Wedding Pictures

LegacyUser

Lynette Ambrosia said: I can't believe will not allow a couple kissing at their own wedding. As much as the church pushes marriage you would think pictures of the wedding would be acceptable.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: I remember seeing someone in a session (likely RootsTech from a year or more ago) talking about this change.

The problem is when is a photograph of people kissing appropriate and when isn't it appropriate.

The entire matter becomes very subjective and while we think of the bride and groom kissing is fine, there are times when it is definitely not appropriate in work settings. Even heterosexual couples can, when kissing in public, find themselves at odds with local laws regarding behavior.

Customs change over time. At one time, it was quite normal for two grown men to greet each other on the street with a hug and a kiss. That time was during colonial times, but today, it is not seen as a social custom, but one that is common to a different culture.

I'm not making excuses for the rule, but I can understand the problems not just in enforcing the rule, but determining if the photograph is appropriate or not.

LegacyUser

joe martel said: Yes, the rules changed and the times (and people's sense of right and wrong) have changed for what can be uploaded.  So it does surprise users when their photo is restricted. It's not that your photo may be inappropriate, it more a case of having a set of rules that have to me more restrictive. Each upload goes through multiple levels of automated and human scanning to determine if it hit a rule. 

LegacyUser

Paul said: Lynette

Whilst FamilySearch / Family Tree is operated under the auspices of the LDS Church its users come from a variety of religions, cultures and countries. Even if you feel they should not find such photographs offensive, you should understand that many (even possibly Church members) might feel uncomfortable about seeing such expressions of affection being expressed publicly. So I believe FamilySearch has got it right with respect to this issue.

LegacyUser

Lynette Ambrosia said: I am also LDS and my calling is family history. If a member of church think a kiss or the couple being too close on their wedding day offensive I have to questions that member and the LDS church as a whole. How can a member be so isolated from the world around them? Have they never been to a wedding? Finding a kiss or being too close on their wedding day outrageous is something I don't understand. This site is for family history, hopefully to last forever...you don't think reserving these precious memories should be reserved for future generations? I agree that some pictures go to far but come on. Since there is so many individuals making the decision regarding what pictures should be put on the website they need to look at it on case by case basis. Life is not just black and white.

LegacyUser

Lynette Ambrosia said: They need to decide on a case by case basis!

LegacyUser

Brett said: Lynette

"FamilySearch" already DOES decide on a case by case basis.

Quote from one of the aforementioned "Knowledge Articles":

-----
FamilySearch uses software to review each memory item that is uploaded to ensure that it complies with our rules and guidelines.
-----

And, if you disagree, you have the option to DISPUTE a "Memory" being "Restricted".

Quotes from the aforementioned "Knowledge Articles":

-----
When a photo or document image is inappropriate, FamilySearch marks the memory item as "Restricted" and sends you an email message. If you believe this restriction is an error, reply to the email message you received, and provide an explanation. Your reply goes directly to the team that reviewed and screened your memory item.
-----
You can review the case and respond if you feel the memory item should not be restricted.

Sending an email response from your open case is the quickest and easiest way to provide information regarding the restricted image for our team to review.
-----

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Lynette

'No', "Life is [certainly] not black and white' ...

We do not have our OWN "Tree" in "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch".

We ONLY have "Branches", that are interconnected, in this SINGLE "One" World "Tree", for all of us, that is "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch".

Thus, "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" is used by many peoples ALL around the World.

"Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" is NOT like "Ancestry.com" or the like.

We DO NOT have "Private"/"Personal" 'Trees' in "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch", like other "Web" Sites; and/or, 'standalone' personal programmes.

We do not even, own; or, manage; and, are NOT even responsible for, the "Deceased" individuals/person in "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch".

"Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" is built on a "Open Edit" Platform - hence, why any registered User/Patron can "Edit" (ie. Add, Delete; and/or, Change) ANY "Deceased" individual/person in "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch".

Therefore, what is appropriate and inoffensive for one/some, may be inappropriate and offensive for another/others.

