Particular video company banned from filming wedding at church? at DVinfo.net

Marius Boruch · October 26th, 2009, 08:57 PM

One of the Chicago's churches came up with "brilliant idea" of creating the list of approved vendors that can photograph / film weddings in that particular church (starting Jan 1, 2010). There is 4 photographers and 2 video companies on approved vendor list and NO OTHER COMPANY is allowed to work there due to "....experienced some difficulty with photographers and videographers who have ignored sanctity of the sacrament and have physically abused the church..."

Is this legal according to US law???

Don Bloom · October 26th, 2009, 09:09 PM

I live in the Chicago area and I didn't see anything about this. Do you know what church it is?

As for the legalities, I don't know but I'd guess there is some kind of donation going back to the church.

Daniel Bates · October 26th, 2009, 09:13 PM

Why wouldn't it be legal? They are privately owned, aren't they?

Marius Boruch · October 26th, 2009, 09:15 PM

I don't want to mention the church by name, but I am filming wedding there next year and I got a letter from the bride (which she received from the church - Guidelin/Policy Agreement Form) that I must sign and mail/fax back to the church two months before the wedding. I will be allowed to film that wedding only because I signed my contract with the bride BEFORE Aug. 1, 2009. If we sign after that date I wouldn't be allowed.

Louis Maddalena · October 26th, 2009, 09:21 PM

I believe its technically private property, and therefore they can do what ever they want.

Don Bloom · October 26th, 2009, 09:23 PM

Marius,please PM me with the name. Since I do 60 weddings a year in the Chicago area I would really like to know if it's somewhere I shoot. It probably isn't but still.
Thanks

As for the legalities, well I suppose it is but by the same token a church at least to me doesn't fall into the same pervue as a banquet facility. As a house of God I think that restricting WHO comes into work is carrying it a bit far. Restrictions, sure. I've been restricted to the back balconey in one of the biggest churches in Chicago but guess what so is everyone else, but they don't restrict WHO can shoot there. Why not go the other way and say 'These companies are not welcome here in our house of worship' and explain why. I know there are some churches that have done and are doing that to this day.
In the end, it's their house their rules.

Marius Boruch · October 26th, 2009, 09:27 PM

Videographer provides serives to the CLIENT not to the church (and CLIENT is paying the church for ceremony, right...); if it was for the church I'd understand it they have the right to choose whoever they want BUT client chooses professional company who will sign agreement that will obey the rules; can us antitrust law be applied here???...interesting....

Chris Hurd · October 26th, 2009, 09:31 PM

They have every right to be as exclusive as they want to be.

Marius Boruch · October 26th, 2009, 09:34 PM

can antitrust law be applied in that case????
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_..._antitrust_law

Dave Blackhurst · October 27th, 2009, 03:24 AM

Church = 503(c) exempt non-profit corporation... so probably couldn't be found in violation if they cited religious grounds, which it appears they are doing. ANY private legal entity (business) has (at least in theory) the right to dictate the use of their property (no shirt, no shoes, no service) as long as it is not discriminatory (biased on basis of established legally protected classes).

I think you're stretching with "anti-trust" - I've seen several discussions of private venues restricting vendor lists, and while it's objectionable, particularly when there's perhaps money changing hands behind the curtain, business is business. If a venue has had issues with a vendor, I can certainly see valid reasons to prevent future problems.

You'd have to have a lot more information as to how and why those restrictions came to be, how they are being enforced, if there is anything discriminatory in the rules/application, and if there are questionable financial dealings involved... even then, it's an uphill battle.

Jason McDonald · October 27th, 2009, 04:11 AM

I live in Japan and that's how it works here. You have to use the photographers/cinematographers that they have in-house. As for shrines, it's been my experience that some will and some won't.

Don Bloom · October 27th, 2009, 06:08 AM

Since Marius was good enough to PM me with the name of the church it doesn't surprise me. I have worked there and they are very very restrcitive to begin with and are also very touchy about their rules which I don't blame them. After all it is their house so it's their rules. The church is part of the Archdioses of Chicago and a very popular place for weddings and is one of the most beautiful churches around but it has always been a difficult place to work. It is very easy to make a mistake there and get into a place you're not supposed to be unless you're shooting from the balconey which is a nice shot but of course you can't get the processional. No camera can be placed anywhere up front but where I worked there I could handhold at the end of one of the pews just at the edge of the balconey to get the processional and then go to my tripod on the side or the back. That's the extent of it. I was accused of going to 2 different people there and asking the rules to try to get one to say I could do something different which I did not do and have it all on tape to prove it but regardless I KNOW there are some in the area that break the rules regardless and now everyone who MIGHT work there pays the price.
Oh well, after the last time there I vowed I wouldn't work there again anyway.
Their house, their rules, nothing that can be done.

