Had a great question from that came up from the “Four Simple Techniques to Humanize Your Website” as you can see above. The question is two-fold:
- Do you use ‘real’ pictures of people on your website?
- And if you do, do you require releases for their use?
I know for some of the previous organizations I’ve worked for (large Fortune 50) we required it, but I haven’t been asking for release forms at my current non-profit employer.
So what are your thoughts? What are the dangers if you don’t? Should we be doing it just because? Legal issues?
Michael Mahoney says
We use only real pictures on the site. Every photo on the church website is "real" members doing "real" things.
We do not ask for releases. I do ask permission if the photo was not taken by me. (I admin the site) I would, of course, remove anything on request, but it's never happened.
Amy DB says
I think real pictures are best – as long as they are at least semi-professional ones. I've seen too many very nice church websites ruined with dark, blurry, grainy low-res photos of people in unflattering moments. 🙂 I would only be worried about releases ahead of time with photos of children – I'm fine with pics of my kids, but many people are extremely concerned about any photos of their kids being out in cyberspace. For adults, just being prepared to pull something off immediately if requested is fine I think.
Dan W. Boles says
#1: yes. #2: I’ve never thought about requiring a release to do so. Is it really necessary? I think it’s a valid question, one that I’m anxious to hear some feedback on.
Kyle Reed says
This has always bugged me.
Especially for churches that some "come as you are" or "join the family" etc…and then they put perfect images on their site and bulletins of people that do not even go to the church but are paid to have their pic taken.
I can understand the release form and stuff, it just never made sense to me.
I might get a little racist here, so umbrella of grace.
But the church i go to hear in the suburbs of STL does not have a lot of African Americans or really any other minority and yet on most of their publication stuff you have an African American, an Asian American a couple of white people and a hispanic person.
It seems to be a slippery slope, and can really be confusing as to what to do.
Graham Brenna says
I hear ya… if you don't have certain races in your church… I don't think it's bad if you don't post pictures of those races. As long as the church uses "real people" from their congregation I don't think they can get in trouble for not being inclusive of another ethnicity. It is a slippery slope though, you are right.
Chris Coppenbarger says
We had to decide on something like this with our redesign that we're working on. Our solution was to not obtain releases, but to issue opt-out forms if someone did not want a picture that had been taken of them published. Once we go through the pictures, we can compare them with the opt-out forms. We're small enough so we will know who is who. Large group shots, we decided not to search through.
If you're a large church, I think you should still do an opt-out form, but publish what pictures when and where you want and tell people to look at them later and send an email to tell you which picture they're in that you can pull.
jcisonline says
We have an item for this on our first time guests for Children's Ministry specifically all families have an item that they must check if they want their children in pictures used for the website, promotional material, etc.
Brett Barner says
Would there be any legal issue with this? or is it more of a inner company policy?
Clay Conry says
Any tips for keeping content fresh and using real pictures we use stock photos right now. take a look http://www.bellefourchechurch.com
@greghudy says
Had the same questions about images in the site I just redid for our church. We opted to use stock images as opposed to real ones, but I would much rather use real ones. One reason is for the same reason that Kyle Reed said earlier, I wanted to be as transparent about our church as possible, but also didn't want to make it seem as if we are exclusive – could be another question to post about…
walter wimberly says
We only use real photos on our site. The only "posed" photos are for the photos of the leaders, all others were taken during the course of some event at or with the church (whether it be worship service, band playing, etc). We don't have too many photos outside the gallery to reduce the chances of someone complaining because we don't request photo releases. To reduce there being a problem, we make sure to use only photos of regular attenders, and remove photos of anyone who doesn't want to be shown. (We have a couple a police officer who doesn't want to risk the safety of anyone if someone he's arrested comes looking for him – and we respect that.)
heyDarren says
I'm part of a large church and I do photography for some smaller churches and nonprofits. My church regularly collects model releases for anyone who is participating / volunteering. If we're producing a video we will often do another just for that video.
Events that take place in public spaces (church picnic in the public park for example) we don't collect releases for since there isn't an expectation of privacy and they are in a space that anyone could legally photograph them.
I try to encourage my nonprofits to collect releases or at minimum make a notification of photo and video recording part of their sign-up / sign-in process. I find that many new (less than 10 years old) organizations simply don't know about model releases or photographers rights.
Vin Thomas says
I think that's probably safe. When you're specifically taking photos or shooting video for promotional material, yes. But for most large churches it would be nearly impossible to get a release from every member in the church.
