Should you include photos of real kids on a church website?

[devoted]

Dean Peters, who maintains the Heal Your Church Web Site (http://www.healyourchurchwebsite.com/) [sic], wrote an article called The seven deadly sins of church website design (http://www.healyourchurchwebsite.com/archives/cat_theology.shtml#001375).

But I notice (see the heading "TMI == Too Much Information") that, while he advocates that church webmasters use photos of real people not buildings on church websites, he advises against using photos of real children. On the church website he maintains, he says, he uses photos of children from stock photo CDs. Of course, his concern is sexual predators.

My question for everyone, then, is: Do you feel it's OK to include photos of real children (that is, children of members of the church) on a church website, or not?

My thoughts on the matter are:

1) Sexual predators probably already know there are children at churches. The use of photos of real children isn't going to change this. One might ask, why use photos of any children, including from stock photo CDs?

2) You want parents to feel like your church is a safe and enjoyable place for their kids. (A lot of parents come to church only because their kids are excited about church.) Seems to me that photos of real children engaged in real activities is part of telling that story.

Having said that, I understand how other people would take the opposite belief.

devoted

[mrbelfry]

My own view in general is that I should include pictures of people at my church wherever possible. My reasoning being that when you walk into a church for the first time it is good to be able to see recognisable faces. Secondly if there are lots of pictures of someone on your site but they are not in church then it maybe noticable that they are missing and some people may question why.

In terms of childrens photographs I have used pictures of kids in our church however I normally try and only include group shots of activities rather than individual portraits. Some of the kids in our church do amazing things (like baking cakes to sell for charity) and it is good that they get celebrated for that.

I also wonder whether any child abuser has ever seen a picture of a kid on a website and gone somewhere to commit a crime or if this is some kind of urban myth? I'm not a criminalologist but I thought most abusers of this type 'groomed' their victims beforehand or were known to the child. So I ask if this is a real danger?

[David Gillaspey]

Hi,

mrbelfry wrote:

<< My own view in general is that I should include pictures of people at my church wherever possible. >>

I agree for additional reasons (stated elsewhere on Great Church Websites): 1) photos of people are more interesting in general than photos of buildings; and 2) a church is comprised of people in community, not physical structures.

<< My reasoning being that when you walk into a church for the first time it is good to be able to see recognisable faces. >>

That wouldn't be true for larger churches, but -- speaking of churches in the U.S., at least -- the vast majority have a weekly attendance under 75. (I grew up in one such congregation.) So you make a good point, one I hadn't considered before.

<< I also wonder whether any child abuser has ever seen a picture of a kid on a website and gone somewhere to commit a crime ... >>

I'd say, probably not.

I have to wonder why Peters doesn't have the same policy regarding photos of teenage girls or single women in general? These are additional groups of people who are targeted by predators.

But I, too, understand how other people might choose to adopt a "better safe than sorry" policy, so I respect Peters' decision.

David Gillaspey
President
Great Church Websites

[pmburrow]

I?m new to the forum and just wanted to throw my two cents in for what ever it is worth.

Our team faced this same discussion a few years ago, after a little girl in our church was contacted by an adult. Although this proved not to have anything to do with our site, it caused me to see the importance of protecting people?s personal information. As David pointed out, the risk is not only to children, but also to adults.

The church attracts many types of people. Many who are already following Christ and are just searching for a new church home. Others are just searching for some meaning to the awful void that they have in their lives. One never knows what type background someone is coming from. It is our desire that people will come to Christ. However, while their sins may be forgiven, their past hasn?t been erased, and neither has anyone who happens to be in it. Is our site aiding someone to locate his or her ex-whatever?

We chose not to ask ourselves what the risks were, but rather what would happen if there were a problem. Often times personal information such as addresses, and telephone numbers are printed, and in some cases, I?ve even seen maps to people?s homes. This information could direct ex-spouses, ex-boyfriends, or anyone else, to someone?s new residence, or this information could be used in some type of burglary scheme.

While these risks are ever so small, they are still risks. Therefore, for a moment let?s put aside the risk to that person on our web site, and look at the risk to you and your church. That?s right in the age we live in today we are kidding ourselves if we believe that somebody out there wouldn?t involve us in a law suite.

For a while, we adopted an extreme policy not to publish any personal information about anyone other than staff. We still used many photographs, but they were stock photographs. However, as it has been mentioned, there are times when a church needs to use photographs and personal information, in order for its web site to be worth visiting. In fact, we have a future project, which will include photographs and stories of people in our church.

