Posting Personal Photographs Online

[Outta Here]

I am seeking opinions on the issue of posting on the Internet pictures of people other than one's self. Do you think it is appropriate (indeed, is it even legal?) to post photos of other persons with or without their approval? Do you think it is rude to ask questions as to why they may or may not want their photos posted (i.e., is their "yes" or "no" sufficient enough an answer)? What about minors? Is it right or wrong to post photos of children under the age of 18 with or without their parent/guardian's approval? What if it were on a private website--that only members could view?

Thoughts??

[olger]

I think it's terrible.

[Dr. Shane]

The person that takes the picture owns it. The photographer does not need permission from the person in the picture.

[GreatLakesGramma]

I don't agree Shane. A photographer has to have written permission of the subjects of his photos before he can legally sell them or display them publicly, if the individuals are identifiable. The internet is a very public place, and some of us don't consider it safe to post photos online, unless access is restricted. I would especially never want to have my granddaughters photos posted online anywhere they could be publicly viewed, even if they weren't identified.

I wouldn't even post my sons' photos on Facebook without their approval, because they are very critical of photos of themselves, and I didn't want anything posted that they wouldn't want people to see. It would have been very inconsiderate of their feelings to post pictures of them that they dislike.

[Dottie]

A photographer can sell or distribute photos of anyone that is in a public place, for one should have no expectation of privacy in a public place.

If you permit someone to take a picture of you, the picture is their property. I don't know about pictures taken in private without the subject's knowledge.

[Dr. Shane]

A photographer isn't to take pictures of someone where they have the reasonable expectation of privacy. However if I am out in my front yard, I am fair game. Of course no one wants to take pictures of me. We see celebrities photographed or filmed all the time driving into their driveways or walking in their front yard. However a photographer isn't allowed to take pictures through the windows of a person's home, in their hotel room or a public restroom because their is a reasonable expectation of privacy in such places.

However if I am at a church social or invite people into my home for a party and I take pictures of others, those pictures are mine and I can do with them whatever I wish without the consent of others that are in them.

There are certain public events, like concerts and movie theaters, where cameras are forbidden. Well, with camera phones now such policies are nearly impossible to enforce. However the policy does prevent photographers from taking pictures to publish or sell.

[Outta Here]

What about pictures taken of your beautiful daughter at church and posted on a church website with dates and times as to when she'll be there next? Would you approve of that? Would you approve of an Internet dating service using your daughter's picture as a lure to attract men interested in younger women? Or a picture of your son on an Internet dating service?

Just curious as to how it would make you feel? Would it feel "right" or would you feel as if you were violated in some way?

[Doug]

What about pictures taken of your beautiful daughter at church and posted on a church website with dates and times as to when she'll be there next? Would you approve of that? Would you approve of an Internet dating service using your daughter's picture as a lure to attract men interested in younger women? Or a picture of your son on an Internet dating service?

Just curious as to how it would make you feel? Would it feel "right" or would you feel as if you were violated in some way?

There is a huge difference between just posting photos and posting location and other personal information online.

[Gerr]

We should ask Tom or Jeannie. They are lawyers.

[olger]

What about pictures taken of your beautiful daughter at church and posted on a church website with dates and times as to when she'll be there next? Would you approve of that? Would you approve of an Internet dating service using your daughter's picture as a lure to attract men interested in younger women? Or a picture of your son on an Internet dating service?

Just curious as to how it would make you feel? Would it feel "right" or would you feel as if you were violated in some way?

So how are you dealing with this?+

g

[phkrause]

I agree with what you've posted aubrey, but even if you approve or don't, it doesn't change the fact that people can still post those picture's. Now if you go to a private studio, and lets say you pose and have the photographer take nude photos, now there might be some legal ramifications there. Just a few thoughts.

pk

[Outta Here]

It was asked, "How am I dealing with this?" The answer is, I've withdrawn my membership from those online groups that are considering posting pictures of me and my own children without my consent to do so. One of those groups is my church group. If going to church means they have a right to take my photo and the photos of my children and post them online wherever they please, then I will choose to no longer attend that church.

I posed the question here to get a wider variety of opinion on the issue.

[olger]

Fair enough. How does your husband feel about it?

g

[Dr. Shane]

What about pictures taken of your beautiful daughter at church and posted on a church website with dates and times as to when she'll be there next? Would you approve of that?

[Dr. Shane]

Now if you go to a private studio, and lets say you pose and have the photographer take nude photos, now there might be some legal ramifications there.

pk

If we pay someone to take our picture I do not believe they can publish or sell it without our consent. They still hold the rights to the pictures because they are the photographer. For example, when we go into the Sears photo studio they have pictures of people hanging on their walls. When they send out promotions they have pictures of people in their promotions. Those people have consented and probably been paid for the use of their photos.

[Dr. Shane]

If going to church means they have a right to take my photo and the photos of my children and post them online wherever they please, then I will choose to no longer attend that church.

The other option is to go to the church board meeting and express your feelings to them. I suspect they would make a policy of not taking any pictures of your family and removing any they have posted on line. If any in your family has been victims of a stalker, I suspect they will help you deal with those issues too. I think it important not to approach them as if they (the church) has done anything wrong. Thousands of churches have done the same thing and most people generally do not mind. In fact, some people are flattered by it. My approach would simply be to let them know how it makes you and your family feel. I am sure any church board would be sympathetic to that.

[Nan]

It was asked, "How am I dealing with this?" The answer is, I've withdrawn my membership from those online groups that are considering posting pictures of me and my own children without my consent to do so. One of those groups is my church group. If going to church means they have a right to take my photo and the photos of my children and post them online wherever they please, then I will choose to no longer attend that church.