Vin Thomas says
I do a lot of work for a large athletic club (http://fitfx.com) in Salem, OR. They do require releases whenever I post a picture on their website. But that is the only place I have run into the issue.
I definitely encourage using real pictures. I have worked with dozens of churches who use in-house photos and have never had an issue.
stephen says
I think you should require releases whenever possible. Technically speaking, if you're using a picture of someone without their permission, they could come after you. Probably wouldn't… but they could. That also goes for getting permission from the photographer.
Vin Thomas says
I totally agree with this. Sometimes no photo is better than a crappy one. It isn't hard to find someone with a SLR to take some half-decent photos.
Christine Dattilo says
I work with ministries and other nonprofits. This question often comes up. The answer is YES, you need model releases in the US (outside of US, like missions pics – different laws). There are a couple of "pocket model releases" on the web that are very good. They don't have to be long and involved – just standard language. Carry them on your PDA and let them sign right there.
The key is – you are using their photo for promotion of your church, your ministry, fundraising, awareness raising, etc. All of these are considered commercial uses (even though you are not making or maybe even collecting money/donations).
The exception is "editorial" use. For example, you are blogging or editorializing about homelessness and you show a homeless person who was on the street. But as you can see it's a fine line. Are you really blogging about the homeless problem or are you seeking donations for the homeless ministry?
Lastly, if the person is personally identifiable – get the release. Street scenes where it's not obvious who is who – don't worry.
BTW, Creative Commons same thing. Nonprofits must use "for commercial use" photos even for a nonprofit or get permission (pretty easy to do on Flickr).
Jay Locklear says
We use real pictures on our site (except for posed pictures of our staff, as another commenter mentioned), and we require releases for children and youth. Every year, as part of an information form / medical release form there is a section for parents to indicate their preference for photo usage in materials such as our website, print publications, etc. Also, we only post group shots, not individuals, and we do not use identifying information such as names for pictures that we post.
@BrianAyers says
We include, as part of the legal jargon in all of our parental release forms for children & youth activities, a line that says they give permission for us to use photos of their children in advertisements/website/promotion. This pretty much takes care of the issue for us
Daniel Decker says
Our church uses a combo of stock and "real" pics for a variety of different things, just depends on the use. We ask for permission if something is going to be used online in a focal way, more so out of courtesy. If we are using it for a print piece (banner, mailer, etc) then we get a release. Reason between the two… web is easily removable if someone changes their mind, etc. Print, too costly to redo something after a massive print run so we want to be sure we have their sign off. We try to use more "real" than stock photos but there are times when we just choose stock over real because it's easier to access when we need something of a certain style or composition.
Graham Brenna says
We are planning on using more "real pictures" on our new site which I just recently pushed the launch date to May on. When it comes to children it is a concern for parents and I understand that. Certainly if there is a parent in that child's life that they are trying to get away from. Our Children's department asks each family to sign a general release form at the beginning of every program year. If the parents don't sign it… our staff make sure to not include that child in group photos.
As I said though, when our new site launches in May you will see pictures of ONLY our congregation. There will be no stock photos of people on there.
Clay says
Generally, if you're taking pictures of adults, it's good practice to issue release forms, and can help keep you out of legal trouble.
If you are EVER, at ANY TIME, taking pictures of minors and publishing them ANYWHERE, there MUST be a release form. There is no way to sidestep this: It is the law and it's taken extremely seriously; and it keeps your kids safe.
David says
we've recently started taking release forms and had a mom chose not to sign. Wen i asked her why, she sad that her ex-husband was looking for her son and searched the internet to find them. It's the only experience I've had with this but it made me a believer in the need to seek permission to post pictures.
@karlfisher says
We use real photos on our site & publications. Our rule of thumb is if it's a portrait-ish photo of an adult, we usually just ask if we can use it. If it involves a minor, parents must fill out a small info/med emergency card for kids to be involved in ANYTHING at the church, so we just put a spot on there about photo permission.
Mark says
I take SLR photographs during church events. These often involve children. Do I need model releases for adults or children. These photographs are used during announcements and on our website. Recently an interesting event came up. A photograph was taken during the invitation with a cell phone. The photograph subject was the pastor and two minor children. The photographer published the photograph on her facebook page. This photograph was quickly “tagged” and used by others on their pages. Question, if anyone in the photograph (pastor or children) objects to the use, does the church have a problem, does the photographer have a problem or the person that tagged the photograph?
Christopher Mills says
youth activities are always centered on enjoying the day and socializing with other teens;-`