No, they're not. That's called a "full break."
When the hem of the pant leg just reaches the shoe without any crumple, that's no break. That has at times been a style, but it's generally considered too short, what people call "high water."
When the hem of the pant leg is long enough to crumple against the front of the shoe but not long enough to crumple at the back, meaning it hangs straight in back, that's called a "half break." That's what's very common in dress pants and even casual pants like khakis and chinos. In jeans, though, this is still often considered a little short.
For jeans, the style is a full break, a length long enough that it crumples both in front and in back.
More than a full break is bad. More than a full break is when the crumple is so much that material from the pant leg piles up so much that it obscures the hem.
In that picture, you've got crumple in front and in back, which means it's a full break, but you can also clearly see the hem, meaning it's not more than a full break. So, that length there, that is generally the ideal length for jeans. If they were dress pants, no, but jeans, that's ideal.
Just to give you an idea, back when jeans weren't so tight-fitting as they are now, back when straight-leg baggy jeans were in style, like in the 90's and early 00's, the full break that has been pretty much the style for wearing jeans since the 60's, meant that the hem touched the floor in the back in order to get that back crumple, touching it enough that people would occasionally step on the hem with the very edge of their heel. During that time, it wasn't uncommon to see the back hem of people's jeans in tatters.
We don't see that anymore now that baggy jeans are out of style. Now, it's gone the other way: skinny jeans. The baggiest now is a relaxed fit, a fit that is still very fitted albeit not skin-tight, a fit like what you're wearing there.
By the way, skinny jeans are the exception to the rule for the full break. That's because skinny jeans are tight all the way down to the hem and the style doesn't allow for any outward flare at the bottom of the pant leg, meaning that if the pant leg goes to the ankle, then it's too tight to be able to get your foot through the bottom of the pant leg because of your heel. As a result, people started wearing boots and high-top shoes whose uppers come an inch or so above the ball of the ankle instead of below it and then having the skin tight pant leg's hem instead crumple against the top of the upper that's above the ankle instead of against the shoe's lower that's below the ankle, even sometimes tucking the jean bottom into the high top upper or boot or crumpling it against slouched socks that come above the upper and crumple against it so that the jeans crumple against the socks. In the UK, it was also a style to roll the hem of the skinny jeans up to then expose bare ankle above a boot or even above a low-rise shoe, which created a sort of capri pants effect, but I never saw that catch on in the US.
· 4 months ago