Privacy vs Photos?

[inmotion]

What are your thoughts on privacy vs being photographed in places such as churches or synagogues?

What is the law?

Can a church take photos during a worship service (of anyone in attendance) and post to their website every weeK?

Personally, I would think that if someone is up front (leading out, singing, preaching) then there could be an expectation that their photo could be taken and used...but what about the average member who is just standing there minding their own business (talking to friends, praying, taking communion, singing) ?

[ggeen]

I am no attorney but the term you are looking for is expectation of privacy. What is one's expectation of privacy in a given location? When one is in a public forum, then there is generally no expectation of privacy. Churches and shopping malls start getting into that gray area where the forum is private property but open to the public. You will someone with an actual law degree to have an intelligent conversation on that topic.

[tperry]

The bottom-line is, you can take photographs of people if they are in a public place, regardless of whatever stuff they are doing, even some private moments. I have read this post with the list of stuff a photographer is allowed to do in a public place, including take pictures of someone else's home if they are in a public place. And they have no right to take your camera away from you, even on events.

[Tom]

And they have no right to take your camera away from you, even on events.

That would be stealing.

[RexGig]

A church or synagogue that allows the public to enter is clearly a public place. Obviously, if the photos are appearing on the organization's website, the photographer has the consent of the organization. Being photographed in a public place does not require he subject's consent. The sticky part is the organization's right to use images of a recognizable person, when that organization is a money-gathering enterprise.

I know a record label, for example, should not use my recognizable image on an album cover, and sell the albums for profit, without my consent. Two of my colleagues appeared on an album cover, clearly recognizable, without their consents, and successfully sued the parent corporation. A church or synagogue may not be a record label, but they do collect money, and are generally run like businesses.

I am not a lawyer, nor a professional photographer, and not saying I have the answers.

[RexGig]

Originally Posted by tperry

And they have no right to take your camera away from you, even on events.

Quite true! A felony in Texas! A photographer can be physically ejected from the premises, by the property owner, or someone acting on behalf of the owner, using a reasonable level of force, but taking the camera, film, memory card, etc., is Theft From A Person, or Robbery.

[Tom]

The sticky part is the organization's right to use images of a recognizable person, when that organization is a money-gathering enterprise.

Not quite. A newspaper is a money-gathering enterprise. If you are in public and they take your picture, they don't need any permission to run the image.

A church or synagogue may not be a record label, but they do collect money, and are generally run like businesses.

And are probably a registered non-profit.

[Rson]

Originally Posted by inmotion

What are your thoughts on privacy vs being photographed in places such as churches or synagogues?

What is the law?

Can a church take photos during a worship service (of anyone in attendance) and post to their website every weeK?

Personally, I would think that if someone is up front (leading out, singing, preaching) then there could be an expectation that their photo could be taken and used...but what about the average member who is just standing there minding their own business (talking to friends, praying, taking communion, singing) ?

I don't believe that there is a Law per-say, but more of a unwritten rule that people that are praying would like privacy. I shoot for Gateway and they have specific rules that they ask. The worship team, pastors and people up front are fair game (with discretion) but the people in the chairs are off limits unless they are up front and camera's are on.

I liken it to you showing up at a funeral for a random person and shooting away. Sure they are probably in public and the rules apply, but there should be a little bell in your head that says "Should I really?"

[kenw]

Originally Posted by Rson

....., but there should be a little bell in your head that says "Should I really?"

alas, that may be a bit rare these days....

[Patti Edens]

I'm not an attorney, so only know what I've read which could be totally wrong. I hesitate to say anything, because I have seen so many threads with inaccurate info I hate to contribute more. But I will clearly qualify this as just my opinions and what I believe to be true.

I do not believe that people in a church have any rights to privacy. And I also do not believe a church is a public place. It is a privately owned building that the public is allowed to enter. Just like a restaurant or any privately owned property, the owner has the right to restrict who can enter and under what circumstances. It falls under the same code as malls and people's homes.

If the owner or a representative of the owner of a church does not want someone taking photos, they can ask them to stop or to leave just like in a mall. But, if the owner/rep is okay with photography in the church, then it is okay and the people that enter have no rights to privacy (except in the church restroom!).

As far as the newspaper thing goes, that is allowed. Newspapers can print photos of anyone they want including celebrities as long as it is for the purpose of reporting the news or for educational reasons. They cannot use those images in advertisements for the newspaper or any other business.

Same goes for the church. If their website is non-commercial, they can post those photos all they want. I think the slippery slope is whether or not the website is commercial. If they are using the photos to promote the church and maybe even selling items, then it could be illegal to post the photos without permission.

[Howard Barlow]

Originally Posted by Patti Edens

... And I also do not believe a church is a public place. It is a privately owned building that the public is allowed to enter...

PENAL CODE
TITLE 1. INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS
CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
.
.
.

Sec. 1.07. DEFINITIONS. (a) In this code:
.
.
.
(40) "Public place" means any place to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access and includes, but is not limited to, streets, highways, and the common areas of schools, hospitals, apartment houses, office buildings, transport facilities, and shops.


..........................

Yes, a church is a public place.

[Patti Edens]

Interesting. Thanks Howard.