In the Potterverse, photos and paintings of people commonly show them moving, even capable of leaving the frame entirely. I know there’s a reference in one of the books to a magic potion being used in the developing process for photos, and there’s probably some similar explanation for paintings. But I’m wondering if there’s also an element of the picture having to be of a wizard or witch for it to work?
I can’t remember an instance of any magical photos or paintings explicitly being of Muggles in the books or movies, so there may be no answer to this.
At one point, Harry’s friend (either Dean or Seamus, I don’t remember) who had a Muggle upbringing, had a poster of some Muggle football players that did not move in their dormroom. Ron was befuddled.
I think it depends on how the pictures are developed. IIRC, Colin Creevey mentioned something along the lines of “if I develop them right, they’ll move.”
True, but many of the pictures in the Potter-verse don’t act like witches or wizards, and may not have been portraits of real people. There’s no evidence that Sir Cadogan or the Fat Lady were ever real people.
EDIT: Just to throw another wrench in the gears- what about Squibs?
I’m guessing that the kittens in Umbridge’s plates weren’t wizards or witches, and they moved. That suggests that the magic is in the process and not in the subject.
