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???

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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....

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

It's discriminatory, but discrimination law seems mostly based on race, creed, national origin and sexual orientation factors. If you have one of those factors and are refused access you would have a case.

IT is great loss since it is one of the most prestigious churches in Chicago downtown area; It creates a precedence and if it is not confronted it could set an example for other churches; that would create very unbusinesslike, uncompetitive situation, inviting corruption etc. when vendors would have to "be creative" to get on the "preferred vendors" lists. Can you imagine that??? If you have client interested in your services because you are better than other companies (that's healthy competition and that's why they come to you and NOT to company from "preferred vendors list") and suddenly you are prohibited to provide service for entire wedding day because this particular church will not let you work there, that's not fair. They (church) don't know ANYTHING about your company (although you might have worked there before), they never had a problem with your company, they never interviewed you and still hey PREEMPTIVELY ban you based on "past experience with other comapnies"!!! That's the POINT. If they want to ban some other companies from performing services on their premises based on "bad experience" with them in the past - that's different ball game BUT to create a list of "allowed vendors" is kind of discrimination (and I think it touches anti-trust laws because I am not allowed to compete with the company from "preferred list" even though I have client who'd choose my services over theirs but they can't due to limitations set by that church they'd like to have their weedding at); and quite frankly it is misunderstanding to call such a list of "preferred" vendors since there is no chance to get on it!

Here in the south the churches are very strict about camera placement. Everything from the back... NO MATTER WHAT!

Cameras be gone!

Sometimes I think it would be worth to have an assistant arrive early with a camera and shoot from the pew since guests aren't forbidden from snapping away every last shot!

Sorry, it has nothig to do with our discussion. Here we can't even be allowed to the church to film the wedding.....enjoy your freedom on the south side ;-)

is it worth aproaching the archdiocese and trying to discuss the matter at that level. I'm sure their concern is maintaining the sancity of the church & the ceremony and it's been spoiled by a few.

creating sensible guidlines for both photo & video is in everyone's interest.

"their house, their rules" ?

sorry, it's not their house - it's god's

Interesting that similar problems, and almost identical opinions are on UK based forums. Pretty well UK video people are saying the same things, and the overview here is similar, churches making rules video people don't like, and video people looking for legal reasons they can't do it. Sadly, I suspect it simply boils down to the fact it's their church, and if we don't like their rules, they're quite happy for the 'problem' wedding to go somewhere else. If they don't mind losing the booking - which is the worst that can happen, nothing we do will make any difference, because they don't actually care. Pursuasion, arm-twisting, even begging work if compromise can be reached - but if they don't wish to compromise, it's their right - isn't it.

Stupid it may be, but who knows what is really behind it? almost certainly bad behaviour by somebody in the video industry, and we all get tarred with the same brush!

I've had to talk my way into churches that didn't allow video at all. They're allowed to define the rules of that community... it's part of what makes them a separate denomination from other denominations... even separate churches within the same denomination are run differently, it strengthens the community. I've seen catholic churches completely change from priest to priest as they are reassigned as well.

In the end, it's a house of god and the priest/pastor is the arbitor of the communities access to worship and services. Whatever they believe is the "correct" way to run their worship center is the only way there is to run it.

In one church, we weren't allowed more than halfway up the place, glad I had a nice zoom lens on my camera :)

Well, as a person who has shot in that particular church (aswell as many many many others that are under the Chicago Archdioses) I can tell you this, every church has their own rules and every priest, minister, Reverand and Rabbi has their own rules. There are some that let you have the run of the house and others in that same church that restrict you some are very restrictive. It's up to the officiant(s).
As for going to the archdioses it would be a waste of time because they will tell you the same thing. It's up to the priest in that church. The head preist is the one in charge of that church and it's he that decides and enforces the rules.

Unless you specifically have done something to cause yourself to be banned, then the church is discriminating against you. Even though it's legal discrimination, it's still a form of discrimination.

You have the legal right to protest any organization. Especially one that claims a moral high ground. My sign would say "Cameras are not evil" "Don't discriminate" ..or maybe something more specific. You won't win, but you at least bring to bear a consequence for their action that they didn't take into account.

We live in a free country in which everyone has the right to peacefully protest and it's wrong to say otherwise.

If I lived in Chicago I would start with next Sunday's service.

Rules in churches and other places of prey are common and well-known to vendors. I always like to ask my customers to talk to the priest at the rehearsal and discuss all possible issues with vendors. It always works.

But in my area there are at least two churches "suggesting" annual donation from vendors in exchange of "untouchable" status. And there is that 3rd church which has in-house vendor and will not let anyone else film it. B&G are being informed about it when booking the ceremony - many couples leave and never go back.