Realizing that there is a line somewhere, we adopted the policy to publish personal information only after a person, or in case of children, a child?s parent, complete a release form. This does a couple of things. It causes the person to think about any possible risk, and it protects the church from any legal actions that might result.

I will be the first to admit that this policy is a huge hassle. At times, I hate it. It?s hard to enforce it consistently because you are relying on others to see that the policy is being carried out. However, I believe that it is better to be as safe as we can now than to be sorry after the resulting damage later.

If something ever happened to someone because of information that I published, I would find it hard to sleep at night, knowing that I didn?t at least attempt to let that person know the risk involved with his or her information being online, however small that risk is.

Phillip

[David Gillaspey]

Hi Phillip,

Thanks for joining the forum, and for adding your insightful comments about using photos of real people on church websites.

Your mention of photo releases reminded me of a time a few years ago when I was working on a introductory CD-ROM for a church as a volunteer. We asked ourselves the same questions about using photos of real people. The consensus was that a church is a public space. The fact that it is a public space generally protects the church from lawsuits for use of photos.

But, having said that, I think a church wanting to be especially careful about its use of photos might very well want to adopt the policy you described of requiring signed photo releases from subjects in photos.

Sincerely,

David Gillaspey
President
Great Church Websites

[pmburrow]

David,

Interesting thought David. I never heard of that idea before. I wonder if it is state specific. I?m not a lawyer, but I spoke to two of them when we drew up the papers. They never suggested anything along those lines.

Even if the church isn?t at risk it still makes the person think twice about the risk before they do anything.

Phillip

[David Gillaspey]

Hi Phillip,

Well, it wasn't a lawyer that came up with the policy regarding photos in public spaces, but the pastor. But the pastor had worked for a few years in the P.R. department at Disneyland, so I guess he could have some special knowledge about photos in public places.

I'd go with the lawyers' advice to be safe, however.

Sincerely,

David Gillaspey
President
Great Church Websites

[HansR]

I certainly agree that if we are to include photos or other information of our church attendees, we should make every reasonable effort to protect their privacy. Some possible scenarios include:



Photographs of children wearing nametags

Last names of individuals with prayer concerns

Addresses and phone numbers, maps to homes

Even private e-mail addresses

[David Gillaspey]

Hi Hans,

Good points you make.

<< Photographs of children wearing nametags >>

Yes, people should fix that first with Photoshop (or Photoshop Elements) ? if they have access to such a program.

<< Last names of individuals with prayer concerns. >>

Believe it or not, I've actually seen this on a website (in my research). It seemed a bit crazy to me, too. Particularly the listing of medical conditions or people going through divorce.

<< Addresses and phone numbers, maps to homes. >>

People's names and address are in the phone book for everyone, including criminals, to see, so I haven't been entirely against this. (However, as Phillip pointed out,

<< This information could direct ex-spouses, ex-boyfriends, or anyone else, to someone?s new residence. >>

so there are some situations requiring extra care.)

But it occurred to me just now that if a church has just one service on a weekend (the usual case), posting members' names and addresses online would make it easy for a burglar to know when they're not home.

Sincerely,

David Gillaspey
President
Great Church Websites

[mk_elliott]

Posting information, such as child may "like baking cakes to sell for charity,? provides intimate information to a predator enabling him to approach that child as a seeming intimate acquaintance (ie; "grooming").

Also... having two professional photographers in my family, I know that it is a matter of policy for Professionals to NEVER publish a photo without a photo release unless it can be PROVEN a release is unobtainable (large group candid photos for instance)

Also? Children are more susceptible to abduction and abuse by subterfuge than are adults

[flutem3]

:confused: Hi,

We are just getting into the question of pictures. My personal preference is to use stock pictures which portray various events fine...and sometimes better than the photographs people in the church have taken. However, people are beginning to want to use pictures of "our" people.

As a person who has health problems and who lives alone, I do not want anyone that I don't know to know when I am ill because I am extra vulnerable at that time. And if I had a child, I would be hesitant to put his/her picture on a website.

Therefore, the pictures we will be using which have people in them will be backed by written permission by both adults and children. It is also wise to check that the person who is signing for a child is the one who actually has custody of the child. In a small church this is not difficult. Everybody knows.

