---

Birgitt Röttger-Rössler:
The law on copyright for works of visual art and photography states that photos may only be published with the consent of the depicted individuals. What many don’t know is that this is a very old law, originally enacted in 1907. Nevertheless, in our field, photos of people from various regions of the world have been published for decades without explicit, documented consent for such publication. Publishers didn’t insist on this either. Nowadays, however, this law is taken very seriously, partly due to digitization and the resulting uncontrollable spread and circulation of images. Of course, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), introduced in 2016, has also increased awareness regarding personal rights. In social and cultural anthropology, an attitude has now been established that rejects the publication of images where individuals are recognizable, even if it’s legally permissible, such as in images where people only appear incidentally in a landscape or other settings.

Today, I’m discussing this topic with Anita von Poser. Anita von Poser is a professor of social and cultural anthropology at Martin Luther University in Halle. She has conducted long-term, classic field research in Papua New Guinea in a village along the Ramu River and, more recently, field research in the transnational setting of Vietnamese Berlin.

Anita, publishing portrait photos of research participants has almost become taboo in our field. However, in your 2016 monograph „Foodways and Empathy,“ you published several photos of people, mentioning their real names. What’s behind this decision?

Anita von Poser:
Yes, Birgitt, thank you for your question. Perhaps just a bit of context: as you know, I conducted my research between 2004 and 2010. The book was first published in 2013, followed by a paperback edition in 2016. At that time, the discussions and legal regulations you’ve just mentioned were not as widely discussed as they are now.

Nevertheless, for ethical research reasons, I already gave a lot of thought to which photos I could and should include in „Foodways and Empathy,“ and I discussed this early on with my research partners in the field in Papua New Guinea. The response was always very clear: of course, it was important for the readers to know exactly who took care of me, who ensured my well-being, and who helped make the research possible.

I was also expected to signal my place within the local social structure. Omitting images of these important individuals and fundamental social relationships would have been seen as a sign of disrespect. Mentioning people by their real names was clearly meant as a sign of appreciation, considered socio-culturally acceptable from the specific local perspectives at the time of my research.

I believe that current discussions should allow more space for diverse opinions and attitudes on this topic, which can vary depending on where and with whom we conduct research. And, of course, we anthropologists must take these seriously.

Regarding my images: I was careful to anonymize specific social details and events, which I also discussed with my research partners. The images I selected beyond simple portraits depict scenes of public and ritualized behavior. While I did participate in intimate and private events during my long-term fieldwork, I consciously chose not to document such moments. These decisions were always made together with my research partners.

Birgitt Röttger-Rössler:
Thank you for these insights, Anita. These are indeed ethical considerations, highlighting the recognition and visibility of your research partners, their families, and the individuals who welcomed, supported, and accompanied you. Did the publisher at the time require you to prove that you had obtained consent for these images, or was that not necessary?

Anita von Poser:
Here, I can give a straightforward answer: No, the publisher only asked me to confirm that if I used photos taken by someone else, I would acknowledge this accordingly – which I did. I believe there are two such images in my book. One was taken by a research partner, and the other by my partner, who is also an anthropologist and visited me in the field.

At that time, the publisher didn’t inquire whether the individuals depicted had given their consent. As I’ve just explained, for me – and I believe also for our field of social and cultural anthropology when we teach and explain our methodological approaches – it’s fundamentally a research-ethical matter to make decisions about photos collaboratively with our field partners.

Birgitt Röttger-Rössler:
Nowadays, this is becoming more formalized. Publishers now typically require explicit consent due to GDPR regulations, which are not always easy to obtain. Some colleagues have started to record verbal consent using audio recordings since sending or completing consent forms can be challenging.

I believe this is linked to the fact that many of our works are now available through open-source platforms, circulating widely, leaving us with little control over how images are used. This is different from the past, when books had to be borrowed, purchased, or accessed in libraries – and copying images was more cumbersome, which provided a degree of protection.

I’d like to add one final comment. Due to the understandable and necessary heightened sensitivity around these issues, I’ve observed increasing uncertainty in our field regarding the publication of photographs showing people, even when they have given consent. I have mixed feelings about this. Photos convey so much – they speak to us and create connections. This is especially true for images of people, particularly portraits.

Pixelated faces, in a way, dehumanize individuals. Do we now have to completely abandon using photographs of people in our publications because of the uncontrollable ways images are shared today?

Anita von Poser:
I completely agree with you – images hold powerful meaning. They convey something in a way that words sometimes cannot capture. Digitization has indeed led to the uncontrollability you’ve described, and that’s unfortunate. But whether we should forgo the impactful nature of images and what they can communicate – I think that’s a process we must continue to discuss with our research partners.

It’s not a decision we as researchers can make alone. I believe this must be discussed collectively with the individuals, groups, communities, and societies we engage with in our work. It’s undoubtedly a delicate process, but one that should lead to further dialogue.

Birgitt Röttger-Rössler:
Thank you, Anita! I think your final words are very important – this is a process that is far from over. Thank you very much for this conversation.

Anita von Poser:
Thank you as well, dear Birgitt.