Religious questions for photography

[GerrySiegel]

<p>Missy, I would personally lend a discerning ear to Biblical scholars, like Gunter Plaut, who writes the following about Exodus 20:4, re the Second Commandment. from "Torah, a Modern Commentary":<br /> " There is no prohibition of the plastic arts as such but only of their <strong>misuse</strong> . This meant, however that, in ages when the arts served primarily the goals of religion, sculpture and painting found no fertile soil amongst the Jewish people. Instead, Judaism directed it creative powers toward the inner life, the vision of the soul rather than the eye, the invisible rather than the sensual. Prayer became life's great dimension while the visual arts were denied their place of eminence. "</p>

<p>Plaut goes on to say that.".. Moslems applied this prohibition with great severity. The <strong>Christian</strong> <strong>church </strong> declared at the Second Council of Nicea ( 787 A.D) acting against those who wanted to apply the commandment rigidly, the so called" <strong>Iconoclasts</strong> , " that the commandment applied to Israel only and permitted plastic and other arts.")</p>

<p><br /> Won't find me arguing against that interpretation of scripture. Missy, I say shoot weddings if you choose. You are doctrinally safe on that. For other groups or sects,check them out first like folks say just to be respectful. I wish you well.</p>

[edgreene]

<p>If you have no real "editorial" (<em>journalistic work in progress</em>) use for a shot of a human, you're being rude (and frankly) illegal if you insist on making images of them without their permisssion. </p>

<p>Screw "Religion", it's flat-out illegal (even in the US) if they object.</p>

<p> </p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>Ed can't be serious. If he is, he's wrong. (Although I'm sure if he presented some sort of reference we'd all appreciate it.) He might be right on it being rude, of course, as I think we've all experienced rude photographers.</p>

<p>Assuming there was some religious proscription for some people about having their picture taken or some expected ill result, would that change the way a photographer treats others? If they don't want their picture taken, does it matter why?</p>

<p>Much as Ed's suggestion that taking pictures of people is illegal (in the US) - and that seems to be well outside the bounds of experience most of us have, the OPs question about religious people taking pictures seems to be logically flawed. If they had a religious reason to not take pictures (of whatever sorts), then took pictures counter to their belief strictures, it seems they'd perhaps need to examine their consicence and their beliefs. OTOH, a certain level of sensitivity that wouldn't necessarily be religiously based would suggest that taking pictures of people who don't want their pictures taken, for whatever reason, might be out of line. </p>

<p>I'm pretty sure a group that didn't want pictures taken of their weddings isn't going to hire a photographer anyways.</p>

[benbangerter]

<p>JDM, the Leica altar is quite similar to the truly grandiose "Monument to the EOS 5D" in Rome!</p>

[benbangerter]

<p>Shown here:</p><div></div>

[g.e._masana]

<p>What I can't figure out is, about the folks who believe taking a picture of them steals their souls: Why are they confronting the photographers instead of running for the hills and ducking for cover when they see that camera in their hands?</p>

[landscape_shooter]

<p>Hi, I guess I am a pretty religous person as well as I once went through the same decision you are making. I used to live close to Amish and still have some Amish friends. It's hard to really understand them as most of our lives are completely different. I am pretty familiar with the way they live though. They seek a simple life with God. Some Amish have quoted the verse in Exodus as the reason for not having photographs. Some still do. More recently they have stated that photography isn't consistent with their lifestyle though. They realize that a graven image can be anything made in the form of something on this earth. That would mean calendars with photos, toy animals, dolls, painting pictures, even postage stamps are all made in the image of something on this earth. All of these things they allow. Many Amish enjoy drawing or making toys of trains and horses and dolls. The cover of their magazine "Family Life" always contains a picture made by one of them. Moreover they just feel that posing for photographs brings too much attention to their earthly bodies, and they view getting caught up too much in things of "this world" as vain. Photographs are just not consistent with a horse and buggy lifestyle. They seek to remove earthly things from their way of life if there is any chance of becoming too vain or leading to immorality, or sin. That is why they dress the way they do, so as not to attract attention to themselves. With photography they feel it would be far too easy to be consumed with the way we look etc. Probably the best questions an Amish person asked an "English" or non-Amish person is this: Do you own a TV?(yes) Do you feel your life would be better off without it?(yes) When you get home are you going to take out your TV?(no). They seek to remove temptations before they arise and put God first in all their life. Any earthly passion can become an idol to them such as hunting for example. When done occasionly it is an enjoyable pastime. However getting involved in lots of hunting magazines, expensive hunting trips etc. can become another idol to live for. It is possible to get too consumed in something so as you are living for your own earthly pleasure and not for God. That is the way I have come to view Exodus 20. I feel it can apply to anything in our lives, not just a golden calf idol such as in Old Testament times. To me if I am totally immersed in my photography and it is all I think about and do and I just push God to the side, what am I really living my life for? Is it myself and my photography or is it God? Only you and God know what or who you are living for. I am fine with photography and all my other interests and hobbies as long as they don't totally consume me and I find I'm not interested much in God or His word.-------------------<br>

