A few weeks ago, I was on one of the many online church technology forums. One of the members was talking about how he wasn't allowed to ever shoot video of people in the congregation. Even when it was difficult --- if not impossible not to do so --- he wasn't allowed to show anyone's face on camera. It seems a member of their church had an emergency protective order against someone. That person found out she was attending the church by watching the live stream. Happily, no one was in physical danger. But the leadership of the church still chose to err on the side of caution. From then on, the tech team was forbidden from placing the image of anyone in the congregation online.
I was a bit surprised no one suggested some far-fetched technical scheme for solving this problem. You could make necklaces out of IR LEDs that the human eye couldn't see, but that cameras see as intense white light.
Of course, that's a silly idea.
Like the necklace idea, I think that not shooting the congregation is silly too. You can't build a set of norms on an out-of-the-ordinary situation. It's much better to protect the woman in this situation while connecting the online audience with the one at the physical location --- not one at the expense of the other. Certainly the church should have been sensitive to the situation, but when you make inflexible rules based on what could happen instead of what's likely to, you could be crippling your ministry. I think you lose something when you live in fear.
I'm not a lawyer and what I consider best practices for a streaming ministry, may not hold legal weight. I don't see any harm in these ideas, though. I don't want to endanger anyone, but I also don't want to make fear-based decisions. A church's live-stream can help people. Avoiding all audience shots, isn't the only option.
I'd start with expectations. Most people would assume that they don't have privacy in a large public gathering. People might assume that a confessional booth in a Roman Catholic church is private. I don't think that most people would assume the same privacy in a gathering outside its doors after a Mass.
Churches shouldn't stop with what people are likely to assume, though. Organizations often lose legal battles because they assume that everyone would understand something. It's just not always the case. It's better to make it explicit.
If a church has a live stream, they ought to make sure it's quite clear that anyone in the congregation could appear online. In secular events, such a notice is often printed on tickets. Churches don't tend to have tickets. We could print notices in bulletins, on the church website, and in well-travelled areas. Perhaps we should even mention it during the service.
Your church might consider designating part of the sanctuary that won't be on camera. This doesn't need to be a separate room. I could just be the side of the sanctuary where there are fewer cameras, or which have other shooting limitations. People who'd prefer not to be shown on video could make one of these shoot-free zones their preferred seating area.
Perhaps, the church could collect a list of people who'd prefer not to be video-taped. Just make sure that camera operators, directors, etc. are familiar with the people in order to avoid them.
I could imagine even having a particular service that isn't live-streamed. Right now, our satellite campus doesn't live-stream, although it's not explicitly advertised that way. If someone has good reason not to appear on video, attending a campus that doesn't live-stream might be a better choice.
This isn't a concern that's just limited to just adults. Children might not even know that they shouldn't be on camera for reasons that their parents are all-too familiar with.
Imagine that your church has a children's choir sing before the pastor's message. Everyone thinks it's cute. Perhaps one of the children shouldn't be on camera, though. Sometimes parents have to flee unexpectedly to protect their children from abuse. An innocent desire to hear young voices singing might result in an unnecessary risk.
Helping adults know when they're likely to be on-camera and how to avoid it might be a prudent action. For children, though, it's a better idea to clear any appearance on camera with their parents ahead of time.
Some schools are already doing things like this. Every year, I sign a release to allow my children to appear online, on the school website. Maybe churches should consider something similar.
It's a sad reality that churches need to think these thoughts. You just have to be intentional and minimize risk to make sure that your live-stream helps people while not hurting or revealing those who are vulnerable. If someone is unaware of a stalker, these cautious steps might not protect them. Otherwise, I think the key is communication, not needless, cumbersome rules. Effective communication is always the best practice.
