What’s there to buy? You can just download it for free. Read the text. I’ve made a few of these for friends some years back. Great illusion that works on the same principle as those hollow faces at Disney’s Haunted Mansion.
How would you be able to see it?
I was trying to play with the semantics. That “seeing” something in person can sometimes mean just going to visit something. But re-reading the OP…that try doesn’t work.
This is a “riddle” thread in that we would expect every object that is sufficiently famous, and available for anyone to visit, to be photographed at least surreptitiously.
You may as well ask “Where is there an envelope stuffed with money, lying unattended in the street, that no-one has tried to take or hand in to the police?”
This guy made a very big effort to not get his picture taken. He also bought up pictures so they could not be sold or published.
Robert John "Mutt" Lange - Wikipedia
There are very few pictures of him when you Google him
I wasn’t taking it as such. I was taking as a question about socio-technological reality of this age.
It must be famous object - that weeds out the majority of objects and all religous/spiritual/“super natural” entities.
The average person must be able to view it in person - that weeds out the dark side of the moon and everything where there is not adequate light.
Capturing images generally depends on detecting light; there are plenty of circumstances in which one could capture a technological image where sight is not possible, but I cannot think of the reverse ..
I know there are some picture of the Al Oxa (spelling) Mosque in Jerusalem - although there are some parts in it people who got permission to to photograph inside - they were restricted from photoing certain parts.
I would guess, not knowing diddly about islams holy rules possibly that spot or better yet the place in Mecca where they all parade around with the huge black curtain. Probably one of those places would be your best bet. But you have to prove you’re a muslim to get in - so not easily seen.
These are my best bets - or other religious sites buddist etc.
Any govt site was photoed at some time or another. You just have to have the classification to view the pic. And the need to know. As well as where to find the pic too. Gov/Military/intellegence all have architectural drawings and pics. Even the classified goodies have been snapped at some time or other so some official could be briefed.
Naked kids and teenagers. (nude minors in general)
-Can be seen in person by an average member of the general public
There’s naked little kids running around at water parks, beaches, public fountains, sprinklers and various other locations. Theres teens in locker rooms at water parks, school locker rooms, swimming pool locker rooms, changing rooms as well as “boys being boys” and doing moron stuns in public. Even two teens in a sexual relationship together can’t legally photograph there
-Taking or possessing any photographs, is grounds for arrest as well as photo confiscation and destruction.
-future photography is prohibited.
-the only way to see without violating the law is to be present at the time it occurs.
-it has to be somewhat “famous”, such that people actually want to see it, but photography is prohibited or otherwise impossible.
Clearly, the average person doesn’t have any desire to photograph toddlers running around without a diaper, or two after-homecoming teenagers awkwardly going at it, but we all know there are people who do desire those photos.
I know it’s not the tourist attraction that we were all trying to come up with, but technically, I found something that can be seen by the general public, but not photographed.
I know there are a lot of museums and art exhibits in Rome and Vatican city that, not only prohibit photography, but have very strict security personelle that enforce the policy. This isn’t a money making scheme, or a proprietary matter, but simply due to the entence light emitted from a cameras flash causing fading (from a thousand flashes a day, every day for decades). Because of the value of these paintings, they are kept in, or are naturally in, perpetual dim light. Since no amature photographs would develop well without a flash, and to prevent accidental (or intentual) use of flash photography, often cameras arn’t even allowed in the rooms. Of course, this doesn’t mean people haven’t violated the rules, or that professional photographers haven’t been given specific access to photograph them, but all same, anyone can see it, no one is suppose to photograph it.
Since people do break rules, you can see a lot of these photos at “Strictly No Photography” Strictly No Photography - home
I assume, by viewing photos here, it lowers the need for others to photograph the same items, and is actually doing a public service… Maybe… 
I watched a video of the inside of this (posted on this board, in fact), more precisely of people sweeping its floor (which is some kind of honour, I gather). So, this one is out.
Osama bin Laden’s house. There are people out there (probably his wives) who wash his clothes and dust his shelves like it’s no big thing, they’re probably tired of it, but you obviously can’t just go to Afghanistan or Pakistan or Paterson, NJ or wherever it is he is and see him.
As far as stationary objects, there are numerous places inside CIA HQ that would get you arrested for trying to take a picture. On documentaries the employees there wear their ID badges inside their pockets so they can’t be duplicated.
I’m just jumping in to reiterate, on this page of the thread, the OP’s stipulation that the non-photographed object must be able to be “seen in person by an average member of the general public”. Most suggestions in this thread so far have neglected that requirement (which, in my view, is what makes this question interesting - it’s trivially easy to think of objects that most people can neither see nor photograph, but much more demanding to come up with something that anybody can see but not photograph).
Fort Knox? There are old photos and films, but nothing in recent decades.
Well, not quite. You can find postcards over here showing buck-naked hilltribe children running around their rustic villages. They’re not meant to be prurient, but rather, I guess, to show the happy little natives in their home environment. The wife thought the cards were cute and almost sent some to friends in the US until I pointed out it could technically be classified as child pornography.
I still think that Kim il-Sung’s mummified body would fit the bill, currently. Although a few pictures from his funeral in the 90s might be floating around, I’ve yet to see any pictures from inside his mausoleum. However, anyone on vacation in the DPRK can go see it. I guess people are too afraid of the possible repercussions to try and sneak in a camera.
Photos of naked children are not per se child pornography. In fact there have been art exhibits of such, but pornography and prurient are in the mind of the beholder, and you’re right that some prosecutor someplace could charge you with such.
There are many beaches in Europe (and I assume other places not in the U.S.) where children certainly as old as 7 play and swim naked. Pictures could be taken by those with cameras as easily as the children could be seen. And now with digital cameras, I’m sure there are many such pictures on the internet, but I’m not going to look for them.
I visited the face of the Norris-Taku glacier in a floatplane once, and there is really just no way to do it justice with a simple photograph. The face of the glacier is several miles across, but a long-distance picture that might show all of it is just not going to cut it, detail-wise. You’d wind up with a picture of an icy-looking river. A close-up picture looks, well, like a solid white picture of nothing.
Even a video capture of several minutes didn’t really do a good job of showing the size and scale of the glacier.
You pretty much have to fly up to it in a helicopter or a plane and have a good look yourself.
Well, if we’re just talking “photos don’t do it justice” my vote is the House on the Rock. The place is utterly unphotographable. The whole place is so dark you can’t really take a picture without a flash, and yet flashes don’t really work because, for one, some of the rooms are so freakin’ huge but also pictures with the flash make it look like the collection of dusty junk it really is as opposed to the utterly bewildering experience it is to be there in person.
I was going to go for one of the embalmed leaders mentioned above but I think we’ve found pictures for most of them.
Various parts of North Korea are a good bet but although it’s technically accessible there’s a limit on the number of people per year that actually get to go.
If we ignore the metaphysical options then I’m not sure what’s left. Anything of significant archeological interest will probably be photographed before going on display, even if those photos aren’t generally available. I’d imagine the same too with religious items although that might be less certain. But anything that’s on public display probably has the odd photo somewhere.
So it’d have to be somewhere were photography is either impossible (can’t think why) or banned and actively enforced. But I still think for most things there’d be ‘official’ photos.
Going on the conversation about naughty bits, how about Amsterdam’s Red Light District – I know it’s been photographed to death despite the bouncers and the warnings but it might be possible to find a part that hasn’t been. Or a particular girl (why would she be famous? I don’t know). Or something along those lines?
SD
Photos of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor cores that are critical. You won’t live after you see them but what the hell.