I live in a conservative area and am somewhat conservative myself so I do not like to take a risk when I am aware that even though it may be a tiny one, since it can be avoided, I don't like to run the risk?

We have also become such a litigous society that running a risk of a lawsuit against the church for some weird reason is to be avoided as well.

[David Gillaspey]

My personal preference is to use stock pictures which portray various events fine...and sometimes better than the photographs people in the church have taken. However, people are beginning to want to use pictures of "our" people. My opinion is that it is vastly better to put pictures of people ? real OR from stock photo sources (that is, any photos of people) ? on a church home page than the so-often used building photos.

(I realize that the discussion about using photos of people is not limited to the home page.)

Having said that, I offer two caveats: I'm getting really tired of the stock photos of people taken with a very wide angle lens from above. (That's cliched now.)

Also, some church websites prominently show the pastor or pastor and his wife on the home page. I always want to say to those churches (or their pastors), it's not about you. It's about God, it's about the Kingdom, it's about the community of believers. It's not about you.

Sincerely,

David Gillaspey
President
Great Church Websites

[flutem3]

"Also, some church websites prominently show the pastor or pastor and his wife on the home page. I always want to say to those churches (or their pastors), it's not about you. It's about God, it's about the Kingdom, it's about the community of believers. It's not about you."

I could not agree with you more about having pastors on the home page. I don't like that, and I will go to my grave not liking that. The people who need to be the "greeters" on a home page are the laity...those who stay while the ministers run their circuits so to speak. But we also have no pictures of anyone on the home page. Maybe I will get around to it...but don't hold your breath. Right now I am working on reducing the sizes of the pages so they will load faster on dialup.

Does anyone happen to know with any certainty the percentage of people who continue to use dialup modems? I also am aware that it varies from place to place in the country. I have heard that 50% still use them: and I have heard that 80% still use them. And I know of one person who still uses a 26 K modem and builds her church's website using it. That is one patient lady!!

Another question I have is about people in countries other than the USA. I have been in contact with my cousin in Spain and a pastor in the Philippines and everyone there except for some big businesses uses dialup.

My answer about kids on the website is that the pictures need to be used very carefully if at all. I don't know how I would feel if I had kids. But I know people place family photo albums on the website. Those are more protected perhaps, but someone with skills can get at them. I just tend to be careful...and definitely I would not place names and places. At least, I don't think I would.

[HansR]

Suprisingly, I find myself an advocate for real pictures. I use stock photos all the time to present activities to church attendees, but if someone is seeking a church via the web, photos of individuals tell at church a lot about about the church. Certainly privacy is of utmost importance, especially the privacy of children! But, let's not throw the baby out with the stop bath.

[flutem3]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<Suprisingly, I find myself an advocate for real pictures. I use stock photos all the time to present activities to church attendees.>


Oh, my goodness. I don't intend to throw out the baby. I just think a person needs to be careful. I have used stock pictures to illustrate activities. Nobody said a word about who the people in the pictures were. I thought I would have somebody say something, but there was not a peep. However, that was for a church picnic. I imagine if I put pictures on the website after the picnic, people would expect to see the people of the church. I would rather err on the side of caution if there is erring...and I don't really know if there is. That is part of the problem. I don't know with any kind of certainty whether pictures of children in particular are a risk. I really don't know. I have heard some stories, but I don't know if those were true. If anyone can give me a definitive answer to this dilemma...at least it feels like a minor dilemma...let me know. I like pictures too!!

[generalhavok]

A couple of items:

1. A church is NOT a "public space". Photos taken on church property are not the same as at a park or at the beach. Releases ARE required by law in EVERY state for photos taken on private property. While the public is welcome in most churches, there's a distinction that needs to be made with regard to legality.

2. While we love pictures on our site, we won't put last names on pictures of minors. We also make it clear that anyone's wish to not be depicted will be honored.

3. We're thinking about putting up an online directory, and have determined the following to be unbreakable guidelines: they'll always be behind usernames and passwords, and will ONLY be posted at the REQUEST of those involved. At no time will anyone's name, address, phone number, or email address appear on our site without their knowledge and consent.

Great discussion!

[David Gillaspey]

Releases ARE required by law in EVERY state for photos taken on private property. While the public is welcome in most churches, there's a distinction that needs to be made with regard to legality.Sorry, but I don't believe this to be correct.

