Church Issues Cease & Desist Order to Genealogist

Genealogist David Shannon found the graves and tombstones of several relatives, including his great-grandparents Julia and Lloyd Harp, in the Old Union Christian Church Cemetery in Lexington, Kentucky. Shannon began to compile the names, birth and death dates on the tombstones, which date back to the early 1800s. "Once I got into it, I figured other people trying to find ancestors would find information in the cemetery helpful," he said.

Shannon then created an independent research Web site, www.oldunioncemetery.com, where he's posted the information on the 475 documented burials collected and a photograph of each visible stone. But the church board at Old Union took offense.

In February, the church's governing board sent Shannon a letter telling him "to cease publishing pictures of stones ... not part of your family because it is sharing family information without their consent." Old Union's minister, the Rev. Scott Winkler, said the church's position is that Shannon's actions are an invasion of privacy. "If you're going to publish other people's private information you need to get their permission," he said. "Any cemetery has to protect rights of people buried there."

You can read the full story in  an article by Beverly Fortune in the Kentucky Herald-Leader web site at http://www.kentucky.com/181/story/727210.html.

Comments

[kristen kuhns]

Interesting, although I thought the gravestones were always public property even if managed by a church (on their property)? I wonder what the courts will say, if they get involved. If they rule for the church, this may have far reaching implications for many genealogy research sites that contain data of the deceased (outside the normal public documents). Who owns your "data" when you're dead?

[DianaR]

I've read this on a number of blogs today and I am just more amazed and upset every time. I can't believe that the church has a leg to stand on - the gravestones are out there in a public place! Also, the comment about "...protect the rights of people buried there" was interesting to say the least. I do not believe that deceased people any longer have "rights". That being said, courts don't always seem to me to use common sense, so it will be interesting to see what happens.

Personally, I am always THRILLED to find that someone has "violated the privacy" of my ancestors by putting photos of gravestones online!! I say keep up the good work and thanks.

[Ian Towler]

Just an FYI, the Cemetery is also listed in Find-a-grave. (I am pretty sure that it is the same cemetery, look up Jefferson Davis Fuller, and you can find him on both sites...with the same headstone.)

I wonder if the church has issued a cease and desist order to find a grave? I am willing to bet they have not.

man....some people....

Thank you Mr. Shannon for your hard work.

[Infinite Ancestors]

There is actually a good bit of legal precedent for certain privacy rights to continue for deceased individuals, for a variety of valid reasons, although from the facts in the article this case seems to be pretty clearly in Mr. Shannon's favor.

[Zadruga Guy]

I cannot think of any valid reasons why a person's privacy rights should continue for 1 second past the time of his/her demise. I would be very interested in learning what legal precedents Infinite Ancestors is aware of.

Obviously, a deceased person is part of a network of friends and relatives, and so certain facts about the deceased might still be too sensitive to initially disclose after the death, but that should be because of the privacy interests of the living relatives and friends, not because of any residual privacy rights held by the deceased or by his/her estate.

[Infinite Ancestors]

Just a few examples...

For information held by the US government, the Privacy Act of 1974 protects personal information about individuals and provides exceptions to the Freedom of Information Act for deceased individuals and their families. There are specific exceptions for a number of personnel, health, and law enforcement related records, based on continued privacy of the deceased person and of the living family. See the FOIA exception text here:

usdoj.gov/oip/exemption6.htm

and more analysis in federal appeal decision Kiraly v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 728 F.2d 273, 277 (6th Cir. 1984), here:

openjurist.org/728/f2d/273

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule also provides for broad privacy protections for the health information of deceased individuals, with certain exceptions for kin to obtain relevant information.

For an interesting ongoing controversy of a more popular nature, a discussion of "Franz Kafka's Last Wishes and the Kafka Myths" is here (relating to Kafka's wishes for some of his works to be destroyed upon his death):

http://concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/09/franz_kafkas_la.html

From a broader perspective though, the fact of death doesn't immediately create public rights to a person's private information. In practice, it is up to the family what to keep private or limited, what may be subject to intellectual or other property rights, and what to allow to become public (possibly subject to directions from the deceased in will or trust documents), with the exception of course of records that are filed with local, state, or federal government and subject to applicable laws.

[M J Clark]

It seems to me that if the family puts information on a tombstone, that is not keeping it private, but making it public. The same goes for obituaries.

[Dae Powell]

So, if the attorney at law wins the case for the church, will he next go after Find-A-Grave and any site which posts the SSDI? Yes, M.J. Clark, obituaries, too -- good point.

Considering how much the Paparazi gets away with using the photos THEY take and make public, I think common sense may favour Mr. Shannon, too.

Happy Dae.
http://ShoeStringGenealogy.com

[Diane]

I think that church needs to concentrate on the living in their pews and leave the dead to their posterity. The reason people even have tombstones is so they will be remembered by later generations. I hardly think the dead are concerned about their privacy! After all, a cemetery is a public place where anyone can walk by and view the information on the tombstone, and sharing that information online is a wonderful thing for kin that can't visit the cemetery in person. Mr. Shannon deserves thanks.

[Jean Adele Roth]

I read the whole article and then sent an email directly to the reporter. The Rev Scott Winkler doesn't care squat about the "privacy" of his buried death. It is pure greed. He is complaining that the web site may detract from sales of the $10 cemetery inscription book written by the church's scout troop. As a genealogist and a travel agent - I told the reporter that I had conducted research tours from Seattle to Lexington for area genealogists. We visited cemeteries - and stayed in the artea's hotels, ate at restauraunts, and shopped in stores. I said I hoped that the Lexington Chamber of Commerce and Visitors' Bureu was aware of the Rev Winkler's unwelcoming attitude toward descendants of those with Lexington ancestors. Since we cannot research the graveyard before coming to Lexington- we can just stay home or spend our tourist dollars elsewhere!

[Hugh Busey]

Have any fellow Find-A-Grave photographers ever had such a reaction? I haven't. In fact people without exception have been quite cordial and cooperative. But then that may just be our traditional New England hospitality. (g)

I would consider this individual's attitude to be an aberration and let it go at that.

[Jacques Tucker]

Follow the money, eh?

[Polly Brown]

On find a grave you can post as much incorrect information as you want, its just not information on graveyards and headstones, my sister-in-law post pictures that did not match the person whom the memorial belonged and she posted husbands and wives that were still living. There is some woman claiming she was kin when she was not and went on every memorial page that my sister-in-law posted and said so(a nut) I am still living and so is my brothers and sisters, we were shock to go to find a grave and see my mothers picture at all not least named as my grandmother, this just a few reasons why sites like find a grave need to be shut down,it is an awful thing filled with errors and misinformation

[Charles]

I also take photos for others at cemeteries. There is one cemetery in Fayetteville, NC , namely Cumberland Memorial Gardens, that will not reveal the location of grave sites claiming that there are privacy laws prohibiting the photos of grave stones without the written permission of family members. The cemetery is open to the public and there is no gate or high fence prohibiting seeing the tombstones from the road. I always thought privacy laws covered the living.

[Polly Louella Brown]

the reason people don't like sites like Find A Grave is because the people that manage these site are allowed to put up wrong pictures, wrong information and personal private information, and I have proof that they list living spouces and they don't post comments they don't like. There was an old picture of my brother put up when he was a teen, he had gotten into a fight at a carnaval and had a picture had with blood dripping down the front of him they didn't take it down after we requested it be, I could go on , there is no on that will take the responsibility of making sure these sites contain accurate information, it is an evil thing, this won't be posted. I can prove everything I've said.