Facebook Photo Thievery

[iDuckie]

Sorry, but it's not rude nor is it illegal.

The only way(s) the picture stealing would be illegal is if the nephew is passing it off to make a profit. He would be selling someone else's work as his own. Another way is if your DH was a professional photographer and took the photos professionally, was paid for them, and nephew tried to pass them off as his own work.

The thing with the internet is it is public domain. It's like posting a photo up on a bulletion board at work or at the local gathering place. But if someone is selling it in their name and making a profit off of it, then thats illegal.

[Miss Unleaded]

Sorry, but it's not rude nor is it illegal.

The only way(s) the picture stealing would be illegal is if the nephew is passing it off to make a profit. He would be selling someone else's work as his own. Another way is if your DH was a professional photographer and took the photos professionally, was paid for them, and nephew tried to pass them off as his own work.

The thing with the internet is it is public domain. It's like posting a photo up on a bulletion board at work or at the local gathering place. But if someone is selling it in their name and making a profit off of it, then thats illegal.

This is nonsense.  Just because something is on the internet does not make it part of the public domain.  Nor does someone need to make a profit from another's work before it can be a copyright violation.

Aside from which, this is an etiquette forum, not law.

[auntmeegs]

No, its not rude.  They're pictures, they're not original poetry or artwork or something like that.

[iDuckie]

Sorry, but it's not rude nor is it illegal.

The only way(s) the picture stealing would be illegal is if the nephew is passing it off to make a profit. He would be selling someone else's work as his own. Another way is if your DH was a professional photographer and took the photos professionally, was paid for them, and nephew tried to pass them off as his own work.

The thing with the internet is it is public domain. It's like posting a photo up on a bulletion board at work or at the local gathering place. But if someone is selling it in their name and making a profit off of it, then thats illegal.

This is nonsense.  Just because something is on the internet does not make it part of the public domain.  Nor does someone need to make a profit from another's work before it can be a copyright violation.

Aside from which, this is an etiquette forum, not law.

How is it nonsense? "Just because" isn't a good enough answer. The internet is public. The bulletin board at a public place is public. It's the same thing. Im curious as to how this is considered nonsense.

Fact of the matter is, you dont want someone to take a photo you took? You have two options. Dont put it on the internet, or put it on your own server and disable right clicking to save. That last one doesn't always stop people, but it slows them down.

And you're right, this isn't a law forum.  The OP asked about the etiquette of it, and its unanimous that it's not rude.

[Miss Unleaded]

How is it nonsense? "Just because" isn't a good enough answer. The internet is public. The bulletin board at a public place is public. It's the same thing. Im curious as to how this is considered nonsense.

It's nonsense because the term 'public domain' has a specific meaning:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain

The public domain is most often discussed in contrast to works whose use is restricted by copyright. Under modern law, most original works of art, literature, music, etc. are covered by copyright from the time of their creation for a limited period of time (which varies by country).
...
A work that is created (i.e. fixed in tangible form for the first time) after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is given a term lasting for the author’s life, plus an additional 70 years after the author’s death.

...
The owner of the copyright in the photograph is the photographer - the person who creates it,  by default. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law)

Notice it doesn't say 'from the time of creation until posted on the internet'.

Fact of the matter is, you dont want someone to take a photo you took? You have two options. Dont put it on the internet, or put it on your own server and disable right clicking to save. That last one doesn't always stop people, but it slows them down.

You seem to be arguing that it's ok to copy other people's work as long as it's easy to do so.

[artk2002]

Rude?  Possibly.  Illegal? Yes.  Sorry folks, but posting on Facebook doesn't invalidate the photographer's copyright.

In the situation where the husband had taken the photos I'd agree with you.  It's both rude and illegal for others to pass them off as their own work.

The first two scenarios are a bit iffy.  The fact that he scanned them but didn't take them makes me think that it's not a copyright infringement and probably not rude either.  I personally would have asked permission first.

Has anyone read the Facebook fine print?  I seem to recall some T&A about any material posted becomes FB's property to use as they see fit, but I am not sure whether this means that others may then use the images as well.

If he scanned the pictures, without permission, then he violated the copyright and the people who took them and posted themselves compounded the crime.  Just because someone has violated copyright doesn't put those pictures into the public domain.  Copyright is about distributing copies without permission -- it doesn't matter if you're the first or the 100th in the chain.

