What are the ethics of taking portrait photos of "natives" on a trip and then posting them online?

When Do You Need a Model Release Form?

“You need permission to publish the photo for commercial purposes (e.g., you will get paid for your photo). It is generally accepted to snap a photo of a person in a public place without a release form. However, if you use that photo for specific commercial purposes, like promoting a product, it’s better to be safe and get the release form.”

https://www.rocketlawyer.com/business-and-contracts/intellectual-property/releases-and-licensing/legal-guide/when-do-you-need-model-release-form#:~:text=A%20Model%20Release%20Form%20is,latitude%20in%20selling%20the%20photo.

@Tropical_Willie Yes, but I’m talking about morals, not law.

I think it depends on whether you are taking a picture of the people, or if they are just incidental to the scenery.

If I take a picture of the Arc d’Triomphe, but not of a specific person at the Arc d’Triomphe, that’s okay.

If I see French school kids jumping rope in a school yard and and take pictures of them in colorful clothing that would need the approval of the parents.

When I took a picture of workers in a batik factory in Indonesia, I asked permission first.

I wouldn’t take portrait photographs of people without their permission. That is different, however, from taking a picture of a landscape or city street and local people happen to be visible in the photograph, but with a powerful enough lens you can certainly take photos of people from afar without them knowing, and I don’t think that’s good practice. As someone who’s traveled all over, I certainly have taken photos of and with local people, but that was because they wanted to take a photo with me; in some cases, it was their idea. But I would not simply photograph someone working in a field without them knowing and turn it into social media content. There is something a bit exploitative about that.

Its not something I would do, and my friends who travel extensively all around the world rarely posr natives, if ever.

I haven’t yet read the previous comments.

My feeling (my personal feeling) is that if people are out in public, it’s fair game. Conversely, if I am out in public, I understand that my photo might become part of someone else’s photo, whether intentionally or not. If I’m on a street in NYC, or in front of a museum, or walking in a park, or sitting on a step, or dining al fresco at a restaurant, I don’t expect someone to ask me if they are photographing street scenes or even if they are taking a photo where I am front and center.

A portrait that specifically features one person I would only do with permission.

If it was on someone’s private property I wouldn’t take a photo without persmission.

A crowded street I would be ok with it, including posting on social media. Even in a photo of someone I’m traveling with there can be people caught in the background.

I take “facebook live” video of people dancing outside where I live.

Photos from beaches I would try to avoid taking photos of anyone topless. Anything like that only meant for a specific location shouldn’t be taken by strangers or shared across social media.

Sometimes being paid to be photographed is part of the local economy

When my in laws went to Burma 35 years ago, they took pictures of the Kayan women known for wearing neck rings. The tour guide made sure that those taking pictures gave the women money for posing.

(The whole thing was exploitive though. The rings cause severe deformation of the clavicle and ribs, and stretch the distance between vertebrae. Many women no longer wear the rings)

I agree with the general consensus that if you’re out in public and there happen to be people passing through as you take a photograph (a photograph not focused on one particular person or group of people), then even from a moral point of view, I think it’s okay.
Let’s say you are taking a picture of the Eiffel Tower. You cannot possibly be expected to ask everybody else not to walk in front of the Eiffel Tower while you were taking a picture. That would be insane and very time consuming, assuming people would even agree to it.

I agree with @jca2.

@LifeQuestioner and others Clearly, in the case of passers by, there is no problem with it. I was specifically talking about portraits or close ups of people, particularly residents of a foreign country.

It not like some tribes believe if you have an image of them; you stole their soul.

What is the argument for immortality of taking a portrait photo without the person’s permission? After you return home, the chances of anyone recognizing the person in the photo is pretty minimal. The use of the photo for commercial purposes is illegal.

I understand that @janbb. I still agree with @jca2. I see nothing wrong with it.

@LostInParadise I think you meant “immorality” not “immortality”.

Thanks for the correction