Illegally Capturing images?

[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.

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

The photographer who she paid to take the images owns them.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

...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.

Actually I don't think it is subjective at all here. I have never made a living other than through my copyrights and, to me, there are 2 things protected by copyrights: loss of income and loss of integrity of my work. I don't need to explain loss of income. For the loss of integrity, I'll just mentioned the Beatles who never sold their music to be used in commercials. It only happened when their catalog fell into the wrong hands.

In this case we could say that the only problem would be the shots captured from Facebook. But only if he would have bought them if unable to capture them. The rest of what he describes there is neither loss of income nor loss of integrity. And no, I do not "pooh-pooh" the infringed. After all I have sued a couple people/companies over infringement but I also believe in using a bit of common sense. Tear a photo of mine from a magazine and put it up on your wall if you want. I will not sue you over that.

Being a hard a** about anything is rarely good or useful. Ask the music industry how they feel about the plunging CD sales.

 

[KmH]

If the issue is that she posted the photos to facebook, right there she gave up all the rights anybody had to the photos.

Wrong. In fact very wrong, but commonly spouted Internet urban legend..

Facebook owns the photos now and can do what they like with them and anybody can access them.

Wrong. In fact very wrong, again. Read Facebooks TOS.

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.

and Wrong. That's 3 strikes. You're out buddy!

You need to visit your countries Department of Justice:
Copyright Act

Then you need to discover the Berne Convention, that has been signed by 140+ countries.

 

[tirediron]

...The photographer who she paid to take the images owns them.

Maybe... depends.

 

[tirediron]

Actually I don't think it is subjective at all here...

I mean it in the sense that is somone really hurt? Did someone actually lose money because I've put a picture up on a social-networking 'site?

 

[Derrel]

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?

You'll be okay under the Fair Use doctrine...sending your brother or a friend an iPhone picture of a picture,with an attached joke is not a copyright infringement--it's actually fair use. Don't sweat it. In today's current climate, sending a photo from Facebook to another private party with an attached joke is NOT a crime. Do you see people being prosecuted for that type of behavior? NO, you don't because it's not illegal...it's called FAIR USE. My God, the degree to which some people get worked up over an e-mailed 100 x 140 pixel Facebook snap is ridonculous!

 

[enzodm]

You'll be okay under the Fair Use doctrine...sending your brother or a friend an iPhone picture of a picture,with an attached joke is not a copyright infringement--it's actually fair use. Don't sweat it. In today's current climate, sending a photo from Facebook to another private party with an attached joke is NOT a crime. Do you see people being prosecuted for that type of behavior? NO, you don't because it's not illegal...it's called FAIR USE. My God, the degree to which some people get worked up over an e-mailed 100 x 140 pixel Facebook snap is ridonculous!

Oh, finally. While reading the thread, in another tab I searched a sufficiently clear definition of fair use, because it was the very first thing I had in mind since the first post. The one on Wikipedia is very legalese, but anyway: Fair use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[KmH]

Straight from the horses mouth: U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use and updated September 2010.

Bolding and underlining for emphasis, and not part of orignal:

One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work.
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.

The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.

When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.

FL-102, Revised September 2010

 

[Derrel]

I took a class in college in which we spent five weeks studying Fair Use. Without Fair Use, media would collapse. Fair Use is all around. It is a critical part of modern culture.

KmH might just as well have bolded what I consider to be the actually more-important points:

"Fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
The nature of the copyrighted work.
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work"

Please do not let alarmists make you worried about living life in the modern era. Read the guidelines, and understand them. KmH is being overly paranoid,and is vastly distorting what the law actually says, but more importantly, he's fear-mongering with regard to the way the courts actually enforce the existing laws. Without fair use, our entire scholarship and social media systems would collapse. Imagine if newspapers were sued for reporting upon what other newspapers have reported!! Come on...look at Wikipedia's hundreds of thousands of Fair Use statements...do you see anybody going after Wikipedia, or your local newspaper or TV stations for reporting from copyrighted stories from, say, the New York TImes. Uh...no....you do not. because there is an accepted TRADITION and a LEGAL USE--called Fair Use.

Again, let's not be alarmist, and let's look at the ALLOWED use, and not get our underpants in a bunch...

 

[emh]

Some of the responses in this thread are simply ridiculous. I realize most people here have an interest in protecting ownership rights but the lack of common sense is amazing. Take the following for example (not to pick on tirediron but merely as an example since it was the first response):

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.

If all copying is illegal, as is stated above, almost everyone breaks the law every single time they look at an image online because the browser creates a copy of it in the cache on the local machine's hard disk. The above response also implies I'm breaking the law if I show ("display") a picture in a newspaper to the person sitting next to me at a coffee shop. These sorts of things are not comparable to going over the speed limit or jay-walking (which are real infractions).

Copyrights, patents etc. are meant to provide reasonable protections for creators and innovators.