Consider, for example, amusement parks. If churches are private property, so are amusement parks. Yet amusement parks encourage people to take pictures, without requiring them to get photo releases from everyone who appears in their photos. In fact, amusement parks will sell you film (at inflated prices) for your convenience, to enable you take more pictures. Obviously, if all states required photo releases for pictures taken on private property, that would never be the case.

If all states have laws requiring signed photo releases from anyone appearing in a photo taken on private property, then churches would need to forbid any photographs being taken of youth activities, as an example. (Since most of the people at a junior or senior high activity are minors, the photographer actually would have to get photo releases from the kids' parents.) To my knowledge, churches don't generally forbid such photography. Some actually encourage photography, because people love to see pictures of themselves.

I hold a master's degree in photojournalism, so allow me to expand upon this issue a bit.

There are four main issues involved regarding whether you need to get a signed photo release or not from people who appear in your photos:

Use of photos -- editorial vs. commercial
Right to privacy
Right to property (to control access to one's private property)
vs.
Right of free speech

Photo releases, signed by individuals in the photos (or the parents of minors), are required for use of photos in advertising and other commercial usages, where someone is profiting from the likeness of another person.

By contrast, photo releases are generally not required for photos to be used for editorial purposes (newspapers, magazine, etc.). Photos of people enjoying themselves at amusement parks are published in magazines and newspapers all the time. Generally, no photo releases were obtained, nor would releases be required.

(But then, how do the amusement parks themselves get away with using photos containing identifiable people [park visitors] in their own advertising? One way is by posting signs stating that anyone who enters their property has given tacit permission for photos in which their likeness appears to be used for advertising. This seems like a good thing for churches to do, too.)

Newspapers in particular have not historically been required to obtain signed releases from people who appear in photos they publish. That is because of long-standing constitutional protection for such use of photos: the right of free speech, which in this case trumps other rights.

But what about photos taken for print that appear with an article on a newspaper's website? I don't know (for sure), but I am going to assume these are equally protected by the right to free speech.

However, with magazines, despite the constitutional protection, things in reality are more mixed. Some magazines require that their staff or contract (free-lance) photographers obtain signed releases from people in photos; many magazines don't, however.

Commercial and free-lance photographers usually will try to get signed photo releases from people who appear in pictures they make. Yes, to be sure, this is partly to avoid being sued. (They may very well win on constitutional grounds, but fighting a lawsuit is still costly). However, it's mainly motivated by profit. Commercial and free-lance photographers can make US$100 selling a picture (for example) of a person crossing the street in historic downtown Savannah, Georgia, to a national magazine. They can make US$2,500 (or US$5,000 or US$10,000) for the same photo used in a two-spread ad in the same national magazine. (For photos used in advertising, you must have a signed released from any recognizable individuals in the photo.) Since commercial and free-lance photographers make their living by selling and re-selling the use of their photos, they are normally highly motivated to obtain photo releases.

Then there's the right of privacy. I briefly worked in the P.R. department of a local hospital. Hospitals strictly control photographs of their patients not so much because they (the hospitals) are private property, but because of patients' right to privacy which in this case trumps even the media's right of free speech.

The above is only about photo releases from people. Property owners to a certain extent can control the use of photos of their property, too. As above, photos of someone's property used for editorial purposes generally would not require a signed property release from the owner. However, as above, in many cases, a property release would be required before a photo of that property could be used in an advertisement.

Private property owners also have the right to control access to their property. I wanted to videotape my 7-month-old son at a local mall recently, but was politely informed by guards that pictures were not permitted. One reason for this, they said, is the pictures might include logos on various storefronts. Use of logos is generally carefully guarded by their owners.

Here's an article that summarizes the various court decisions (on the state and national level) regarding use of photos, invasion of privacy, etc.

http://www.comm.wayne.edu/images/wright/06_privacy.html

I think it's a bit dated, however. But note this point:

"There is no privacy in public. If there is no expectation of privacy, then the taking of a picture or recording of sound is not an intrusion if seeing or hearing is not."

On the other hand, this website

http://cals.arizona.edu/ecat/multimedia/peoplephotos.html

states,

"Perhaps more as a matter of community courtesy than of law, we should extend to our coworkers, volunteers and community contacts the opportunity of knowing in advance where their image will likely appear. This is even more important now, due to the potential for repeated use of stock photos for other purposes, and because of the possibility of distribution of a particular photo on the web, with wider distribution than the individual subject would have imagined. Web photos, unlike photos in printed documents, can be downloaded and more easily reused by third parties."