I believe that FB's T&C give them a non-exclusive license to all materials posted -- that means that they can do what they like, but they can't prevent someone else from using the materials.

[Surianne]

They're family photos, and the people who took them are dead, I think.  Maybe posting them on Facebook violates the letter of U.S. law, but really, I don't think it violates the spirit.  There's no one to protect here.  To my mind, family photos are meant to be shared.  I wouldn't deny their use to other family members.

[artk2002]

How is it nonsense? "Just because" isn't a good enough answer. The internet is public. The bulletin board at a public place is public. It's the same thing. Im curious as to how this is considered nonsense.

Fact of the matter is, you dont want someone to take a photo you took? You have two options. Dont put it on the internet, or put it on your own server and disable right clicking to save. That last one doesn't always stop people, but it slows them down.

Please read 10 Big Copyright Myths Explained for a good layman's summary.

[artk2002]

They're family photos, and the people who took them are dead, I think.  Maybe posting them on Facebook violates the letter of U.S. law, but really, I don't think it violates the spirit.  There's no one to protect here.  To my mind, family photos are meant to be shared.  I wouldn't deny their use to other family members.

It is probably a technical violation, but I agree that copyright isn't the issue.  I raised it more in a general context because many people don't understand how copyright works and blithely do things that can get them in trouble.

[Traveler]

The fact that he scanned them but didn't take them makes me think that it's not a copyright infringement and probably not rude either.  I personally would have asked permission first.

I would have as well.  In addition, I absolutely would have given the person credit (and have done so in the past under very similar circumstances).  The work in scanning old photos to digital is rather extensive, and the person who does that work should absolutely be recognized. The value of the work is apparent, since other family members are "snapping" up the photos. [sorry, can't resist a bad pun].  

Because of that work, I think the actions border rude. That's my personal call, that's how I'd feel if my friends/family did that. but ... it is commonly done on FB. So I can see how the sister & cousin did not mean to be inconsiderate.  If I were the OP's DH, I would make a polite comment or send PM requesting credit.

[iDuckie]

Are you SERIOULY putting words into my mouth?   I seriously cannot believe the audacity you have by putting words I didn't say into my mouth. At no time did I say it was ok to copy someone else's work as long as they don't make a profit off it. This is why I refrain from posting as much as I want because there are too many assumptions made and people putting words they didn't say into others mouths.

Sorry, but until you post something that isn't from Wikipedia, I stand by my saying that the internet is public domain, and if you don't want a photo being used on someone else's facebook, dont upload it to the internet. The OP is well within their right of asking the photo to be taken down as her DH is the "owner" of the photo.

This isn't a law forum as you said. As I said before, its unanimous that this is not rude. Maybe it's time for a mod to close this thread.

[Lynnv]

No, its not rude.  They're pictures, they're not original poetry or artwork or something like that.

Photographs most certainly are artworks and, as such, have the same protections as other artworks.

[Miss Unleaded]

Sorry, but until you post something that isn't from Wikipedia, I stand by my saying that the internet is public domain, and if you don't want a photo being used on someone else's facebook, dont upload it to the internet. The OP is well within their right of asking the photo to be taken down as her DH is the "owner" of the photo.

I posted a quote from Wikipedia because it happened to be conveniently available and true.  You could also see Art's link which says essentially the same thing.  If you are arguing that it isn't then please cite some reputable sources to support your claim.

[Surianne]

They're family photos, and the people who took them are dead, I think.  Maybe posting them on Facebook violates the letter of U.S. law, but really, I don't think it violates the spirit.  There's no one to protect here.  To my mind, family photos are meant to be shared.  I wouldn't deny their use to other family members.

It is probably a technical violation, but I agree that copyright isn't the issue.  I raised it more in a general context because many people don't understand how copyright works and blithely do things that can get them in trouble.

Oh, I do agree in that case    (Great link, btw.)

[crazedartist]

Sorry, but until you post something that isn't from Wikipedia, I stand by my saying that the internet is public domain

Maybe you should do your own research at a source you'd consider reputable. Like the U.S. Copyright Office: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf
Public display of copyrighted works, including those on the internet, does not negate copyright.