Thanks to Derrel for pointing out the fair use aspect of all this.

 

[NikonNewbie]

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.

I agree, I think it's stealing if you claim it as yours or use it in a way to make money...for instance...if the ugly girl picture makes it big...(like good ol Anton) and she finds out...you should pay her. :lmao:
it's like pimpin out ugly!

 

[tirediron]

If all copying is illegal, as is stated above, almost everyone breaks the law every single time they look at an image online because the browser creates a copy of it in the cache on the local machine's hard disk. The above response also implies I'm breaking the law if I show ("display") a picture in a newspaper to the person sitting next to me at a coffee shop. These sorts of things are not comparable to going over the speed limit or jay-walking (which are real infractions).

Copyrights, patents etc. are meant to provide reasonable protections for creators and innovators.

Thanks to Derrel for pointing out the fair use aspect of all this.

I did NOT state that all copying was illegal (and I did forget to discuss the fair/reasonable use doctrine, thanks Derrel). I very clearly stated it was illegal when you don't have a license to do so. Implicit in the purchase of your newspaper is the license granting you reasonable (or fair) use. Showing it to your friend would be considered fair or reasonable use.

 

[Derrel]

If all copying is illegal, as is stated above, almost everyone breaks the law every single time they look at an image online because the browser creates a copy of it in the cache on the local machine's hard disk. The above response also implies I'm breaking the law if I show ("display") a picture in a newspaper to the person sitting next to me at a coffee shop. These sorts of things are not comparable to going over the speed limit or jay-walking (which are real infractions).

Copyrights, patents etc. are meant to provide reasonable protections for creators and innovators.

Thanks to Derrel for pointing out the fair use aspect of all this.

I did NOT state that all copying was illegal (and I did forget to discuss the fair/reasonable use doctrine, thanks Derrel). I very clearly stated it was illegal when you don't have a license to do so. Implicit in the purchase of your newspaper is the license granting you reasonable (or fair) use. Showing it to your friend would be considered fair or reasonable use.

No commentary on your posts were intended or inferred when I made my post tirediron. Just so you know. See, the thing about Fair Use is, without it, our media worlds would COLLAPSE!!! Nobody could quiote a line from a play, or a news story, or a book, or anything that had a copyright....nobody would be allowed to photograph a trademarked item, and so on an so on. The OP mentioned snapping a picture of a funny photo, and sending it to his brother via cell phone: that is peefectly LEGAL. It's obviously legal, and to act all alarmist about the uncertainty of Fair Use, when there is a well-definded body of law,and lawsuits, is alarmist. For example: does a cell phone capture of an advertisement on the side of a bus cause the photo on the b us to be less-valuable? Does the cell-phone capture cause a loss of income for the bus company's advertiser? Is there likely to be confusion between which is the "real" ad, and the copy sent with a smart-aleck crack via cell phone?
OF COURSE NOT. Is the cell phone transmission of a photo, or the e-mailing of a photo done for commercial gain? No! Does sending a shot via e-mail diminish the value of the original work, which might very well be a high-megapixel, PRINTED image, which has been reduced to a crappy 86k JPEG compressed at 200:1?

Seriously...Fair Use is a cornerstone of media, academics, criticism, commentary, and normal cultural exchange...there's no need to be super-paranoid about "illegally capturing images" in the Original Poster's parlance, and in his scope of sending a few pics here or there...

One of the single largest determinants the courts use is for-profit or for commercial gain, and also dilution of the value of the original work. I can quote a page or two out of a 450 page novel , and offer C&C of it on a popular or obscure web site and be on pretty firm ground....but if I photocopy 449 pages of the novel, bind it, and then try and sell "reproductions"...I'm not on solid ground.

 

[emh]

If all copying is illegal, as is stated above, almost everyone breaks the law every single time they look at an image online because the browser creates a copy of it in the cache on the local machine's hard disk. The above response also implies I'm breaking the law if I show ("display") a picture in a newspaper to the person sitting next to me at a coffee shop. These sorts of things are not comparable to going over the speed limit or jay-walking (which are real infractions).

Copyrights, patents etc. are meant to provide reasonable protections for creators and innovators.

Thanks to Derrel for pointing out the fair use aspect of all this.

I did NOT state that all copying was illegal (and I did forget to discuss the fair/reasonable use doctrine, thanks Derrel). I very clearly stated it was illegal when you don't have a license to do so. Implicit in the purchase of your newspaper is the license granting you reasonable (or fair) use. Showing it to your friend would be considered fair or reasonable use.

The part in bold is exactly what was missing from your original post I quoted that made it absurdly broad and overarching.

And quite honestly, I don't know what license I get when I open an image in a web browser. Does it give me the right to create a copy in my browser cache? How about a copy in another location on my hard drive? It's ridiculous to insist on licensing without considering fair use.