Which lens was this taken with? Help...

[mjhoward]

Sure, it may have been better if he linked the photos and posted who the copyright belongs to, but I'm still not seeing any problem. There's a big difference between someone who has the wrong intentions of using a photo and someone who has the right intentions. He just wants to learn new things....everybody knows that feeling in photography. When I first got into photography, I did the same thing every day, always asking how this & that was taken. It's not like I have the wrong intentions, I just want to learn new things to make my work look better. I respect every photographer who has those intentions.

If I rob a bank and donate the theft to charity, I'm still going to go to jail regardless of my good intentions. I still robbed a bank.

 

[unpopular]

There is a difference, you know, of doing something wrong and doing something illegal. I don't thing the OP did anything wrong or immoral, but the post is in violation of both copyright law swell as the forum rules....

Oh, and mjhoward, that's just ridiculous.

 

[table1349]

There is a difference, you know, of doing something wrong and doing something illegal. I don't thing the OP did anything wrong or immoral, but the post is in violation of both copyright law swell as the forum rules....

Oh, and mjhoward, that's just ridiculous.

So in your world apparently doing something illegal isn't wrong, just illegal. I would suggest that you perhaps should have your moral compass checked, but apparently none bothered to equip you with a moral compass before they sent you out into the world on you little adventure. Good luck with that concept. You are going to need it.

 

[Patrice]

35L

You think so? I was thinking it could be the 35L or 24L.....

Exif data says 28-70 f/2.8 for both images.

 

[KmH]

... I obviously don't know all the rules........

You'll find them right here: Photography Forum & Digital Photography Forum FAQ

US copyright law is found here: www.copyright.gov

 

[Phranquey]

Well I'm sorry if I have broken the forum rules, it was my first post, and I obviously don't know all the rules......I'm just asking for some simple help, no need to snap on me..

I don't think anyone was "snapping" on you, just making you aware. The beef is with someone thinking that nothing is wrong with copyright infringement. If you've ever read about the people geting caught downloading songs and fined for $10K per song, that is nothing in the photo world... There have been fines of $100K+ per picture for infringement, and TPF could be held partially liable for any such fines, hence the strict policy.

 

[Overread15 3]

Guys we don't need 2 pages of back-seat moderating. A single mention to the OP to use links rather than embedding the photos in to the site is all that is needed - from then on just use the report post button to attract a mod (we do read them ). We don't need to hound our fellow members.

stevenf99 - I've taken the liberty of editing your post and putting direct links instead of the embedded photos for now - in the future please use the direct links when hosting others photos and, where possible, direct link to the creators website. Welcome to the site and I hope you stay and enjoy your membership.

 

[KmH]

... There have been fines of $100K+ per picture for infringement, and TPF could be held partially liable for any such fines, hence the strict policy.

Two points:

1. US copyright allows for statutory damage awards of up to $150,000 per infringed image. Actual damages have no limits. A photographer in Florida was awarded $12,000,000 for the infringement of just 6 images, or $2,000,000 each.
2. TPF is protected to a large degree by the US OCILLA statutes (Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act) Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[kylehess10]

Sure, it may have been better if he linked the photos and posted who the copyright belongs to, but I'm still not seeing any problem. There's a big difference between someone who has the wrong intentions of using a photo and someone who has the right intentions. He just wants to learn new things....everybody knows that feeling in photography. When I first got into photography, I did the same thing every day, always asking how this & that was taken. It's not like I have the wrong intentions, I just want to learn new things to make my work look better. I respect every photographer who has those intentions.

If I rob a bank and donate the theft to charity, I'm still going to go to jail regardless of my good intentions. I still robbed a bank.

The guy wants to expand his knowledge in photography...not steal money from a bank.

If he wants to learn, let 'em learn.

If this case were say a situation where he was posting full-res images, trying to sell them, or take credit in any way, then I can see how it's wrong, but he just wants to learn. Everybody wants to argue with me that it's wrong and illegal and all that.....I understand, but I'm saying this guy is just posting a picture, saying it's not his, and just wondering what lens it was taken with. That doesn't exactly scream "copyright infringement" to me, it just shows that someone is curious about a specific photo and would like to create something with a similar focal length, and he needs help in figuring out which lens it is.

 

[The_Traveler]

I didn't imply he was steeling or taking credit or anything nefarious, just that the rules of TPF are quite clear about posting only pictures to which you yourself own the copyright.
It was my fault for not being more clear, pleasant, courteous - pick whatever you like - in the first place.

I shall endeavor to mend my ways.

 

[KmH]

Guys we don't need 2 pages of back-seat moderating. A single mention to the OP to use links rather than embedding the photos in to the site is all that is needed - from then on just use the report post button to attract a mod (we do read them ). We don't need to hound our fellow members.

Most of TPF's visitors are not members, so the discussion goes to a larger audience.
Discussion of an issue regarding the ownership of intellectual property, and the rights that attach to that ownership is near and dear to the hearts of creatives everywhere that rely on their intellectual property for income, and is likely well served by a couple of pages of reinforcement that few people grasp that they are by the definiton ofUS intellectual property law, stealing someone else's property when they download copyrighted material from the Internet without the expressed written permission of the copyright owner.

Not withstanding that US copyright law does provide for 'fair use' the US copyright office notes in Fact Sheet - FL 102 U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use:

The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined........
Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

and: (my emphasis)

The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material.

 

[table1349]

Keith, you are wasting bandwidth. Those with no appreciation for right and wrong or the rights of others will never get it. The OP made a typical newbie mistake. Time will tell if they understand or not. As for some of the others, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make em take a bath."

 

[cameleon]

Wait.... What was the question again?

 

[stevenf99]

35L

You think so? I was thinking it could be the 35L or 24L.....

Exif data says 28-70 f/2.8 for both images.

How were you able to see the EXIF data?

 

[subscuck]

How were you able to see the EXIF data?

You can download exif readers. This is a popular one:

Exif viewer : Opanda IExif - Professional EXIF / GPS / IPTC Viewer & Editor in Windows, IE & Firefox

If you use Chrome, there's one available for that as an extension.