But for a thorough examination of the issue of photo releases, go here:

http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html

(Italics below reproduce italics in the source material.)

The author states,

"There is no government mandate about when a release is required. That is, it is not subject to the federal court system, in which the government tracks down violators. It is strictly a matter of civil law that stipulates rights that people have, both as subjects of photographs, and as users of photographs. People have rights to privacy and other protections, but the First Amendment of the US Constitution also grants rights for people to express themselves, to report news, etc. It is this mixture of rights that often run counter to one another, so a model release, as its name implies, is designed to "release" one party from liability for having violated the other party's rights. "

He provides a checklist for helping you determine whether a release is required or not:

1. Can you identify the subject as a unique person or property?
2. How is the photo to be used?
3. How did you take the picture?
4. Was there proper compensation?

A shorter primer about photo releases by Michael Fulks is found here (http://www.baja.com/sensuousline/sline0799/mag4-6model_releases.shtml).

(WARNING: The rest of the site contains fine art nude photographs -- not porno, but nude photographs -- according to a disclaimer on the site [no, I did not personally check this out]. So you may want to avoid straying from the provided URL, therefore.)

This article is summarized by www.proscenia.net (http://www.proscenia.net/pronews/newsletter/031404/) in this way:

"This article addresses four violations: 1) when we intrude upon another's seclusion to make our photograph, 2) when our photograph makes private facts public, 3) when our photograph would cause the average, reasonable person to believe something about the subject that isn't true, and finally, 4) when we use our photograph of a person for commercial gain.' "

And finally, here's a third article about using photo releases:

Model Releases -- When and When Not (http://www.photosource.com/news/nwjun01c.html)

I also searched these magazine sites:

http://www.churchbusiness.com/
http://www.churchexecutive.com/
http://www.christianitytoday.com/cbg/

but didn't see any mention of the subject of taking photos in churches.

*****

Bottom line: Churches, as you say, are private property, but they are certainly public spaces. Churches can legally include photos of people in their print publications without having first obtained a release. That's covered by the right to free speech. But posting pictures online? Is that editorial usage (release usually not required, but perhaps a courtesy nonetheless), or advertising (release required)?

Sincerely,

David Gillaspey
President
Great Church Websites

[flutem3]

David wrote in part:

<Bottom line: Churches, as you say, are private property, but they are certainly public spaces. Churches can legally include photos of people in their print publications without having first obtained a release. That's covered by the right to free speech. But posting pictures online? Is that editorial usage (release usually not required, but perhaps a courtesy nonetheless), or advertising (release required)?>

I hate to say this, but I am more confused than I was in the beginning. I guess there is no straight-forward clean cut answer to the question. I wish there were. It would make things much simpler.

David, you presented a wonderful discussion of the issues. Thanks for doing so.

We are just getting into pictures like I mentioned before. I really would like to be able to state with certainty what the law(s) is/are. Evidently, I am not going to be able to do that.

It also seems to me that laws pertaining to print wouldn't be broad enough to cover websites which are global. We also have no control over what others may do with any of the information or images that we place on our website. I know of one website editor who discovered quite by accident that entire page of her church's website had been lifted and placed on another church website. The only change which was made was the name of the church.

I personally think it is a difficult issue. I tend to think that permission is preferable than not having permission whether it is necessary according to the books. State and Federal laws probably don't have much jurisdiction over something which is world-wide, do they? It seems that people could get around most if not all of them if they were so inclined.

If anyone has a nice, easy answer, I would like to know what it is!!

[generalhavok]

David:

Thanks for your detailed reply. I wish that I'd been more explicit in my post to avoid misunderstanding. Certainly the law doesn't require a release prior to publishing. However: it's a matter of defensibility. Could someone at the church (either a visitor or a member) justify a claim that the expectation of privacy was violated in this manner? I believe that this is the case, universally.

The operative issue is, of course, not legality but propriety. What should churches reasonably do to honor the rights and wishes of those who attend?
Churches can legally include photos of people in their print publications without having first obtained a release. That's covered by the right to free speech. But posting pictures online? Is that editorial usage (release usually not required, but perhaps a courtesy nonetheless), or advertising (release required)?