Noel Lising · October 27th, 2009, 07:42 AM

I can't believe that this happening in the wedding industry. I know the church has every right to do it, but I believe clients have The Freedom of Choice. It's a win some lose some situiation, in the AV world, clients who brings in an outside vendor gets slapped with a fee, and a booklet about the restrictions of bring an outside vendor ( you need a lawyer to decipher the book). Anyway, it may shun people away from the Church/venue, remember the preferred vendors would have to shell out ( 25-50%) commission and thus would have to price accordingly. Sometimes the venue would choke and give in to the client.

Shaun Conner · October 27th, 2009, 08:37 AM

I don't think the churches can restrict access like that as they are tax exempt entity.

Dave Blackhurst · October 27th, 2009, 12:24 PM

Actually a "reliigious non-profit" has substantial leeway to restrict the use of their facilities, even a "for profit" facility/business can ban/restrict an individual/vendor/group that causes problems. The right to "refuse service" is fairly well established, AS LONG AS that refusal does not constitute "discrimination" based on protected characteristics.

I presume that as a business you would prefer to retain the right not to deal with "difficult" clients, and if you identified a specific client who caused problems, you'd take appropriate steps to either increase the charges commensurately with the hassle or find other ways to avoid that client. From Don's posting it sounds like HE vowed not to work that venue again, I support his right to do so <wink>! He should not be forced to work a venue that is a major hassle for him, right?

That the same venue has created obstacles to ANYONE working there (except their selected vendors) is a "business" decision as well... sounds like it's not a great loss to anyone.

October 26th, 2009, 08:57 PM	#1
Marius Boruch Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 421	Particular video company banned from filming wedding at church? One of the Chicago's churches came up with "brilliant idea" of creating the list of approved vendors that can photograph / film weddings in that particular church (starting Jan 1, 2010). There is 4 photographers and 2 video companies on approved vendor list and NO OTHER COMPANY is allowed to work there due to "....experienced some difficulty with photographers and videographers who have ignored sanctity of the sacrament and have physically abused the church..." Is this legal according to US law???

October 26th, 2009, 09:09 PM	#2
Don Bloom Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,609	I live in the Chicago area and I didn't see anything about this. Do you know what church it is? As for the legalities, I don't know but I'd guess there is some kind of donation going back to the church. __________________ What do I know? I'm just a video-O-grafer. Don

October 26th, 2009, 09:21 PM	#5
Louis Maddalena Major Player Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: NYC Area. Posts: 550	I believe its technically private property, and therefore they can do what ever they want. __________________ Red Epic available for rent, starting at $500 per day, Scarlets, and Lenses available too. rentals.maddalenamedia.com

October 26th, 2009, 09:23 PM	#6
Don Bloom Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,609	Marius,please PM me with the name. Since I do 60 weddings a year in the Chicago area I would really like to know if it's somewhere I shoot. It probably isn't but still. Thanks As for the legalities, well I suppose it is but by the same token a church at least to me doesn't fall into the same pervue as a banquet facility. As a house of God I think that restricting WHO comes into work is carrying it a bit far. Restrictions, sure. I've been restricted to the back balconey in one of the biggest churches in Chicago but guess what so is everyone else, but they don't restrict WHO can shoot there. Why not go the other way and say 'These companies are not welcome here in our house of worship' and explain why. I know there are some churches that have done and are doing that to this day. In the end, it's their house their rules. __________________ What do I know? I'm just a video-O-grafer. Don

October 26th, 2009, 09:31 PM	#8
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	They have every right to be as exclusive as they want to be. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

October 26th, 2009, 09:13 PM	#3
Daniel Bates Regular Crew Join Date: May 2006 Location: Daegu, Korea Posts: 180	Why wouldn't it be legal? They are privately owned, aren't they?

October 26th, 2009, 09:15 PM	#4
Marius Boruch Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 421	I don't want to mention the church by name, but I am filming wedding there next year and I got a letter from the bride (which she received from the church - Guidelin/Policy Agreement Form) that I must sign and mail/fax back to the church two months before the wedding. I will be allowed to film that wedding only because I signed my contract with the bride BEFORE Aug. 1, 2009. If we sign after that date I wouldn't be allowed.

