Church Cemetery photography

[df]

<p>What rules, ethic, protocols are involved when photographing in a church cemetery? Can you show a picture of a grave marker with the deceased person's name. Can these photo's be entered in photo contests, be published and can they be sold?<br>

I recently took pictures in what I consider to be a historically significant church cemetery. The grave marker included in one of my photopgraphs shows the deceased died in 1899. The marker was placed in later years by members deceased persons family.<br>

Would appreciate serious conversation about this. thanks.</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>As far as I know (and am concerned) the only applicable rule, ethic, or protocol is to be respectful, polite, and remember to give any grieving families in the cemetery their privacy.</p>

<p>I've heard cemetery officials say that a cemetery lot is "private property". On cemetery brochures I've seen words to that effect too, but I think that is to help deal with folks who go there to picnic, steal funerary artifacts, do drugs, or have illicit sex. Sometimes it is to protect the privacy of the deceased, like Forest Lawn in the Los Angeles area where if asked where a famous celebrity is buried they will tell you that some areas are open only to family. And even for those buried in publically accessable areas they will tell you to ask their family to get the specific location. Other cemeteries are different, like Mount Auburn in teh Boston area, where they publish a map of notable grave sites and monuments.</p>

<p>I have never been asked to leave a historical or church cemetery, or hassled about photography. Maybe private cemeteries are different but even in those I just do my thing quietly and unobtrusively and have never been questioned.</p>

<p>I doubt there is any reason to be concerned about protection of privacy for a deceased person. I don't know about any laws regarding entry of such photos in a photo contest or publishing but I wouldn't expect much contraversy or issue.</p>

<p>As someone elase will no doubt mention... it may depend on where you are and the laws of your country or municipality.</p>

[danmarchant]

<blockquote>

<p>I've heard cemetery officials say that a cemetery lot is "private property".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is almost certainly correct, even though they may be open to the public. However, you are free to photograph on private property unless/until the owner informs you otherwise via a notice or by telling you directly. If you don't stop they can ask you to leave and if you refuse they can get the police to remove you. Any photos taken (either before or after notification) are yours. You own the copyright and they/the police can't force you to delete them or stop you making use of them. </p>

<p>The above is subject to you not breaching privacy laws but they don't apply in public where there is no expectation of privacy.</p>

[pjmeade]

<p>It's worth finding out from the church whether you need a property release or need to have acquired permission. Some places do and some places don't, the only way to find out is to ask them.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Are you asking a legal question or an ethical one? Very often the two are quite different. </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<i>"Are you asking a legal question or an ethical one? Very often the two are quite different"</i><br><br>Only, Fred, if the law would be an unethical one.<br><br>If you happen to find that being the case "very often", it turns into a political question: why did you, as a citizen of a country having such laws, allow that to happen, and what are you going to do about it?

[david_henderson]

<p>I think that</p>

<ul>

<li>You can photograph until someone with authority tells you that you can't. At which point you need to decide whether to comply, try to change their mind, continue your photography from public ground, challenge their authority, or ignore them bearing in mind that you just might then find yourself talking to a policeman.</li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li>You can photograph graves with headstones.</li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li>Cemeteries, whether attached to a church or not, will almost invariably be private property. This means that in essence you can make , display and sell prints in galleries, enter them in competitions, and sell for editorial purposes if you think there will be a demand. </li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li> I have had a very few photographs taken in cemeteries accepted by stock agencies, of a very general overview type and not featuring a particular grave strongly in places of general tourist interest (eg Pere Lachaise in Paris). Stock agencies (or at least the bigger ones) tend to be risk averse and take a view that commercial use is not risk free without a release- and that view could extend to using such images to promote your own services. That said, my website has a portfolio of photographs made in Mexican graveyards on which names are mostly visible and this hasn't yet caused me any issue. Of course you might think that the commercial use market for shots of a graveyard might be small in comparison with, say, people frolicking on a beach whilst using a cellphone, but thats your choice. </li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li>Best of luck with releases if you decide to follow that route. Your problem will be finding someone who understands they have the authority to commit to a release on behalf of the property owner (and indeed the dead guys). Indeed most times I've photographed in a cemetery, finding anyone at all besides other visitors would have been a challenge in itself.</li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li>Ethics are going to differ by geography. In the UK and in most othe "western" communities in which i've photographed, behaving respectfully and quietly is IMO all that is required. In Mexico locals brought picnics to gravesides and the entire atmosphere appears jollier. Of course I don't wish to imply any disrespect is being shown to the dead, merely that "respectfully" has different content depending where you are. In Yucatan they seem to integrate the dead much more into the lives of the living than tends to be the case in Europe or N America. </li>

