 Without the Permission of the Persons in the Photos? In short, yes. But it's a good idea to ask anyway.
A person's image photographed in a public place is not considered an invasion of their privacy. Privacy and Anti-Defamation Laws protect a photo from being used in a defamatory manner. Non-commercial use of a person's public image on a church website falls under the legal concept of "appropriation" which guards someone from using your image to sell a product without your permission. Reality Check:
Having said all this, I recommend alerting the congregation that some photos of events will be posted on the church website, in newsletters and on bulletin boards. Of course, they should already know this, but there are always a few who don't. Furthermore, addresses of children, and even adults, should not be included with photos. I'm not one to give in to the irrational fears of those who believe the boogey-man is waiting to swoop down on your church website's images. But some common sense and common courtesy is warranted.
DETAILS The US Copyright Law isn't very long, and it makes no mention whatsoever of a person's face. Copyright as defined in Federal Law can only be applied to an "author's work" ....written, audio, visual, etc. You can read the entire law at http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#102 Privacy laws vary by state. In general, the issue is not the existence of a person's face in a photo, but the intended use of the photo and image.
If I am in a public place, I cannot claim my privacy was violated by someone taking my picture. But if they use it to sell men's cologne, our children's curriculum, then I have cause for legal action under a legal principle called "Appropriation." Having said all this, even some commercial use of my image in a photo is permitted as long as my image is not the focus of the photo. This article is in addition to one I've written about creating better church websites. Church websites will typically have pictures of members and their children doing what churches do: worshipping, talking, playing, studying, going on retreats, etc. Taking pictures of children at church in a public setting for non-commercial purposes is neither a violation of copyright, nor an invasion of their privacy. However, they could be considered defamatory if used in an inappropriate manner. My recommendation is to CLEARLY announce through both printed materials and the website that pictures of members and their children may be posted around the church, and on the website. If anyone has a problem with that, they should contact the church and ask that their image(s) not be included. <>< Neil MacQueen
Supporting Addendum from a legal firm specializing in this subject:
The
courts generally agree that anything visible in a public place can
be recorded and given circulation by means of a photograph since
this amounts to nothing more than giving publicity to what is
already public and what anyone present would be free to see. The Anytown example is based on a New York case in which CBS broadcast a
clip showing a male and a female construction worker walking hand in
hand down Madison Avenue. It turned out that they were married, but
not to each other. The court in that case ruled that there was no
invasion of privacy. [De Gregorio v. CBS. Inc. (N.Y. Sup.
1984), 123 Misc. 2d491, 473N.Y.S.2d922].
...when
a person is incidentally shown in a photograph, depicting some
public event, an appropriation claim should be unsuccessful. In a
recent case, a dog-racing park put out a promotional brochure which
contained photographs of patrons at the park, and two of those
depicted sued the park for invasion of privacy. Even though the
brochure was distributed to promote the park commercially, the court
denied the claim because there was no commercial advantage to the
incidental use of the
patrons' photographs. [Schifano v. Greene County Greyhound
Park. Inc. (Ala. 1993), 624 So.2d 178].
Some cases have resulted in liability,
but those cases generally have involved clearly objectionable
photographs. For there to be liability for disclosure of private
matters, the disclosure must be unreasonable; that is, offensive or
objectionable to a reasonable person. For example, an Alabama
reporter photographed a woman at a county
fair.
There was no
dispute that the woman was in a public place, however, the
photograph was snapped in an embarrassing moment when a gush of air
blew the woman's dress up. In an apparent lack of good judgement,
the newspaper ran the photo on its front page, and the Alabama
Supreme Court ruled the paper was liable in damages to the woman.
[Daily Times Democrat v. Graham (A/a. 1964), 276 Ala.
380,162 So.2d474J. The cases suggest that as long as the
photograph is not offensive or objectionable to the reasonable
observer, a claim based on disclosure of a private matter will not
succeed.
Authors: Barry 0. Hines and R. Kurt Wilke, Springfield Illinois
lawfirm of Segatto, Hoffee & Hines, where their practice includes
representation of media and other clients on defamation and First
Amendment issues. Mr. Hines is past Chairman of the Illinois State
Bar Association's Fair
Trail/Free Press and Media Law Committee.
Back to the Church Website Article Back to the Articles Database at Sunday Software Copyright 2004, Neil MacQueen, www.SundaySoftware.com
|
Example: The local TV News can
come to your child's school and videotape all the children they
want, and show what they want. But the only thing copyrightable is
the edited videotape itself. And they don't have to obtain
permission of all the kids' parents. Why? Because it's "news"
--which is "fair use" as defined by the US Law.