October 26th, 2009, 09:27 PM	#7
Marius Boruch Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 421	Videographer provides serives to the CLIENT not to the church (and CLIENT is paying the church for ceremony, right...); if it was for the church I'd understand it they have the right to choose whoever they want BUT client chooses professional company who will sign agreement that will obey the rules; can us antitrust law be applied here???...interesting....

October 26th, 2009, 09:34 PM	#9
Marius Boruch Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 421	can antitrust law be applied in that case???? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_..._antitrust_law

October 27th, 2009, 03:24 AM	#10
Dave Blackhurst Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Apple Valley CA Posts: 4,874	Church = 503(c) exempt non-profit corporation... so probably couldn't be found in violation if they cited religious grounds, which it appears they are doing. ANY private legal entity (business) has (at least in theory) the right to dictate the use of their property (no shirt, no shoes, no service) as long as it is not discriminatory (biased on basis of established legally protected classes). I think you're stretching with "anti-trust" - I've seen several discussions of private venues restricting vendor lists, and while it's objectionable, particularly when there's perhaps money changing hands behind the curtain, business is business. If a venue has had issues with a vendor, I can certainly see valid reasons to prevent future problems. You'd have to have a lot more information as to how and why those restrictions came to be, how they are being enforced, if there is anything discriminatory in the rules/application, and if there are questionable financial dealings involved... even then, it's an uphill battle.

October 27th, 2009, 04:11 AM	#11
Jason McDonald Major Player Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Japan Posts: 295	I live in Japan and that's how it works here. You have to use the photographers/cinematographers that they have in-house. As for shrines, it's been my experience that some will and some won't.

October 27th, 2009, 06:08 AM	#12
Don Bloom Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,609	Since Marius was good enough to PM me with the name of the church it doesn't surprise me. I have worked there and they are very very restrcitive to begin with and are also very touchy about their rules which I don't blame them. After all it is their house so it's their rules. The church is part of the Archdioses of Chicago and a very popular place for weddings and is one of the most beautiful churches around but it has always been a difficult place to work. It is very easy to make a mistake there and get into a place you're not supposed to be unless you're shooting from the balconey which is a nice shot but of course you can't get the processional. No camera can be placed anywhere up front but where I worked there I could handhold at the end of one of the pews just at the edge of the balconey to get the processional and then go to my tripod on the side or the back. That's the extent of it. I was accused of going to 2 different people there and asking the rules to try to get one to say I could do something different which I did not do and have it all on tape to prove it but regardless I KNOW there are some in the area that break the rules regardless and now everyone who MIGHT work there pays the price. Oh well, after the last time there I vowed I wouldn't work there again anyway. Their house, their rules, nothing that can be done. __________________ What do I know? I'm just a video-O-grafer. Don

October 27th, 2009, 07:42 AM	#13
Noel Lising Major Player Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 789	I can't believe that this happening in the wedding industry. I know the church has every right to do it, but I believe clients have The Freedom of Choice. It's a win some lose some situiation, in the AV world, clients who brings in an outside vendor gets slapped with a fee, and a booklet about the restrictions of bring an outside vendor ( you need a lawyer to decipher the book). Anyway, it may shun people away from the Church/venue, remember the preferred vendors would have to shell out ( 25-50%) commission and thus would have to price accordingly. Sometimes the venue would choke and give in to the client. __________________ Noel Lising

October 27th, 2009, 08:37 AM	#14
Shaun Conner Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Baton Rouge, LA Posts: 196	I don't think the churches can restrict access like that as they are tax exempt entity.

October 27th, 2009, 12:24 PM	#15
Dave Blackhurst Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Apple Valley CA Posts: 4,874	Actually a "reliigious non-profit" has substantial leeway to restrict the use of their facilities, even a "for profit" facility/business can ban/restrict an individual/vendor/group that causes problems. The right to "refuse service" is fairly well established, AS LONG AS that refusal does not constitute "discrimination" based on protected characteristics. I presume that as a business you would prefer to retain the right not to deal with "difficult" clients, and if you identified a specific client who caused problems, you'd take appropriate steps to either increase the charges commensurately with the hassle or find other ways to avoid that client. From Don's posting it sounds like HE vowed not to work that venue again, I support his right to do so <wink>! He should not be forced to work a venue that is a major hassle for him, right? That the same venue has created obstacles to ANYONE working there (except their selected vendors) is a "business" decision as well... sounds like it's not a great loss to anyone.