAA only because it may not be the type of image customers come to FAA to look for