Do websites have a right to photograph graves?

“Or, in some cases, not so much with pride as in sorrow and grief (which are altogether different).
The bereaved chooses whether to erect a memorial stone. She doesn't have a choice where photography intrudes.

It is not so much for all to see (although all can), as to provide a focal point where a survivor(s) of the deceased may continue to mourn. (Mourning is a private act, despite being in a public place. Hence the importance of keeping a distance and observing a period of time, rather than the location.)

Or do you think, with Google and Google Earth, that nobody need be accorded any privacy ? You seem to dislike the paparazzo, yet still omit to put limits on photography.”

“No it's not an advertisement, it's a memorial placed hopefully with pride of a loved one for all to see, be they walking through public cemetery, churchyard or anywhere else including the MANY websites on line.”

“PPS
A memorial is not an advertisement.
L2”

“PS
As I said, in my view, you need to put limits on this kind of behaviour; and, so far, this is something you seem unable or unwilling to do. 22 years would be too soon for me.
L2”

“If I catch one of the blighters photographing one of my relative's graves they'll hear my voice alright: on a subject they may not know about, but soon will. Thank you very much.”

“Clearly some people like the sound of their own voice, looking at the telegraph Leveret2 has an opinion on lots of topics. Nothing wrong in that, but I would appreciate it more if he kept his comments to that which he is knowledgable about. The headstone in question is over 22 yrs old.... Hardly papparazzi like photography swooping in at the funeral.
There are lots of projects all over the world recording monuments for posterity, so hardly a pet project. In fact in England there is a commission to promote the recording and preservation of such.
I would also reiterate, that I can see nothing wrong in taking a photograph of a publicly displayed monument in a public place. Again, what is the point of the monument but to advertise the life/death of that person.”

“Clearly some people think their own pet projects are more important than respect for individual's wishes. Obviously individuals don't count until some generations have passed, when they do.

I suppose that means these people would see nothing wrong in photographing the stone with the grieving widow still there sobbing by it ? Or, if that's not the case, then perhaps one of them would be good enough to state exactly what limits they would put on their own behaviour; eg, the minute she's gone ? is that alright ?”

“Mrs Sparks could start here

http://tinyurl.com/9goscxw”

“As a family historian, I cannot emphasize enough the connection one feels to an ancestor -whether recent or long lost - with every document and photograph that comes into possession. It is sad that Mrs. Sparks feels such disdain toward the simple act of memorializing the final resting place of a family member. Genealogists, whether mere hobbyists or professionals, feel a deep abiding need to link past to present and if a photograph of this nature helps, then so be it. There is little difference between the fact that a grave may be seen on a website or merely viewed by strangers who happen to walk by it. Either way, it is the same thing. As long as the grave is not disturbed or violated (and NO genealogist - hobbyist or professional - would do such a thing), what exactly is the harm. Mrs. Sparks - I would invite you to start researching your family tree. Only then will you understand the relevance of your ancestors and the trail they left behind.”

“No, my point isn't trivial. It's simply another point of view. It doesn't nullify yours.

If somebody takes a photo of somebody else without first asking, the person photographed may reasonably object (especially if the photographer then publishes it, still without asking; the more especially on a website). The deceased cannot object. The bereaved may or may not wish to object. The memorial tablet may well be the closest the bereaved comes to the deceased. (I didn't say "steals", incidentally; though reasonably I could have.)

In my own case, I was able to find my Grandfather's grave in a country churchyard. The headstone had fallen over. 85 years on, it hadn't been destroyed. My Grandmother, widowed young, had made an inscription upon it. It was moving: heart-rending yet heartening, at the same time; that was the kind of person she was.

Imagine the difference had I come across its picture surfing. It would have startled me (by its invasion of my family's privacy). I could even have questioned its authenticity; that's the kind of person I am.

I am not saying that the work is not well-intentioned; on the contrary, I'm sure that it is. But that doesn't exempt it from criticism. A single rule won't necessarily suit everybody; it's a difficult area, I think, as is the question of privacy generally, nowadays.”