During the past few days, the City of Waterloo’s proposed bylaw to ban photography and video recordings in all of its municipal cemeteries caught the attention of a lot of genealogists.
But there is good news.
Joe Wilson, chair of the Ontario Genealogical Society’s (OGS) newly formed Cemetery Committee, sent an inquiry to the city and received a response (see below) that addresses the issues raised, and it should appease people’s concerns about not being able to take photos of headstones.
In a nutshell, if the bylaw is approved, which seems likely, people will still be able to take photos of headstones in the City of Waterloo’s municipal cemeteries, provided they are respectful and not doing so for financial gain.
The city said in its response, “It is likely, even expected, that the practice of photo imaging will continue on in much the same way it has been practiced for years in our cemeteries.”
Bryce Crouse, Waterloo’s manager of cemetery services, told CTV that people can consider things “business as usual” the next time they go to a city cemetery. The new rule is intended more for film crews or other groups of that nature – groups that the city is currently powerless to do anything about. “What we’re asking is that people just continue with the current practice they have.”
According to OGS vice-president Steve Fulton UE, the bylaw would be in place “to remove anyone not being respectful or a professional photographer doing a photo shoot and then selling the photos. They have no concerns with family historians or those posting to a headstone website.”
Official response from City of Waterloo
The following is a general response to the important matter of governing photo imaging in a cemetery.
The bylaw is not a ban on photography or Videotaping. The bylaw provides for anyone completing this line of recording to seek permission from the Manager before completing any photography or Videotaping.
The bylaw is similar to other cemeteries that have similar language. Ours was adopted in reference to Mount Pleasant Group Cemeteries in Toronto which is one of the largest cemetery operators in Ontario.
The intent of the bylaw is to provide some recourse in the event someone uses images or recordings of monuments in the cemetery for either financial or personal gain, or uses the images in a manner that contravenes the decorum or integrity of the cemetery image or standing.
The Cemetery would never stand in the way of families sharing images to other family and friends in a way of remembrance or tribute.
Similarly, the Cemetery appreciates the good work of those in the field of genealogical archiving and research and would support efforts to these beneficial ends.
It is not the Cemetery’s intent to supervise or oversee the general photo imaging of the memorials therein, to do so would be outside of the staffing capacity of its current makeup.
Therefore, it is likely, even expected, that the practice of photo imaging will continue on in much the same way it has been practiced for years in our cemeteries.
To this end, most groups or individuals wishing to participate in this important function have come into the office and sought permission and have always been granted permission under general guidelines of respect to families.
Legal review of these bylaws was completed and no issues were found with any new bylaws or updated ones.
The city’s new cemetery bylaw is expected to be in place by September.
Problem is, “financial gain” can be somebody doing a youtube video and monetizing it with ads. That is exactly how Transport Canada treats drone videos on youtube done for fun by hobby fliers. Even if you do not place the ads, but youtube does, and youtube makes the money, it is “montized” and ergo, falls under “financial gain”.
That is just one example, others are out there. Bottom line is this – “financial gain” is so wide ranging, so vastly interpreted, that almost anything can fall under that heading.
The second thing to consider is this – whatever the intent of the city of Waterloo is, in the long run, once a regulation and/or law is put into force, they loose control of it. Future interpretations will rely on others, and how they want to see the law used.
One last thing, laws and regs like this can be used for more notorious purposes. Example – my grandmother was born in the London (Ontario) Asylum for the Insane. Exactly what it says on here birth certificate. Because of a combination of the mental health act, the privacy act, and some family embarrassment. we had a terrible time (and still do) finding out information about this. We may also have a couple of lost family members buried in a unmarked grave in an unmarked cemetery too because of all of this. We do not know for sure, and it is very hard to find out.
So yes, this rule/reg/law will be abused by people who are afraid of “family skeletons” coming to light.
Good food for thought. Thanks for sharing.
I agree with Joseph. Financial gain is left to the interpretation of who takes offense to the bylaw. I take pictures of headstones all the time. I sometimes use them with published articles and columns. I don’t get paid for the photograph, but I do get paid for the article. In the eyes of the reader, the photo with the written word could be considered a package deal.
I also put the photograph of headstones on the cover of a book.
Also, unless the bylaw actually states genealogists and historians maintain the right to photograph headstones, what these officials say in a newspaper article won’t stand up in a court of law, and anyone who is offended by someone taking photographs can have the full extent of that bylaw exercised, which means NO ONE –without except —
can take photographs.
I completely agree with everyone being respectful while visiting a cemetery, and before a 20-team film crew sets up to film there should be permission granted, but a single individual and their friend / family should maintain the right to take photos of headstones.
We have too many laws, and the last thing we need is more. The way they’re going, we’ll all be criminals eventually.