Are you aware of any challenges to the print issue? Very few, I'm sure, would litigate over it...but that doesn't mean that it's fully permissible. Finally: I see no difference between print and online when it comes to releases...maybe it's because I'm a webmaster and my father ran a print shop out of our home. Are you aware of any judgments that make that distinction?

[David Gillaspey]

I hate to say this, but I am more confused than I was in the beginning. I guess there is no straight-forward clean cut answer to the question. I wish there were. It would make things much simpler. ... I really would like to be able to state with certainty what the law(s) is/are. Evidently, I am not going to be able to do that. I understand how you feel.

The problem is that legally, there are only a few clear-cut rules regarding use of photos. One of those is that you can't use a photo of a person in advertising without their permission. But if you read this article,

http://www.comm.wayne.edu/images/wright/06_privacy.html

you'll see that questions of privacy, intrusion, use of photos in advertising, etc., are finely nuanced. Plantiffs and defendents in court cases win or lose based on narrow interpretations of the situation involved.

It also seems to me that laws pertaining to print wouldn't be broad enough to cover websites which are global.In America, at least, use of photos (and text) online are still covered by the constitutional right to free speech.

I tend to think that permission is preferable than not having permission whether it is necessary according to the books. So do I, but I also think that feeling like one has to get signed photo releases from everyone in a picture (taken in church) would really discourage the taking of pictures to begin with. As it is, my observation is that churches in general tend to not keep a visual record or history of their people and activities.

And what happens when the subject is handed a photo release to sign that says, in part,

"You agree to not sue if this picture of you is downloaded off the church website and your head is put on the body of a person in a pornographic photograph (in an image editing program) so that it appears that it is you in the pornographic photograph."

Your subject likely will respond:

"Uh? What??? Someone could do that with the picture you just took of me? No, you don't have permission to put my photo on the website!!!!"

You've opened a can of worms.

You could just ask the subject to sign a release giving you permission to use the photo on the website (without the details about how a picture could be misused), but that probably won't get you off the hook if the aforementioned situation should occur.

But then, it's not YOU that they should sue, but the person who stole the photo and misused it.

Sincerely,

David Gillaspey
President
Great Church Websites

[David Gillaspey]

However: it's a matter of defensibility. Could someone at the church (either a visitor or a member) justify a claim that the expectation of privacy was violated in this manner? I believe that this is the case, universally.I would have to say the answer is no, based upon my reading of this article,

http://www.comm.wayne.edu/images/wright/06_privacy.html

cited in my previous post. Especially, because of this quote from the article:

"There is no privacy in public. If there is no expectation of privacy, then the taking of a picture or recording of sound is not an intrusion if seeing or hearing is not."

The operative issue is, of course, not legality but propriety. What should churches reasonably do to honor the rights and wishes of those who attend?It's my opinion (I'm not a lawyer, after all) that, legally, people simply do not generally have a "right to not have photos taken of themselves" in a public setting such as a church. There is no right of privacy nor is there intrusion "if seeing or hearing [of the same thing] is not [also a violation of privacy or an intrusion]," according to the article cited above.

But there are some limits to what you can do. For example, you couldn't take pictures of someone going to the bathroom in a church. There IS an expectation of privacy in that setting. Also, if you took a really embarrassing photo of a teenager at a senior high youth activity and put it on your website, you have not violated their privacy (there was no expectation of privacy in the first place; it was a public event) and you have not intruded upon them. However, you may have cast him or her "in a false light" through the publication online of the embarrassing photo. You possibly could be sued for that. (Note that an embarrassing photo per se does not cast a person in a "false light." It's a question of whether a person could reasonably believe something bad or even just untrue about the person in a photo, because of the photo.)

However (continuing my opinion), a church is private property and does have the right to control the taking of pictures within its walls, even though most of the activities occurring within are public activities. A church typically would not permit outsiders (other than, perhaps, the press) to take pictures, because of all the concerns we've talked about, and out of respect for what it thinks are the wishes of members and attenders. The church might very well be OK with its members -- specifically, members of a communications or internet ministry -- taking pictures for the website or a church publication.

Speaking of people's wishes, that's where I could certainly agree with you. As church webmasters, we may very well want to respect people's wishes about being photographed and having their photos put on a church website. (Although, exactly what are people's wishes in this regard? Some people would delight in having their picture on a church website, while other people, for very good reasons, would be against it.)