And, it has NOTHING to do with whether a User/Patron is or is not a Member of the Church.

"Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" has to, consider; and, be inclusive, of ALL.

And, as I suggested above ...

"FamilySearch" already DOES decide on a case by case basis.

Quote from one of the aforementioned "Knowledge Articles":

-----
FamilySearch uses software to review each memory item that is uploaded to ensure that it complies with our rules and guidelines.
-----

And, if you disagree, you have the option to DISPUTE a "Memory" being "Restricted".

Quotes from the aforementioned "Knowledge Articles":

-----
When a photo or document image is inappropriate, FamilySearch marks the memory item as "Restricted" and sends you an email message. If you believe this restriction is an error, reply to the email message you received, and provide an explanation. Your reply goes directly to the team that reviewed and screened your memory item.
-----
You can review the case and respond if you feel the memory item should not be restricted.

Sending an email response from your open case is the quickest and easiest way to provide information regarding the restricted image for our team to review.
-----

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Lynette Ambrosia said: If this is done on a case by case basis why as I was uploading the pictures I received a restricted notice as I was uploading the other pictures and the e-mail was already sent. I uploaded 3 pictures.

LegacyUser

David Newton said: There's a very strong puritanical and prudish streak through many US religious denominations. This rule is said prudish streak manifest.

They're not restricting lewd or salacious material or anywhere near obscenity with this rule. Now there is a genuine danger of someone trying to upload obscene material, let's not forget that. However it is impossible to legitimately say with a straight face that this rule is to deal with that problem. It's snigger, snigger, look what they're doing writ large.

LegacyUser

Lynette Ambrosia said: Thank everyone for your input regarding this subject, however, I feel it is ridiculous! These rules are not from Heavenly Father but from humans. I am a convert to the church and have question other rules set my humans. However I found this to be the last straw...as many other converts before me I will become inactive. The LDS church is not for me. I wish you all well.

LegacyUser

joe martel said: The scanning is usually pretty quick. If it violates the rule and has kissing then that picture will be restricted. If you think the picture doesn’t have kissing then you could create a case as is suggested above. Im supposing as for why the rule exists it’s probably more to do with an entity being forced to accept the worlds definition of what is ok or not. Companies that want to be family friendly would have rules to limit.

LegacyUser

Lynette Ambrosia said: What is not family friendly about wedding pictures??? Sorry I don't agree with you...I can think for myself and questions many things. I just don't except something blindly just because it 's a "rule." Sorry you think a wedding is obscene. Actually their faces where just close to each other.

LegacyUser

David Newton said: It's not "family friendly". It's prudish.

LegacyUser

Lynette Ambrosia said: You are entitled to your opinion.

LegacyUser

David Newton said: That was directed against the rule, not your picture. The rule is not "family friendly". The rule is prudish.

LegacyUser

Lynette Ambrosia said: As I already said you are entitled to your opinion.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: The wedding pictures are not the problem. Kissing is the problem and rather than try to be subjective on what kind of kissing is ok and what is not would cause more problems than a general rule against any photo that includes kissing.

Something you might want to consider is instead of uploading a set of wedding pictures to FamilySearch, upload them to a picture site like flickr, tumblr, smugmug, and so on. Then put a link to the pictures in the pages for the each couple.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Those of you who believe that the rule is wrong, take a long look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_..., the Wikipedia article on the subject of public displays of affection.

Remember that FamilySearch is a world-wide site and so what may be considered appropriate in one country may not be appropriate in another.

LegacyUser

David Newton said: "Familysearch is a worldwide site."

That's strange I seem to remember that it can't be accessed from Japan. I'll bet there's a good chance it's blocked by the Great Firewall if China as well.

As for "what may be considered appropriate in one country may not be appropriate in another", well why don't we all just adopt Saudi Arabian standards for what's appropriate online then? Oh dear well that would mean the entire site would have to shut down since it's promoting a religion other than Islam. Still by your express way of doing things that would be perfectly OK.

