Not sure wether to post a

[brian steinberger]

I recently took an image of a gravestone in a very old graveyard close to my home. I love the image, lighting, composition.. etc, but have some thoughts against posting this image on my site.

The name and information of the individual is clearly visable in the image on the stone and I seem to feel that it would be in some way disrespectful to post this image on my website. I'm not sure why. If it was a family member, I would not feel the same way I don't think. Maybe it's because I don't know anything about her.... I don't know.

This is the first time that I have felt this way about a photograph of mine and I was wondering that others thoughts were on this. Thanks!

[Ron Marshall]

If there are no living descendents; or it is a very old grave ie. pre 1800; or it is of historical interest; or the photographer has permission from the family. If none of these apply then I would not post.

[Ed Richards]

A gravestone is a public monument - I cannot see how it would be offensive to post a photo of it, as long as you do not show it in a false light.

[brian steinberger]

Ron,

The gravestone is dated 1886 as date of death. I'm sure there has to be some living desendents. It is of historical interest to me, but I'm not going to go as far as to ask permission from the family.

[tim atherton]

If there are no living descendents; or it is a very old grave ie. pre 1800; or it is of historical interest; or the photographer has permission from the family. If none of these apply then I would not post.

Why not? Generally, a gravestone is essentially a public monument.

[tim atherton]

Ron,

The gravestone is dated 1886 as date of death. I'm sure there has to be some living desendents. It is of historical interest to me, but I'm not going to go as far as to ask permission from the family.

Unless it is some personal issue for yourself, I could see no real reason why you shouldn't.

[Bill_1856]

The legalities are beside the point. If you are uncomfortable, don't do it.

[paulr]

the issue is less about the law than about angering the dead, who might rise and come after you. if you're unconcerned about this then you haven't been to enough movies.

[GPS]

From 1886? Personally, I would wait other 50 years... Just to be sure.

[tim atherton]

the issue is less about the law than about angering the dead, who might rise and come after you. if you're unconcerned about this then you haven't been to enough movies.

Paul - I'm just sending you an email with an attachement...

[Ron Marshall]

Ron,

The gravestone is dated 1886 as date of death. I'm sure there has to be some living desendents. It is of historical interest to me, but I'm not going to go as far as to ask permission from the family.

Of course everyone must decide for themselves. I stated the critiria I would use.

I said 1800, but what I was really thinking was far enough back that there would not be anyone living who had known the person. So on second thought about 1920 is probably a better date.

[John Kasaian]

I think Brian's sensitivity is commmendable. If his website is a commercial adventure for self promotion, one image more or less isn't going to make or break his reputation and using a grave for profit might well offend the deceased person's surviving family. IMHO, if its not worth asking permission, its not worth posting
for the purpose of commerce

[Randy H]

Why this one particular headstone? Does it have unique characteristics that would set it apart from any other? Does the pic fit in with the theme of pics it would reside with? Does it kinda say to you "I need to be here"? I have seen portfolios of headstones that are very interesting, in that they sought out the "unique". If it just another headstone, and you are having mis-givings about using it, for one reason or another, trash the pic.

[brian steinberger]

If I did post this image on my website I would certainly never print it for sale if someone did request. It would just be for me to showcase my view of the world for others to see, which is the pupose of all of our photography.

This gravestone was in a very old graveyard close to my home that had just been vandalized ( like two days before i went to visit). As I walked around i felt a wierd connection to this gravestone. Maybe it was the way it stood out from the others, or maybe the way it blended with the background of trees.

Randy, John, Ron and others, thanks for understanding, I think i've decided not to post.

[Capocheny]

I think Brian's sensitivity is commmendable. If his website is a commercial adventure for self promotion, one image more or less isn't going to make or break his reputation and using a grave for profit might well offend the deceased person's surviving family. IMHO, if its not worth asking permission, its not worth posting for the purpose of commerce

John, I absolutely concur with you on this...