But here's the problem: Photos are windows into a church, its activities, its people, etc. Pictures are a great way to communicate what we're about as a church to unchurched people who visit our websites. (A picture is worth a thousand words, as the saying goes.) Unchurched people can learn about a church, via the website, in what I call "the comfort and security of their home"; church, after all, can be a scary thing to unchurched people. Which is why I believe that church websites are great evangelistic tools.

So I'm saying that churches have a very good reason for wanting to put photos of people on their websites. The question is, then, how do we balance the importance and value of having photos of real people on our church websites, with people's wishes, narrowly defined legal rights in the matter, concerns about pedophiles, etc. I don't have the answer, but that's the point of having this thread.

I see no difference between print and online when it comes to releasesI agree with you in regard to this. However, as has been pointed out before, the ease with which people can download photos off the internet (thankfully, they can only download low-res versions unfit for print) and misuse them, does lead to a heightened concern about the matter.

Sincerely,

David Gillaspey
President
Great Church Websites

[Pauline]

I have spent the last year learning web design and making a site for our church, which is in the UK and has many families attending. I very much wanted to convey to 'cyberspace' that ours is a friendly family church. However, I thought this issue out carefully because I felt concerned at the prospect, however remote, of a child in our church being targetted by a paedophile from a photo on the website, so I worked out a policy for the use of children's photos. Here it is :

1) There will be no up-to-date easily identifiable images of individual children from our church on the website. Most photos will contain more than one child. Any photographs with individual children in are either not of children in our church, or the child concerned is not easily identifiable.

2) Written permission will be obtained from parents to put a picture containing their child on the site.

3) No child will be identified in any way by name.

4) All the images containing children in our church will be small, and of low resolution, and therefore of too poor a quality to manipulate in image-editing software.

5) It will be stated clearly in a prominent position at the top of any pages on 'children and youth' that our church has a rigorously enforced ?Child Protection Policy? thus sending out a warning shot to anyone thinking our church is an easy target.

[David Gillaspey]

Thanks, Pauline, for posting your guidelines. They seem well thought out.

Sincerely,

David Gillaspey
President
Great Church Websites

[cwgraves]

Having been a Children's Pastor, I am very sensitive to this issue. In fact, we do everything we can to reduce any possibility of inappropriate contact with adults and other children.

However, we cannot completely shelter the children from all outside contact. They are just as exposed at school, walking around the mall, etc...

We teach the children what to do in situations they don't feel comfortable.

Now, moving on to the subject of photos on the website: What we have done is get written permission from the minor childrens parents to display their photograph on any correspondence - website, printed newsletter, etc...

The children love to see themselves and each other on the website and a printed version. We highlight a child of the month, or special occasions. They absolutely love it! Since the children get excited about seeing themselves and each other, the parents get excited as well.

This has helped bring unsaved parents to church, just because their child saw a picture of themselves having fun - at church!

I think it is VERY important to have pictures of YOUR church kids on the site. However, make sure you don't give out information such as address, phone numbers or anything that would compromise the privacy of the child and their family.

Some of the churches I have worked with do have an online church directory, but only registered members have access to it.

Again, we can't completely eliminate problems, but we can be above reproach in all of the areas that we can control. Just be careful, but make sure to get written permission of the parents before using any likeness of their children.

[chrisb_ebc]

Hi all. I guess this topic is somewhat dated. But have been doing some very minor research into this area. I work for a photography studio and are members of the Professional Photographers of America (PPA) and we had a chance to speak with a PPA Copyright and Government Affairs operations manager about this very subject. He suggested to us that first being a studio doing photography for the church (and school ministry that we have there) we should have both sign off saying that the studio is not liable for any image used. As for me individually taking the pictures I should give fair warning and even hand out forms allowing parents/guardians to opt-out of this. As he stated most people could careless. I do agree with taking caution about displaying names, or information that could be used in a manor like that. I think posting a privacy and site policy on your site could clear things like that possibly.

On a funny note. There were a few comments about not using "real" people (stock photos) Just remember there real people too. There just people you don't know and have never meet, nor do they live near you. Using real people verse unreal people, I think, could have the same potential of violation. I think it really makes no difference. I mean in some rare instance someone could recognize that person in stock photography and remember seeing them at the grocery store...I guess this is a blown out of proportion idea. Just a bit of a catch-22 I guess. I think there should be some sort of policy, and a few have mentioned in this thread. I think its good to form some kind of policy to handle this area.

In my opinon