My thinking is - it's a business - also running a church. If you restrict access to it in any way (I'm not talking about making rules), it will draw customers and vendors away. Less customers/couples - less income from special services. I'm sure that when a couple ask you about particular church (ie. how well the pictures/video come out there), and you know that it's a headache to work there - you will do everything to convince the couple to change their mind.

Now, on a good note - my last wedding I did this season. The priest pulled me to the side before ceremony, when I was setting up, and said: "Place your camera right there on the altar - you'll have he best angle". My jaw dropped - I said it's not necessary, that I'm good on the bottom (still could easily see the couple), but he insisted. I was the 2nd most important person in the church :-) (not counting B&G)

I dont know about your neck of the woods but here in DE the churches make the rules and the Brides go by them. some churches dont allow Video or Photo at all but most are really easy going. from a spiritual aspect I think its not a good idea for a church to "blackball" without good reason because many of us are Wedding shooters on Saturday BUT Church goers on Sunday if you know what I mean. We have a hall in this area that only lets house people in and if you get lucky enough to get in they make your life difficult. Unfortunatley we are paying the price for the amatures that have gone before us. Personally I think Photographers have become the more disctracting factor now with digital and all. It used to be us.

VERY interesting topic. I too wonder of the legality of creating a list of 'allowed' vendors that excludes other vendors for no other reason than the simple fact that they haven't shot there before. Blacklisting vendors for infractions is one thing, but blacklisting vendors for no reason is another.

I just had the experience this summer of having such a confrontation with a church pastor that I have decided to never shoot at this church again. As a Christian, it is REALLY frustrating for me to have such horrible experiences with a person who supposedly represents my faith at the highest level.

The thing that bothers me is: I can see a Church banning video or photography but making an approved list is wrong. They simply need to have rules as strict as they want but just rules that everyone needs to follow and if they dont then they get banned. I think its legal but if you think about it the Bride is paying the church and the pastor so its really up to her.

Rather than making an "approved" list of vendors, maybe they should have made a list of "unapproved" vendors based on their past experiences. That would be fair to an out of town videographer or someone just getting into the business.

I'm not sure how it can not be legal. As a private organization they have the right to not allow any and/or every business to engage in commerce on their property.

My church has a contract with the local Coca-Cola distributor for a couple of vending machines. Does Pepsi have the right to say, hey, you can't discriminate, and set up a couple of their own vending machines? No. My church, for whatever reason, has chosen Coke as the "preferred distributor" for soft drinks on the premises. If Pepsi doesn't like it... too bad. If some third party rents the gym or something and says they a Pepsi vending machine... if the church says no, you can only use Coke, too bad.

Remember folks... when we're shooting someone's wedding, we're businesses, not people. If a private organization doesn't want us doing business on their property for whatever reason or no reason, that's their right. That some third party hired us to do their wedding on church property is irrelevant. That third party isn't the church. If the third party agrees to use the church (even if they are paying the church), they also agree to follow the church's rules. If the third party doesn't like it... there are other churches.

Yes, it's dumb. Ridiculous, really. As a Christian, I hate seeing houses of worship get so bent out of shape over this stuff because of a few bad apples. But, it is their right... however dumb and arbitrary it may seem.

You can't talk about higher values, Faith and God Almighty and then treat people like a ruthless corporation. It may not be illegal, but it surely doesn't represent the morals they try to teach us. If one creates trouble in the church, I agree, ban them for life. But this one is very-very different and makes me think suspiciously.

Anyway, in Greece, we usually don't have such problems. Ok, it's up to the priest to decide what happens, but although most of them have a strong temper (due to the fact that church in Greece is economically more powerful than many US corporations but State and Church are not seperated, and that means a lot of complicated things), if you are nice with them, they are nice with you and everything goes smoothly. Of course in big cities like Athens, there are cases of priests demanding money from photographers-videographers in order to let them use lights and let them do their work without issues, but I haven't witnessed it many times (yet).

And yet, in America at least, that's just exactly what some churches are.

And as Mark Harvey has already pointed out, it is their right... however dumb and arbitrary it may seem, whether you like it or not.

The remedy for Marius Boruch is to get on the approved vendor list for that church. It wouldn't surprise me if there is some kind of retainer / fee / tribute / contract / monetary exchange involved for that sort of exclusivity.

I understand that many of you have very strong feelings about this issue. Please publish yourselves and make your opinions known by posting *on your own blogs* and kindly reserve this forum for its intended purpose: discussing the technical and creative aspects of event & wedding videography.

We're done here. Thanks for understanding.