Cheers

[cyrus]

People are perfectly free not to photograph or not to post images based on their own tastes, but since you're asking and for what its worth, personally I think this is overdoing it. This person has been dead for a very, very long time. You'd be perfectly in your rights (in NY) to photograph live person and sell their photos as "art" so I really don't see any reason to be concerned about photographing a bit of carved stone marker for someone who has been dead for more than 100 years nor is this really any sort of invasion of privacy of him or his descendants, legally or morally speaking. After all getting noticed is the whole purpose of having grave stones. Heck, the old fella's ghost may appreciate the attention!

[tim atherton]

Again, graves and graveyards are a (generally) public part of our society and culture. On the photographic side, whole books have been made about graveyards - and quit wonderfully so (Friedlander's Stegliano [sic] and Jame's on Mount Royal in Montreal come to mind) Sold for profit and reputation. At times we have hired our greatest landscape architects and designers to make the cemeteries (Olmsted etc).

On the other hand, when they become inconvenient or we need more room, it's not beyond our society to dig them up and use them for another purpose - they are not sacrosanct (and many an English churchyard has had the bones all dug up from previous generations, piled into a big hole in one corner to make room for more generations...).

I'm still not quite sure what the big problem is? I assume folks weren't thinking of using the picture in a Coca Cola ad?

[paulr]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this ... are you planning to photograph the grave before or after you rob it?

[Michael Daily]

There was a bit about "World War Z" on NPR today. Should we be worried about photographing public monuments? interesting people on the street? mountains? I think it should be a matter of personal taste and conscience. I think the dead have more interesting things to do than worry about mortals.
Michael

[cyrus]

Speaking of the dead - who is that one photographer who takes still-life style photos of dismembered human body parts (well, I guess describing this as "still life" is redundant!) I remember looking at a photo of a foot, placed on a table along with some flowers or something and wondering where people find this sort of stuff.

There was a guy in NYC last year who was busted because he had a grown tiger in his apartment (along with an aligator) And now this guy seems to be able to get ahold of dismembered feet and heads etc. Apparently there are tiger and body-part selling stores somewhere, and meanwhile I can't find a decent store to buy quality socks! SOCKS!

[paulr]

Are you thinking of Witkin? (the photographer, not the guy with the tiger).

The tiger story definitely made some news around here. The guy was into exotic pets, and lived with the tiger cub in his apartment, but seemed unpleasantly surprised when the cub got ... well, big.

The guy ended up moving into another apartment (with his mother, i think) and stopping by the tiger's apartment only to feed him ... which involved throwing in whole chickens, and closing the door, fast.

It all came to an end when he lost a disagreement with the tiger, and subsequently failed to convince the emergency room doctors that a dog bit him. When they started asking pointed questions, he fled. The doctors called the cops, who went to the guy's building to investigate. They heard from a lot of frightened neighbors who routinely chained their doors when gutteral roars echoed down the halls and stairways. And from a downstairs neighbor who couldn't get the landlord to return calls about the copious amounts of urine raining from the ceiling.

Welcome to new york!

[DrPablo]

Why not? Generally, a gravestone is essentially a public monument.

Virtually all cemetaries are privately owned, and while access usually is not restricted they are not public property. Furthermore, grave plots and grave stones are purchased and owned by the family of the deceased.

If you're on private property shooting a private monument, then you don't enjoy the legal protections of shooting a candid photo from a public sidewalk.

I'd absolutely not sell a photo of a grave (with identifying information) unless you clarified with the cemetary whether that was permissible.

As far as posting a photo on the internet, I think you're more beholden to decorum than to legalities. There is a gray zone, but many of the important points (i.e. year of death) have been raised.

[BrianShaw]

... I think you're more beholden to decorum than to legalities. There is a gray zone, but many of the important points (i.e. year of death) have been raised.
Most death information is publically available so I don't know what "privacy issues" there are. I totally agree with the decorum and sensitivity issues... that is what I consider to be the principal issues here.

[paulr]

It's worth noticing that in this case, no one who even knew this person is living. I'm not sure who all the sensitivity is for.