According to my many "clients" I am wrong. All I do

>>16804892
Post more of your art. I need more in order to make a fair assessment.

>>16804892
Pictures of scenery - OK
Pictures of people who know you're taking them - OK
Pictures of people who don't agree to posing or don't know - Not OK

Got it?

>>16804897
this OP. i would like to see more of your art to better ASSess it

>>16804892
>"clients"
The fact that you put clients in quotes gives off the impression that they aren't paying or asking.
You don't take pictures of people without their permission, you are not "being yourself" by taking pictures as taking photos is not a personal trait.

Also a picture of a girl's ass in front of a recycling bin and a radiator is not an art shot.

>>16804920
i dont think you know how street photography works. if in the US, op is protected by law and can take pictures of anyone he wants in public spaces.

that being said, op is probably a troll and his art sux.

Goddamn it I wish riding boots werent coopted by women. They look baller as fuck and its a shame that women always steal the best clothes from male fashion

>>16804969
Stop trying to be a sjw. She'ss not going to fuck you for standing up for her on a shitty website.

>>16804892
>art

That's an utterly shit shot. It's as if you don't even know basics of photography.

>>16805041
>pointing out the obvious makes you an sjw
I'm pointing out what a fucktard OP is, you can eat a bowl of dicks, you aren't even a good troll.

>>16804989
I know it works.

It comes down to intent of the shot and the primary subject matter. If the girl is intentionally the primary subject then it's not protected if the intent is for sexual gratification or disseminating without permission.

If she was walking across the scenery it'd be protected. Likewise if the art was taking a shot of a girl in a park it'd be ok if the intent of the shot was "girl in park" but not if it is "girl with great ass in park".