LegacyUser

David Newton said: Why is a link to a picture of people kissing any more acceptable than an upload of a picture of people kissing? Both would seem to violate the policy and trigger the prudishness.

LegacyUser

Cindy Hecker said: It is easier to say No Kissing in pictures for all than to have different levels of kissing allowed. Do we want to see an adult kissing a child on the lips? Some may or may not. Or see a gay couple kissing? Some may or may not. Is kissing on the cheek ok? Why split hairs and have someone judge all the possible kisses there are. They choose no kissing or about to kiss and I think that is an acceptable solution.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: The internet access is controlled by jurisdictional forces. The site itself is open for the entire world to use. Those living within a certain country can still access the site via satellite connection, subject, of course, to local law enforcement.

LegacyUser

Brett said: David

FYI

Unless things have change in the last year of so, I was able to access "Family Tree" (and, the other Parts) of "FamilySearch" while we we travelling in China.

Whereas, in the Middle East, in some Countries (or, regions) I could access "Family Tree" (and, the other Parts) of "FamilySearch"; whereas, with other Countries (or, regions) I could NOT access "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch"; but, I could access the other Parts of "FamilySearch"; whereas, yet again, with other Countries (or, regions) I could NOT access, either, "Family Tree" of :FamilySearch"; and/or, the other Parts of "FamilySearch".

And, as to Japan, that is a special case ...

In Japan, only authorized users can access FamilySearch Family Tree.
To become an authorized user, please contact FamilySearch Support.

"Knowledge Article" in "FamilySearch"

I am in Japan and received an "account not authorized" error
https://www.familysearch.org/help/sal...

I wish I would have know this when we were in Japan - at least I know for next time.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: From the Terms of Use:

"This site is not intended for use in the Russian Federation and, therefore, should not be accessed within the Russian Federation. Moreover, due to local legal considerations in Japan, we do not generally allow residents of Japan to access this site. In some instances, subject to legally necessary measures and controls, we may allow limited access to specially authorized individuals and registered Church members in Japan"

So it seems that FS itself blocks access those who are not "specially authorised individuals and registered Church members" in Japan, in order to proactively abide by local laws.

The statement about Russia suggests that it is illegal to use FS in Russia, but FS won't stop users from trying to use the site there.

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: The KA about Japan suggests that only the FSFT is subject to the additional restrictions, but the Terms of Use suggest the entire site is restricted.

I'd guess privacy laws are the reason.

LegacyUser

Brett said: A van Helsdingen

'Yes', interesting; and, yet that "Knowledge Article" for Japan states that:

"... Indexing, on the other hand, is completely independent from Family Tree. It does not require authorization. Users can go to FamilySearch and begin indexing immediately ..."

Brett

ps: Yet, apart from the 'Terms of Use", I could not find any "Knowledge Article" regarding "Russia".

..

LegacyUser

Juli said: Both FS and All Things Google were inaccessible in China in the summer of 2018 (unless you had a working VPN).

LegacyUser

Brett said: Juli

'Yes', 'Google' was certainly inaccessible in China when we were in China; but, "FamilySearch" seemed to work OK (But, then, as you suggest, we could have been using the Accommodations VPN).

We were there for well over two (x2) weeks; and, that was before 2018.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Cary Holmquist said: While I am not a big fan of this rule, there are certainly lots more pictures taken at weddings in which couples are showing affection that can be substituted, in lieu of the couple kissing on the mouth. So the historical event of the wedding can be included for the family to enjoy with such snapshots of the happy celebrations.

Certainly wedding pictures from earlier eras of photography did not include couples kissing and rarely more that the stiff, unsmiling poses that we stare at with some confusion about why the subjects are so sober looking or even disagreeable. Who is to say that cultural changes in the future would have out for our
far-distant progeny staring at us with confusion by seeing pictures of us in frills and tuxedos and kissing on the mouth?

LegacyUser

David Newton said: That's not cultiral. Tht's the limits of early photography.