I posed the question here to get a wider variety of opinion on the issue.

My church does post small pictures of individuals and family groups online, but not in an open forum. Only those willing to be part of the gallery have pictures there.

[phkrause]

But Shane you know they do it anyway.

pk

[GreatLakesGramma]

A photo-journalist friend of mine showed me a photo he had taken of a little girl holding a kitten. He had taken this picture on his own time, in the entry of Wal Mart, with permission of the child's mother. He had no plans at that time to try to sell the photo, so he did not get permission to do that. The photo turned out so well though, that he would like to sell it, but he never can, because he doesn't have permission, and he doesn't even know the names of the little girl or her mother. It is against the law for him to do so without permission.

So legally, I don't believe your church can post photos of your daughter publicly online without your approval either. If you ask them to remove them from their site, they should do that.

Our church's website, which is publicly accessible, has photos of church members on its home page. But these are all there with the approval of those members or their parents.

[John317]

Selling and publicly exhibiting of photographs of people who never gave their permission for the photograph is done all the time by professional photographers.

You will see some here:

http://homepage.mac.com/ronaldrobertgrantham/PhotoAlbum4.html

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/

[Outta Here]

John, do you think it's an "all right" thing to do? Do you approve of it, or do you think it's more polite, more considerate and less personally invasive to seek out the approval of the person in the photograph?

[Dr. Shane]

If a person had to give permission for pictures of them to be published, the paparazzi would be out of business. The job description of the paparazzi is to take pictures of celebrities without their permission so they can sell them without their permission.

[Outta Here]

Originally Posted By: Aubrey

If going to church means they have a right to take my photo and the photos of my children and post them online wherever they please, then I will choose to no longer attend that church.

The other option is to go to the church board meeting and express your feelings to them. I suspect they would make a policy of not taking any pictures of your family and removing any they have posted on line. If any in your family has been victims of a stalker, I suspect they will help you deal with those issues too. I think it important not to approach them as if they (the church) has done anything wrong. Thousands of churches have done the same thing and most people generally do not mind. In fact, some people are flattered by it. My approach would simply be to let them know how it makes you and your family feel. I am sure any church board would be sympathetic to that.

To be frank, this is why I posed the question here at Club Adventist--the church site is the one that wishes to use the photographs; they're the ones who asked whether or not it would be acceptable to post photographs of church members on the site (without their approval); I gave my opinion and was shunned for it.

I thought perhaps I was being unreasonable in my thoughts regarding the matter and wanted the wider opinion of those members here at this site. From the comments here so far, it seems as if there are a few differing opinions:

1) It's okay, in fact, it's flattering.

2) Everyone does it, so it doesn't matter if the church does it too.

3) It's perfectly legal, so there's no stopping it.

4) It's illegal, and no one should be doing it.

I just don't know what to think, really. I don't think it's right to post anyone's pictures on the Internet without their prior consent. I especially don't think it's right to post pictures of minors on the Internet (even with the consent of their guardians). I don't know what the law requires--I wish I did.

Someone here asked what my husband's thoughts were on the matter. I'll have him read this thread and post his own thoughts as "my" next post.

[Neil D]

Many years ago, I took a photography class. The subject came up as to whether you need consent for a photograph. Fashion shots in which you are shooting for a clothing manufactorer, or a photo in which you are going to sell, you do need permission from the subject.

Church photos are not resellable, usually. They are private photo for the church family, much like a family album. As such, they can be placed in the church, on a literal bulletin board for the Church members to admire. But typically, they are not for sale, and therefore do NOT need permission to be posted as long as it is for church use. When you are photographing a public event, it can go into the newspaper to be publicized for the event of the church. Typically, it is NOT a paid photo....

The general rule is that if the photography event is public, no permission needed. However, the moment you decide to sell it, you need to get permission from ALL persons in the photo. Otherwise, it is concidered an invasion of privacy.

Why do you have problems with the church photographing your family doing fun things with the church? What seems to be the concern?

[Outta Here]

Hi there,

This is Aubrey's husband, reading and posting as requested.

I have a few thoughts, so in no particular order, here they are:

1) The church is supposed to be a safe place. The whole point of having a church family is to have a place where you and your family can fellowship without fear of condemnation or danger. Posting pictures on a public church website of children in the church, in particular, identifies to the general public both what potential victims look like, and the location and times when they are likely to be there. I see arguments here that because it is legal, it is OK. I thought this was a Christian forum, where the difference between right and wrong went beyond what you could get away with according to the laws of the land. This is a safety issue, and maybe a legal issue too.

2) A number of these posts seem concerned about what the law of the land has to say; it should be fairly easy to verify and quote a reputable source as to whether or not it is in fact legal or illegal to post these pictures. If someone did this and posted a legitimate source of the real truth I missed it; however, this isn't just a question of what's legal, it's a question of what's right as well.

3) Most of these arguments seem to be coming from the photographer's point of view - "How can I take advantage of this great picture?" Has anyone tried to put themselves in the childrens' or wives' shoes? They don't have any say, and they are the primary targets for the world at large. If there is any question at all as to whether their safety might be compromised, it is better to always err on the side of caution.

4) My wife just asked me to comment on the "leaving the church" comment. Personally, I take my family's security and privacy very seriously. I do not attend services that are recorded for public broadcast (there are churches in my area that do and we avoid them). It makes me personally uncomfortable and I shouldn't have to feel that way at church so we choose to be elsewhere when the cameras are rolling.

Thanks, Aubrey's Husband.