My photography is more about remembering the fun times we have had and enjoying God's beautiful creation in nature. I don't see anything wrong with this. A wedding is a union of Husband and Wife before God (at least it should be) and the photographs will always take them back to their special day. They will be reminded of some little details or the look on Grandma's face. I don't see anything wrong with that either. It can show the great love they had for each other many years later. As for working on Sunday that is up to you. The pastor, organist are technically working as well. The Amish milk their cows on Sunday too! They do what's neccesary for their job. That's a tricky question if you view weddings as only "work" and you don't want to work at all on Sunday. Maybe you view weddings as a religous ceremony and you are just a part of it. Maybe doing only what is neccesary on Sunday and reserving any other time as rest or attending church. Best wishes</p>

 

[edgreene]

<p><em><strong>Ed can't be serious. If he is, he's wrong. (Although I'm sure if he presented some sort of reference we'd all appreciate it.)</strong></em></p>

<p>First read US copyright law: then read "editorial use of photographs" then variuous state and local laws.<br>

Surely you understand that if you cannot present a good case for your editorial use (<em>First Amendment Right</em>) to use their image, you shouldn't take their picture?<br>

Certainly you know that we who are photographers (even we PJs) have no rights which abbrogate or impinge on other's rights to privacy?<br>

That "the "Public's right to know" is just so much BS cooked up by those of us whose interests are served by our many times reckless use of illegally gotten images?<br>

<em><strong></strong></em><br>

<em><strong>(SNIP)If they don't want their picture taken, does it matter why?</strong></em></p>

<p>If a person does not want you to take their picture, it matters not one damn why. </p>

<p><em><strong>Much as Ed's suggestion that taking pictures of people is illegal (in the US) - and that seems to be well outside the bounds of experience most of us have, the OPs question about religious people taking pictures seems to be logically flawed.</strong></em></p>

<p>We with cameras presume we have an unlimited freedom to capture what we want, be it private individuals or inadvertantly capturing secret government installations.<br>

We squeal like pigs when some badge wearing person rolls up on us telling us to stop or worse, hand over our gear.<br>

Worse, our unlimited freedoms enjoyed as US citizens has innured us to criticism of our "hobby", either by governments or private individuals.<br>

Many "photographers" will even debate on a forum the morality of taking a picture of a homeless person... then take the picture anyway. </p>

<p><em><strong>If they had a religious reason to not take pictures (of whatever sorts), then took pictures counter to their belief strictures, it seems they'd perhaps need to examine their consicence and their beliefs. </strong></em><br>

<strong><em></em></strong><br>

I, private person, need no reason to ask you not to take my picture; it's my right to deny you.</p>

<p><strong>OTOH, a certain level of sensitivity that wouldn't necessarily be religiously based would suggest that taking pictures of people who don't want their pictures taken, for whatever reason, might be out of line. </strong><br>

<strong></strong><br>

When (if) they are acting privately, even if outdoors, their right to privacy cannot be interfered with just because you have a camera: the law says if you take a picture of a person in a public venue and they can be recognized, you mus obtain a model's release from them beofre you can use their image in any mannner other than editorial.<br>

All the attendant sophistry here and other places about "photographer's rights" is just so much bushwa: a person's right to privacy is absolute vis-a-vis your assumed "right" to invade that privacy. </p>

<p><em><strong>I'm pretty sure a group that didn't want pictures taken of their weddings isn't going to hire a photographer anyways.</strong></em><br>

<strong><em></em></strong><br>

?</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>Ed, a simple citation, not a rant. Besides, only the comment that you were wrong was applied to you. The rest applies to the thread as a whole.</p>

<p>Let me make it easy for you.</p>

<p>"When (if) they are acting privately, even if outdoors, their right to privacy cannot be interfered with just because you have a camera: the law says if you take a picture of a person in a public venue and they can be recognized, you mus obtain a model's release from them beofre you can use their image in any mannner other than editorial."</p>

<p>All you need to do is find that "law" and make a note of it and provide it to us. For example, if you were trying to say that's the law in California, you could link to this, which addresses the "right to publicity" as contained in the California Civil Codes.</p>

<p>http://library.findlaw.com/1998/Feb/1/130405.html</p>

<p>There are other sections or statutes which would apply if your picture violated a privacy right or defamed them. You could cite them too. But they won't support your opinion either.</p>

<p>Here's the classic discussion of "privacy."</p>

<p>http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/privacy/Privacy_brand_warr2.html</p>

<p>There is a classic statement on lawyers: "If you have the law, argue the law. If you have the facts, argue the facts. If you have neither the law nor the facts on your side, pound the table." Quit pounding.</p>

<p> </p>

[Sanford]

<p>I've walked into the Carmel Mission to take photos on Sunday between services and the only thing I was told was to take off my hat! This seemed a little odd to me because I'm used to temples where I'm told to put on a hat. The rule is: men no hats, women can where hats, shorts are ok.</p>

[rascal64]

<p>I cannot speak for the Amish, but I did hear a photographer once remark that "Everytime a photographer shoots a wedding, he/she loses a piece of his/her soul"</p>

[blithelydoubting]

<p>Hi all,<br>

I realize that this thread is long dead, but I have to go on record pointing how ridiculous this is. Why should a photographer have to abide by someone's worries about soul stealing etc. It is not true that photos take souls, so what does it matter? Also, I really don't think that the light bouncing off of a person should be owned by that person. Do you? Just ridiculous.</p>