Being photographed at church

miggles

miggles
May 15, 2004
4,693
656
71
florida
✟40,924.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
I really don't know where this thread should go so I took a guess that this may be the closest one (admins, please feel free to move it appropriately).

Does it make me sound unfriendly if I ask not to be photographed at church (for social media purposes)?

Do churches have the right to randomly photograph people or post their photos on the social media without their consent?

It almost makes me not want to go when my worshipping or praying could get photographed and end up in a public social media. I know some of you think, what's a big deal, but it's really a matter of personal preference.
i think it's awful they do that. you have a right to object.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChicanaRose
Upvote 0

mama2one

Well-Known Member
Apr 8, 2018
9,161
10,089
U.S.A.
✟257,683.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
our child takes classes at library & saw her pic on library website; we never gave permission nor did they ask for it

OP could go to another church but seems EVERYONE everywhere is using photos on social media with or w/o permission
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: ChicanaRose
Upvote 0

mina

Brown Eyed girl
Sep 26, 2003
37,260
4,054
in the South
✟115,511.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Freedom is sticky sometimes.
If you go into the police station to file a police report you are on camera that that footage becomes public information requestable by anyone under FOIA laws.

Same with Police Dashcam footage, as well as city owned street cameras.

Being out in public affords you ZERO expectation of privacy... plenty of case law as well as the constitution that affirms this.

If you support the 2nd amendment, you should likewise support the one that came before it.
There is a reason the 1st amendment is FIRST.



There are plenty of things I don't want but I don't have a right to demand...
Is everybody supposed to get whatever they want now just because they're afraid of what might happen if they don't??

Besides, That's what restraining orders are for.
sure, whatever . The thread isn't really about any of that. Public security footage isnt put onto promotional items or published for anyone and everyone to see without requesting it. The op is about a specific situation at church; not public security footage. The op has a right to request a church not to use her image on social media or promotional items if she becomes aware of it. Anyone has a right to do that. They may not want to comply; but she has every right to let them know it makes her uncomfortable and ask for it to be taken down. I have no problem with public footage used for mainly security reasons and being used with some sort of protocol surrounding the usage and viewing.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: ChicanaRose
Upvote 0

mina

Brown Eyed girl
Sep 26, 2003
37,260
4,054
in the South
✟115,511.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
our child takes classes at library & saw her pic on library website; we never gave permission nor did they ask for it

OP could go to another church but seems EVERYONE everywhere is using photos on social media with or w/o permission

I would alert them to you don't want it there. Our library is super strict about photography . They won't let you take any pictures inside the library and if they are taking pictures for media purposes they let you know . I appreciate that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChicanaRose
Upvote 0

mnphysicist

Have Courage to Trust God!
May 11, 2005
7,696
669
59
South East Minnesota (east of Rochester)
Visit site
✟57,148.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Democrat
It almost makes me not want to go when my worshipping or praying could get photographed and end up in a public social media. I know some of you think, what's a big deal, but it's really a matter of personal preference.

For some folks its a matter of safety / security. As a part time event photographer / camera guy for a tv station, capturing the wrong person, especially as my station will be streaming online, is a real concern for me.

Someone mentioned upthread about using lanyards and I'm a huge fan. It works wonders to prevent me from photographing/filming someone who shouldn't be, plus even if I miss it while shooting, I'll likely capture it in the editing bay. Going even further, many events have their own screener team who take my footage and then run a final security check prior to it going online. This works great for official photogs/video people, but you still have the hobbyist / non-official folks who may or may not be aware of it... or even if they are, don't have the additional cross checks. We all make mistakes... like the festival I shot last month with the wrong audio level on all 3 devices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChicanaRose
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟793,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
sure, whatever . The thread isn't really about any of that. Public security footage isnt put onto promotional items or published for anyone and everyone to see without requesting it.

Rather, its exactly about all of it.
Have you read my posts?

As I said before, Think Paparazzi

How do they get away with publishing their content "for anyone and everyone to see without them requesting it"?

Why is that perfectly legal?

Would you rather it not be?

The op has a right to request a church not to use her image on social media or promotional items if she becomes aware of it. Anyone has a right to do that.

So far as I can tell, no one is asserting she (or anyone) doesn't, or shouldn't, have the right to object, and object vehemently if they felt like it. I'm making the point that, in this situation, those rights do not supersede the rights of the folks behind the camera.

You have a constitutional, first amendment right to photograph ANYTHING you can see with your eyes in public.

She has no such right not to be photographed and have photograph used however the photographer wants (short of libel , slander or blackmail-extortion, etc).

I don't believe the OP is claiming she is being slandered by the Church is she?

I have no problem with public footage used for mainly security reasons and being used with some sort of protocol surrounding the usage and viewing.

And the Paparazzi?

Are they exempt?
 
Upvote 0

Hazelelponi

I'm back
Supporter
Jun 25, 2018
9,210
8,688
55
USA
✟676,606.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Rather, its exactly about all of it.
Have you read my posts?

As I said before, Think Paparazzi

How do they get away with publishing their content "for anyone and everyone to see without them requesting it"?

Why is that perfectly legal?

Would you rather it not be?



So far as I can tell, no one is asserting she (or anyone) doesn't, or shouldn't, have the right to object, and object vehemently if they felt like it. I'm making the point that, in this situation, those rights do not supersede the rights of the folks behind the camera.

