Illegally Capturing images?

[pwrstrk02]

I'm totally new, and still, stupid to the laws of photography.
I see posts of people "stealing" others photos, and I'm wondering if I am "stealing" photos and doing something illegal.
If I see a funny picture, I'll capture it on my iPhone and send it to someone to make fun of. Like; send a captured image of an ugly girl to my brother and tell him I saw his girlfriend today. Or; send an awsome captured image of a car to a friend to see how cool it is.
I don't edit the photos, I don't claim them to be mine. They are just for fun. I use some of them as my screen saver if they are cool enough. If they have the artists name on the image I leave it there.
My brother is in a tiff with his daughters mother. She had pro shots done and posted them on facebook. I captured them and have them in my computer now.
So. When is it "stealing"? Am I illegally using others photos?

 

[tirediron]

It is stealing when you copy, display, publish, or make available any image to which you do not hold copyright or license.

Yes, you are.

 

[flyingember]

It is stealing when you copy, display, publish, or make available any image to which you do not hold copyright or license.

Yes, you are.

plus, 100% of photos taken are copyrighted by default. you do not need to register an image or display a notice for it to be copyrighted

 

[rocdoc]

Stealing is not defined by how hard it is to do. It's still stealing, even if, or precisely because, it's easily available.

 

[pwrstrk02]

It is stealing when you copy, display, publish, or make available any image to which you do not hold copyright or license.

Yes, you are.

plus, 100% of photos taken are copyrighted by default. you do not need to register an image or display a notice for it to be copyrighted

Interesting. So I could, in essence, be a felon with all the images I've captured with my phone along with millions of others that don't know this? Even though I don't intend to profit or claim ownership.
Can I not take a picture at an art gallery? Is it not the same thing capturing an image on my phone?
This may sound like argument, but it's true questions.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

I don't see this as stealing.

To me it is the same as someone tearing a page out of a magazine and putting it up on their wall for decoration or glueing it to their notebook cover to have a prettier notebook. Who cares.

 

[pwrstrk02]

For instance, I realy want, and probably will capture this image and show my wife how cute it is via mms.
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/people-photography/227098-amazement.html

 

[flyingember]

It is stealing when you copy, display, publish, or make available any image to which you do not hold copyright or license.

Yes, you are.

plus, 100% of photos taken are copyrighted by default. you do not need to register an image or display a notice for it to be copyrighted

Interesting. So I could, in essence, be a felon with all the images I've captured with my phone along with millions of others that don't know this? Even though I don't intend to profit or claim ownership.
Can I not take a picture at an art gallery? Is it not the same thing capturing an image on my phone?
This may sound like argument, but it's true questions.

I'd say more than 99% of the US population could be charged with a crime at any one time. The best laws are bipartisan and limiting. When any one party gets too much power or a special interest (like Disney) gets too much influence you get laws which over reach, especially with copyright law.

photos of art is interesting. technically it's a derivative work but the artist could claim you're making a reproduction which is stealing. but this doesn't apply to all art, or all created works in general

here's US copyright law info. that's the simple version
Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States

 

[Bram]

If the issue is that she posted the photos to facebook, right there she gave up all the rights anybody had to the photos. Facebook owns the photos now and can do what they like with them and anybody can access them. If you took the photos of facebook you definately did NOT steal them from her. She posted them for the world to see and anybody is capable of saving them.

 

[Big Mike]

To me it is the same as someone tearing a page out of a magazine and putting it up on their wall for decoration or glueing it to their notebook cover to have a prettier notebook. Who cares.

I think, technically speaking, the difference is that when you tear out a magazine page, you are not making a copy, thus not breaking the 'copyright'.

 

[Village Idiot]

If the issue is that she posted the photos to facebook, right there she gave up all the rights anybody had to the photos. Facebook owns the photos now and can do what they like with them and anybody can access them. If you took the photos of facebook you definately did NOT steal them from her. She posted them for the world to see and anybody is capable of saving them.

No she didn't If some one else took the photos that she posted, the originally creator of the image still retains the copyright (unless it was signed away). Some one cannot relinquish a copyright that they do not hold.

If I buy a photo from you and use it in a contest that says the people running the contest now hold the copyright, they in fact do not because you, the original creator, never signed it over.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

To me it is the same as someone tearing a page out of a magazine and putting it up on their wall for decoration or glueing it to their notebook cover to have a prettier notebook. Who cares.

I think, technically speaking, the difference is that when you tear out a magazine page, you are not making a copy, thus not breaking the 'copyright'.

Agreed. A bit different but not by much in the grand scheme of things. In today's insanity over copyrights it could be seen as: you are breaking the magazine's copyright by using it in a way different from it's intended way.

I'm all for protection for artists but we need to get back to using common sense too. As I said, in this particular case, who cares? The OP is not hurting anyone.

IMHO, of course.

 

[tirediron]

...The OP is not hurting anyone.

IMHO, of course.

I think that being "hurt" in this sense is arather subjective concept, however, I took the OP to be asking for a literal answer, and while yes, I'm sure that at least 99% of the population is, or has been guilty of copyright infringement/violation ranging from inconsequential to major, that doesn't make it right, or give us the right to "pooh-pooh" the infringed.

 

[Dao]

...The OP is not hurting anyone.

IMHO, of course.

I think that being "hurt" in this sense is arather subjective concept, however, I took the OP to be asking for a literal answer, and while yes, I'm sure that at least 99% of the population is, or has been guilty of copyright infringement/violation ranging from inconsequential to major, that doesn't make it right, or give us the right to "pooh-pooh" the infringed.

I think it is like driving over the speed limit on the highway with no police officer around. Or buying a camera from another state(US) off the internet without paying sales tax or use tax (afterward).

The law is there, but sometimes it is hard to enforce it.

 

[flyingember]

If the issue is that she posted the photos to facebook, right there she gave up all the rights anybody had to the photos. Facebook owns the photos now and can do what they like with them and anybody can access them. If you took the photos of facebook you definately did NOT steal them from her. She posted them for the world to see and anybody is capable of saving them.

wrong. she owns the copyright, they were given an unlimited license to use if that's what the terms say