Taking pictures of those subjects who don't want their pictures taken

[The_Traveler]

I have lately been in a Muslim country where many potential subjects definitely don't want their photos taken because of a disputed passage in their scriptures.

Is Picture Taking Forbidden in Islam? | Synonym

What do you think about this?

 

[ClickAddict]

"What do I think of this?" Respect their wishes. If you are in an area where there is a reasonable possibility that any subject in general public may be offended by having their photo taken, ensure you have everyone's approval. Just cause a photographer feels it's "just a photo", who gives us the right to impose our values on other cultures?

 

[The_Traveler]

"What do I think of this?" Respect their wishes. If you are in an area where there is a reasonable possibility that any subject in general public may be offended by having their photo taken, ensure you have everyone's approval. Just cause a photographer feels it's "just a photo", who gives us the right to impose our values on other cultures?

Did you read the linked info?
Do you get everyone's approval when you take photos in the street?

 

[tirediron]

Apples and oranges! When the photographer knows, or reasonably ought to know that creating an image is going or is likely to cause offense based on regional culture, tradition or religious reasons, the photographer's ethics should keep him from creating the image. As someone who's travelled all over the world, I can readily appreciate the appeal of foreign costumes and culture but respecting the dignity of others should be paramount. (and yes, I did read the article in the link)

 

[JoeW]

First, Lew--good link about Islam and photography.

Second, I'm wishy-washy on this issue, I don't have a firm position. Part of it is safety--if I think taking pictures is going to stir up a crowd or get me punched in the face just because that sleeping infant looks cute, I'll pass it up. But I'm also not very culturally sensitive. I'm perfectly willing to take a picture of someone in a public setting even if they're not a fan of having their picture taken.

Third, regarding the passage, I think it's an unreasonable interpretation. As I understand the Koran, you are not to depict the Prophet accurately (so instead they use symbols like architecture). But some elements of the Korean have been interpreted by some scholars in such extreme ways. For instance--music not being allowed (very common in Afghanistan under the Taliban). Music has always been around and a part of muslim culture since the days of the Prophet.

In instances where I think I may be facing a cultural norm, I'll motion with my camera and look hopeful (when shooting people on the street) and language is a barrier.

 

[The_Traveler]

Just to explore what people think.

What if:

1) if you had the opportunity to take an image where the subject was all right with it but close onlookers would almost certainly think it was wrong?

2) if you had the opportunity to take an image where the subject would never know that a photo had been taken?

 

[Soocom1]

Lets look at this a bit differently.

In Islam the making of any image of a living thing was prohibited and then during the Turkish Caliphate of the late 15th and 16th century, the images produced showed all of the people and the things of the day, with the notable exception of any image of Mujammed was forbidden.

now lets look at this a bit closer to home:
In the US, try taking pictures on Tribal lands!

Not because there is some spiritual or cultural aspect against images or photographs, but because of the white man's exploitation of natives as a money making scheme that was generally derogatory and prejudice.

Islam is a different beast. Most contemporary Muslims do not wholly adhere to the Quran any more than modern Christians to the bible.

So the debate is really to local rules and regulations more than anything else.

 

[The_Traveler]

Lets look at this a bit differently.

.

Yes, thank you.

But, to bring it closer to how you would act in real life.

What if:

1) if you had the opportunity to take an image where the subject was all right but close onlookers would almost certainly think it was wrong?

2) if you had the opportunity to take an image where the subject would never know that a photo had been taken?


LL

 

[Tropicalmemories]

I find it deeply disappointing that in the 21st Century there are still people who rely on suspect interpretations of a Bronze Age fable to tell them how to dress, when and what to eat, why you should not educate women and if photography is allowed or not.

But when I'm travelling in backward looking countries I try to respect people's choices, even if I can't understand their reasoning.

 

[Soocom1]

Lets look at this a bit differently.

.

Yes, thank you.

But, to bring it closer to how you would act in real life.

What if:

1) if you had the opportunity to take an image where the subject was all right but close onlookers would almost certainly think it was wrong?

Respect the crowd. Trust me, Ive dealt with this before locally. Sometimes its just better to pick your fights.

2) if you had the opportunity to take an image where the subject would never know that a photo had been taken?

That really depends on the intent.
Unlike the NSA and other acronymal gov. agencies that get off on spying on little kids and down women's shirts in an "effort to fight terrorism", I generally try to respect people not wanting to be in an image.
The biggest example of this is building/architectural photography (to whit certain techniques are used to prevent such as long time exposures) or try to frame it to respect those folks. Even if they "don't know".

Sorry I have a tendency to work from an older set of Middle Age ethics that traditionally respects one's space.
LL

 

[ClickAddict]

Just to explore what people think.

What if:

1) if you had the opportunity to take an image where the subject was all right with it but close onlookers would almost certainly think it was wrong?

2) if you had the opportunity to take an image where the subject would never know that a photo had been taken?

1. Depends on setting. too many "yes in this case", "no in another" scenario. So I guess my answer is...depends.

2. I think I'll quote C.S Lewis on this one.... "Integrity is doing the right thing even when no one is watching"

And as far as Everyone in the street... well I personally dont do street photography, but my opinion would be... in a crowded area where the vast majority have an expectation of being photographed (aka north america, non religious establishments), I would say be considerate of the situation, but you would certainly not need everyone's consent. (Either ethically or legally)

I shot at a powwow once. I made sure I questioned the appropriate people before taking a shot if it was allowed. (There were certain ceremonies they didn't want to. Now legally they were on public park area and there was no law that said I could not take their photo. However, you can be certain I waited for the appropriate time when they were willing. It's called respect.)

 

[Soocom1]

....I shot at a powwow once. I made sure I questioned the appropriate people before taking a shot if it was allowed. (There were certain ceremonies they didn't want to. Now legally they were on public park area and there was no law that said I could not take their photo. However, you can be certain I waited for the appropriate time when they were willing. It's called respect.)

Tribal customs aside, if in a public square, they may have little recourse unless the publicly display a "No Photo"sign.

If on the tribal lands, then you have a problem. But most tribes have a "No Photos" sign at their boundaries.

 

[The_Traveler]

Just to explore what people think.

What if:

2) if you had the opportunity to take an image where the subject would never know that a photo had been taken?

2. I think I'll quote C.S Lewis on this one.... "Integrity is doing the right thing even when no one is watching"

and what if you didn't know the personal feelings of the subject?

 

[ClickAddict]

....I shot at a powwow once. I made sure I questioned the appropriate people before taking a shot if it was allowed. (There were certain ceremonies they didn't want to. Now legally they were on public park area and there was no law that said I could not take their photo. However, you can be certain I waited for the appropriate time when they were willing. It's called respect.)

Tribal customs aside, if in a public square, they may have little recourse unless the publicly display a "No Photo"sign.

If on the tribal lands, then you have a problem. But most tribes have a "No Photos" sign at their boundaries.

Like I said, in a public park legally I could, ethically I would not. Just because something is legally allowed does make it the right thing to do.

 

[JoeW]

#2 is easier for me to answer--I'd probably take the photo if the person/party wasn't aware I was taking it. The biggest exception to my answer would be if I was betraying a trust we'd established (not a blind naive trust they had in me but a conversation about norms and then I betrayed it).

For #1, it would probably come down to what would they do if I took photos? Would I then be running for my life? Case in point: when I was in Hanoi during the Trump-Kim summit, I took some pictures of some Vietnamese AFVs. I'm pretty sure that's against the law there. But the line of vehicles was interesting so I went for it. But I'm also pretty sure they didn't see me taking pictures.