</ul><div></div>

[lauren_macintosh]

<p>There are cemeteries that you must get their permission for any use of any photographs taken<br>

on their property [ such as] Mount Auburn Cemetery Cambridge ,Ma. So its your call on this, you are the one that knows<br>

what type of cemetery your photographing at:</p>

[qalam]

The right to take pictures depends on the category of a particular place. There are three categories: (1) public property, (2) private

property open to the public and (3) private property.

 

 

A photographer on public property can take pictures of anything in plain view, including adjacent private property. If you are on the sidewalk, you can pictures of a private property or indviduals visible from the sidewalk. In Canada, a recent court decision, however, requires a model release before you publish a picture of a person on private property taken from a public vantage point except where the person appears incidentally in a picture of public activity. The case involved a photographer who was taking pictures of a public activity and who saw a women sitting in the doorway of a house. He took a photo of her that did not include the public activity (which he had the right to do). Later, he published the woman's picture without a release. She saw it and sued. The court ruled that a release was required in such a case.

 

 

A photographer cannot enter any private place (that is not open to the public) or take pictures while on the premises without the express permission of the owner or tenant. In the case of a private place open to the public (e.g., store, museum, cemetery, amusement park, etc.), unless a conspicuous notice restricts or prohibits photography, no permission is needed until the photographer is told to stop taking pictures. None of the pictures taken up to that time can be seized or destroyed, and they can be published without release.

[jeff_livacich]

<p>No Q.G., it's very clear to me that what you say is not always so.</p>

<p>If someone is hit by a car and is lying in the street injured or dead, it is legal for me to take pictures of that person lying there and plaster them all over my website, with that person's name if I have it. But is it ethical?</p>

[jeff_livacich]

<p>No Q.G., it's very clear to me that what you say is not always so.</p>

<p>If someone is hit by a car and is lying in the street injured or dead, it is legal for me to take pictures of that person lying there and plaster them all over my website, with that person's name if I have it, for no other reason than spectacle.<br>

But is it ethical?</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Jeff,<br><br>Don't make the mistake of thinking that everything is or should be regulated by law.<br>It's legal in the sense that (probably - i don't know the legal situation where you are) there is no law forbidding it.<br><br>That, because the "legal" point of view is (as it is very, very often): 'We cannot, must not, regulate absolutely everything, don't need to (hopefully) because we're not all idiots but on the contrary can still be trusted to know what to do without needing a law to spell it out most of the time, so please use your own good judgement.'.<br>And as such the 'legal point of view' is not "quite different", as Fred suggested, but - by 'default' and (!) intent - the same as our own ethical considerations.<br><br>If such things often 'go wrong', i.e. if people very often make decisions that offend the ethics of many more, it will be an occasion to investigate whether there then perhaps should be a law after all.

[sarah_fox]

<p>FAIW, if nobody has brought it up, there are some/many states where (living) people are prohibited from being on cemetary grounds at night, so shots at dusk might be problematic.</p>

<p>Other than that, be respectful, dress appropriately, and be mindful of others. Don't do what you wouldn't want done around your grandmother's grave.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Q. G., here's what I meant by the question of whether it's the legality or the ethics that's the concern here. I may have a legal right to do something and I may determine that it is in the best interests of society that a legal right to photograph in cemeteries without specific permission is granted to the general public. At the same time, I may have my own ethical reasons for not wanting to photograph and display headstones identifying the people buried there. I want the freedom for others to do it without wanting to exercise that freedom myself. I may have ethical qualms about behaviors that I participate in or act upon but I don't expect my own ethics to apply more generally. So, for me, the OP could be having ethical qualms about shooting in cemeteries and showing the names of the dead without caring what the legal aspects are. Legal or not, he may be questioning his own beliefs and desires and his own sense of what's right for him. </p>