You have a constitutional, first amendment right to photograph ANYTHING you can see with your eyes in public.

She has no such right not to be photographed and have photograph used however the photographer wants (short of libel , slander or blackmail-extortion, etc).

I don't believe the OP is claiming she is being slandered by the Church is she?



And the Paparazzi?

Are they exempt?

Hey.. I agree with you about everything except for one point. Churches are not considered, by law, a place of public accommodation.. therefore people who are in churches are actually in a private location..

what could potentially come into play for a church taking pictures and publishing them on social media would be this:

§ 652D Publicity Given to Private Life​
One who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the matter publicized is of a kind that
(a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and
(b) is not of legitimate concern to the public.
Restatement of the Law, Second, Torts, § 652

I do believe churches are safe in the U.S., at least for now, in publishing or making public photographs of worshippers, since I don't see how anyone could argue that it would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, (I can't imagine doing anything during worship service that I would be ashamed of) and since churches aren't corporations or using the photographs in advertisements for profit, so for now I see no legal objection..

but if people start losing their jobs because they are Christian that issue may end up changing, and churches might open themselves to liability concerns.

There are some women who live in hiding from abusive former spouses and so forth, so some women may like to ask their church not to use their image due to safety concerns... but that's easily done with a short talk with the photographer.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: ChicanaRose
Upvote 0

mina

Brown Eyed girl
Sep 26, 2003
37,260
4,054
in the South
✟115,511.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Rather, its exactly about all of it.
Have you read my posts?

As I said before, Think Paparazzi

How do they get away with publishing their content "for anyone and everyone to see without them requesting it"?

Why is that perfectly legal?

Would you rather it not be?



So far as I can tell, no one is asserting she (or anyone) doesn't, or shouldn't, have the right to object, and object vehemently if they felt like it. I'm making the point that, in this situation, those rights do not supersede the rights of the folks behind the camera.

You have a constitutional, first amendment right to photograph ANYTHING you can see with your eyes in public.

She has no such right not to be photographed and have photograph used however the photographer wants (short of libel , slander or blackmail-extortion, etc).

I don't believe the OP is claiming she is being slandered by the Church is she?



And the Paparazzi?

Are they exempt?

You seem so angry! I haven't said anything about it not being legal; the church can take whatever pictures they want, but if people aren't comfortable with it and speak to them about it in a polite manner then it would be a nice thing for the church to work with people instead of saying "nah nah nah; FREEDOM!LEGAL baby! shut your piehole!" or having an attitude thereof . I am closely related to a celebrity photographer. they do have to follow rules or they can't sell their photos and thus can't make a living. On the street photography is considered fair game and "legal", but some high priced publishers may not buy the photos if they feel that the celeb was harassed or not willing to cooperate. And if their kids are in the picture; that's a no sale pretty much right there or such a low pay sell that it's not worth it to seek it out unless the celeb is inviting and wants the moments captured. Celebs can sue if someone makes money off of their photo of a private life moment but often the money spent to go through the legal route is more costly than it's worth. Honestly, if the op goes to explain why she feels uncomfortable, the church will likely comply (and she is allowed to do that). Unless the media volunteers are egomanics or jerks that feel they can do anything they want ; they will most likely work with her and respect her wishes. She's not trying to challenge them in court; she's merely probably just going to nicely ask them if she can opt out.
 
Last edited:
  • Useful
Reactions: ChicanaRose
Upvote 0

ChicanaRose

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2019
1,250
1,331
west coast
✟75,698.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I don't believe the OP is claiming she is being slandered by the Church is she?

She's not trying to challenge them in court; she's merely probably just going to nicely ask them if she can opt out.

Thank you both for your comments, they have given me a lot to ponder about. I do not believe that I am being slandered by the church. But I am concerned about the risk associated with my photo going on social media, as the church's social media pages are not restricted to members but public.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mama2one

Well-Known Member
Apr 8, 2018
9,161
10,089
U.S.A.
✟257,683.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I am concerned about the risk associated with my photo going on social media, as the church's social media pages are not restricted to members but public.

if you're trying to not be found by someone, unfortunately that seems to be impossible now

our local news put out the concern re domestic violence victims & others not wanting to be found:

a free website now exists where one can search anyone
the site shows current and previous addresses, phone numbers, and possible relatives
 
Last edited:
  • Friendly
Reactions: ChicanaRose
Upvote 0

bekkilyn

Contemplative Christian
Supporter
Apr 27, 2017
7,612
8,475
USA
✟677,608.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others
Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's right. A church might be expected to think of a bit more than just the legality of something when there could be risk of doing serious harm to a person against their will.
 
Upvote 0

mina

Brown Eyed girl
Sep 26, 2003
37,260
4,054
in the South
✟115,511.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Even if it doesn't harm a person and they are just merely uncomfortable about it; churches and other institutions can work with someone to find a reasonable solution- maybe they have other services that are not taped, maybe they can suggest an area to sit where the camera doesn't reach, the lanyard idea, etc..... I don't think this is an issue to immediately jump on the "is it legal? It's legal so you have no say, bandwagon, or: paps do it and take photographs of people who make a living being in the spotlight so you should just accept it". All of that is off topic to the OP anyway. If it's a concern to a person , it's okay to approach the media team or whoever is in charge of it and explain your concern and see if there can be a reasonable solution.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: ChicanaRose
Upvote 0