We were told about 1960 or so that the Navajo did not like being photographed in public because it messed with their eternal spirit. Being a born skeptic I rather suspected they wanted to sell photographs. In any event if you want to photograph persons, in say Window Rock, it might not be a bad idea to ask around first.
Note that you generally need to get a signed “model release” document if you want to publish the picture.
Even if the picture is taken in public?
Photojournalism student here
The legal concept vis-a-vis model releases is right of publicity. People have a right to decide whether their image can be used to promote things. So if you’re planning on putting the photo in an advertisement or PR publication, you’ll need model releases. If the photo is being used editorially, i.e. in a book, newspaper, or magazine article, no model release is necessary.
My wife takes a lot of photographs, some of which include human subjects. Can she sell the photographs as original artwork without model releases?
It’s complicated 
There’s lots of details that can (and do) fill up a book, but she needs to take care if she’s doing that depending on what the people who buy her images intend to do with them.
The picture accompanying the article showed a photo taken up a woman’s skirt. I seem to recall a case a few years ago that said such types of pictures were illegal, is that true? Its odd that Cecil didn’t comment on that specific aspect of public photography
This column was written before there were web sites selling voyeuristic pornography, so it wasn’t a big enough deal for Cecil to mention. To answer your question, it may be true, depending on the state you’re in. It’s illegal to photograph someone without their permission when they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The example they always give us is a public restroom, but courts have held that we have a reasonable expectation of privacy beneath our clothes.
First, unless you’re a photojournalist, it’s always a good idea to get a model release, even if it ultimately gathers dust. Second, your wife needs to register the copyrights to her photos and make clear that they cannot be put to any use other than the one intended, i.e. decoration as a framed print. Third, in all this keep in mind that there aren’t photography police on the lookout for people not getting releases. It’s a civil tort, the person photographed would have go to the trouble of getting a lawyer and filing suit. Finally, if there was legal action the courts would, in all likelihood, rule in her favor. However, if she gets a release she wouldn’t have to go to court.
When I studied Journalism here is what we learned.
[ul]
[li]Photographing people in public places for news or editorial purposes is legal, but you shouldn’t use photos for promotion or sale without a model release because they may demand a cease on distribution or sue for compensation. Children and teens must have a release signed by their legal guardian if used for sale or promotion.[/li][li]It is also just good manners to ask permission. [/li][li]People have a right to privacy, so photographing into windows, over fences, or up skirt can get you into trouble. If the subject is a public person then you may have more leeway here, but they may also be able to afford a better lawyer than you too.[/li][li]You may also need permission to use images of private buildings, homes, trademarks or art and use them for sale or promotion, so take care. [/li][li]Photographing on private property such as a business may be restricted by the owner legally.[/li][li]Menacing or trespassing with or without a camera is not legal either.[/li][li]Doctoring and distributing an image to imply something salacious could get you in trouble for libel.[/li][/ul]