[jeff_livacich]

<p>Q.G.,<br>

My point is that I might very well support the right to do something, and insist that it be legal, while at the same time considering some or even all uses of that right to be unethical.</p>

<p>I disagreed with your statement "only...if the law would be an unethical one."<br>

I agree with Fred that the two questions, legal and ethical, are often very different. Not everything that is unethical should be illegal. And not everything that is illegal is unethical.</p>

<p> </p>

[danmarchant]

<blockquote>

<p>In Canada, a recent court decision, however, requires a model release before you publish a picture of a person on private property taken from a public vantage point except where the person appears incidentally in a picture of public activity.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ben, can you provide a link/details of the case please. That is a major departure from the norm. Would like to read up on the case. Thanks.</p>

 

[qalam]

To Dan Marchant:

 

The case was definitively settled by a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada.

 

http://csc.lexum.org/en/1998/1998scr1-591/1998scr1-591.html

 

For a general discussion of image rights in Canada see the following site (in French only):

 

http://www.francisvachon.com/blog/le-droit-a-l’image-au-quebec/

[david_henderson]

<p>Seems like the judgement is indicative that a <strong><em>model</em></strong> release would have been necessary to avoid the risk of legal issues on this one. However unless it can be argued that a cemetery and a gravestone is a person, then the findings on this case don't seem to me to be relevent to the questions being asked here. If you had examples of lack of a <strong><em>property</em></strong> release resulting in a court finding against the photographer/user of an image taken from public property that would be different. </p>

[df]

<p>Thanks all for your comments. This particular cemetery is in the U.S. where many freed slaves are buried. There are few head stones since the families of the deceased were too poor to be able to afford them. There is a fence around the cemetary, but it is absent of "No Trespassing" signs. I've decided to call the church's pastor and inform him of my plans to exhibit this picutures and what title I plan to give to it.</p>

[marklcooper]

<p>Agree with Fred here. A case in point, but not in a cemetery. There is that in-your-face street photographer in NYC...I forget his name. What he is doing is legal, but to me it's outside of my idea of ethical.</p>

<p>On the other hand, if it was illegal to take street photos in a particular locale, I would gladly break the law by taking pictures of friends/relatives on the street while out on a jaunt in that locale. If I thought I could get away with it of course.</p>

<p>Mark</p>

 

[jeff_livacich]

<p>You're thinking of Bruce Gilden. A good illustration.</p>

[marklcooper]

<p>Jeff,</p>

<p>Thank you! That man gives street photographers a bad name. Talk about in-your-face! <br>

Thanks,<br>

Mark</p>

[danmarchant]

<blockquote>

<p>To Dan Marchant:<br>

The case was definitively settled by a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada.<br>

<a href="http://csc.lexum.org/en/1998/1998scr1-591/1998scr1-591.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://csc.lexum.org/en/1998/1998scr1-591/1998scr1-591.html</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks Ben, will give it a read.</p>

[danmarchant]

<blockquote>

<p>To Dan Marchant:<br>

The case was definitively settled by a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada.<br>

<a href="http://csc.lexum.org/en/1998/1998scr1-591/1998scr1-591.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://csc.lexum.org/en/1998/1998scr1-591/1998scr1-591.html</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />OK an initial reading of the ruling shows that it hinges on an interpretation/balancing of various rights including the right to privacy under s. 5 of the <strong>Quebec</strong> <em>Charter.</em><br>

As I don't now much about Canadian law is that a province level law or federal? Do the other provinces have the same charter or do they have different ones. If the Quebec Charter is specific to Quebec it would seem to me that the ruling would apply only to Quebec and have no validity in any province not covered by the Quebec Charter.</p>

[David_Cavan]

The Quebec Charter generally only

applies in Quebec.