Which lens was this taken with? Help...

[KmH]

Here you go! Lots of EXIF info.

 

[enzodm]

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?

I'm curious too, because it is the first thing I tried (with Firefox extension) but EXIF seems deleted;

 

[Ballistics]

I just want to jump in real quick about the rules and copyright infringement. The OP didn't violate any copyright laws, nor did he violate any specific forum rules. He didn't claim the work was his, and in the rules it doesn't define specifically what posting means:

" You agree to only post images and/or other material to which you have exclusive copyright, or permission from the copyright holder that you are able to present to TPF Staff. Under no circumstances will any instance of copyright infringement be tolerated."

The next rule specifically identifies linking material

"You agree not to post any links or messages that lead to material which could be deemed obscene, discriminatory, unlawful, or threatening in nature by TPF Staff. TPF Staff reserves the right to edit, delete, or otherwise remove any material which is deemed to be an infraction of this rule, based solely on their discretion."

As for posting someone elses work being copyright infringement, this isn't spelled out either.

"How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?
Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances."

Intentions are exactly what makes or breaks a law. Proving the intentions becomes the burden of the prosecution. The OP linked to someone elses publishings, same thing as linking to a movie or book on amazon.com. I don't see him or her claiming ownership nor is he or she using it in their own work so I don't know why there is such a fuss over it. And the comparison to linking a published item to robbing a bank and donating it is outlandish and irrelevant. That's like comparing spitting or J-walking to murder because they are both illegal.

 

[The_Traveler]

I just want to jump in real quick about the rules and copyright infringement. The OP didn't violate any copyright laws, nor did he violate any specific forum rules. He didn't claim the work was his, and in the rules it doesn't define specifically what posting means:

" You agree to only post images and/or other material to which you have exclusive copyright, or permission from the copyright holder that you are able to present to TPF Staff. Under no circumstances will any instance of copyright infringement be tolerated."

That in bold seems really clear.
It is not that the OP did something egregious but TPF has established this policy so that a clear, bright line is drawn that any picture someone posts is with explicit permission.

That prevents the situation where decisions have to be made whether Fair Use applies in specific postings or whether copyright is being infringed.

By steering well clear of the 'Fair Use' issue, TPF avoid legalistic arguments with people who play lawyers on the Internet.

 

[table1349]

I just want to jump in real quick about the rules and copyright infringement. The OP didn't violate any copyright laws, nor did he violate any specific forum rules. He didn't claim the work was his, and in the rules it doesn't define specifically what posting means:" You agree to only post images and/or other material to which you have exclusive copyright, or permission from the copyright holder that you are able to present to TPF Staff. Under no circumstances will any instance of copyright infringement be tolerated."The next rule specifically identifies linking material"You agree not to post any links or messages that lead to material which could be deemed obscene, discriminatory, unlawful, or threatening in nature by TPF Staff. TPF Staff reserves the right to edit, delete, or otherwise remove any material which is deemed to be an infraction of this rule, based solely on their discretion."As for posting someone elses work being copyright infringement, this isn't spelled out either. "How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances."Intentions are exactly what makes or breaks a law. Proving the intentions becomes the burden of the prosecution. The OP linked to someone elses publishings, same thing as linking to a movie or book on amazon.com. I don't see him or her claiming ownership nor is he or she using it in their own work so I don't know why there is such a fuss over it. And the comparison to linking a published item to robbing a bank and donating it is outlandish and irrelevant. That's like comparing spitting or J-walking to murder because they are both illegal.

If you had been here for the start of the thread you would know that the OP didn't link to the photos. Rather the OP posted the photos in that original thread starter, a clear violation of TPF rules. A moderator went in an corrected the OP's post, removing the photos and providing links..

 

[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.

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.

Just because some violations of law are not immoral does not mean that all violations of law are immoral. I'll check my moral compass when you check your logical fallacies, including ad hominem, at the door.

Laws should protect rights, not establish morals. Violating people's rights may be immoral, but that, and under what circumstances, like all moral issues, is gauged by the individual, not by the courts. When governments tell us what is right and wrong rather than protect the rights of others, they violate our autonomy.

 

[noodles]

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.

If someone murdered my family and I hunted them down and killed them, that would be illegal... but rightfully justified in my moral sense, would not be wrong.

 

[KmH]

Vigilante: any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime. Vigilante | Define Vigilante at Dictionary.com

Society decides what is moral, not the individual.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

What camera was used in the second image? It's nice and almost HDR like.

 

[unpopular]

Can I talk to this "society" about some things? Because I think all of us have some issues to work out.

Sorry for the derailment.

 

[The_Traveler]

Can I talk to this "society" about some things? Because I think all of us have some issues to work out.

Sorry for the derailment.

just start a new thread and put a link to it here.
a provocative title might help.

 

[table1349]

Can I talk to this "society" about some things? Because I think all of us have some issues to work out.

Sorry for the derailment.

Just out of curiosity, which one of the Weaver kids are you?

 

[Destin]

He's not doing anything wrong imo

Get your flamesuit on, pal....

Just because it's posted online doesn't mean it's your's to grab & use. To the OP, if you want to post something like this, link to the photos.

All you guys have your freaking panties up in a bunch. The OP is not claiming it's his image, OR using it. If the photographer wanted this not to happen, he'd have protected/watermarked the image.

I agree that the rule is there for a reason, but jumping on people for it in threads like this is a joke. Get off your high horse and let the mods take care of it, IF they find it to be a problem.

 

[unpopular]

OH NO!! It's like the plague!

 

[stevenf99]

Calm down people.