My photos submitted for evidence in a trial without consent or subpoena

Miki G wrote in post #16884941
Interesting situation. Without the EXIF data, the photographs would be useless as evidence and the images would need to be unaltered (ie Photoshopped). The original date stamp would be required to tell exactly when the photo was taken. Any modifications (ie converting from RAW to Jpeg) could render the photo invalid.

The photos are valid as evidence unless and until they're challenged. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the OP gets called anyway, to testify as to when he took the pics.

I had a similar instance where a lawyer subpoenaed me for images of an event I took. The research I did at the time, I found out I was able to charge a reasonable amount for photos for the defense attorney. I gave him my happy price and never heard from him again. He wanted all photos from the event. Over 1000 were shot so it added up quickly. What I learned was that you are entitled to a fee for the work you are doing. This will get charged to the party that is asking for them.

As archer mentioned, they would considered valid until challenged. If challenged, expect to be called in or sign an affidavit to their authenticity, time taken, any manipulation done, etc.

Since you are on the defendants side, I would bring to light that the images were in fact stolen from your site and you require a reasonable fee for the prosecution to use them. You may or may not care about the fee, however it may be a reason why the other side foregoes using them.

Correct, a subpoena'd person is entitled to reasonable (usually set by statute) cost of production of the material. I used to get subpoenaed from time to time when I ran my Internet company -- I didn't mind it a bit as the charges I was able to level at the requesting party were more than worth it from a time-to-produce point of view, and since I was not involved in the litigation (other than being subpoenaed) I cared not who wanted what.

The rules of evidence depend on the court you're in (e.g. what can be admitted, etc) and as such any advice you could get over the internet is worth a warm bucket of spit. You need competent counsel in your jurisdiction if you're going to get involved in this.

cory1848 wrote in post #16906834
I had a similar instance where a lawyer subpoenaed me for images of an event I took. The research I did at the time, I found out I was able to charge a reasonable amount for photos for the defense attorney. I gave him my happy price and never heard from him again. He wanted all photos from the event. Over 1000 were shot so it added up quickly. What I learned was that you are entitled to a fee for the work you are doing. This will get charged to the party that is asking for them.

As archer mentioned, they would considered valid until challenged. If challenged, expect to be called in or sign an affidavit to their authenticity, time taken, any manipulation done, etc.

Since you are on the defendants side, I would bring to light that the images were in fact stolen from your site and you require a reasonable fee for the prosecution to use them. You may or may not care about the fee, however it may be a reason why the other side foregoes using them.

Awesome suggestion. Charge the fee. Great idea.

Some of us are good enough at hiding pain that it does not come through in a picture but a friend still knows. Perhaps this is the wholly truthful case in your situation.

I was under the impression that the fee was allowed for the cost of producing the subpoenaed materials. I imagine that the lawyer would argue that you didn't incur any cost as a result of him downloading it from your website. I still don't think the prosecution requires a "license" to use your photos. If he asks for the rest of your photos, then you might have a case for a fee, but as of yet you haven't been subpoenaed yet.

That is correct, and for most common things (e.g. photocopies of a business record, etc) there is a court-set (effectively "statutory") fee allowed to the producer.

MattPharmD wrote in post #16911543
I was under the impression that the fee was allowed for the cost of producing the subpoenaed materials. I imagine that the lawyer would argue that you didn't incur any cost as a result of him downloading it from your website. I still don't think the prosecution requires a "license" to use your photos. If he asks for the rest of your photos, then you might have a case for a fee, but as of yet you haven't been subpoenaed yet.

Haha I hope you have a big watermark plastered all over the images so you get free advertising from all this.

CRCchemist wrote in post #16912241
Haha I hope you have a big watermark plastered all over the images so you get free advertising from all this.

Yeah the 18 people in a courtoom.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16914673
Yeah the 18 people in a courtoom.

LOL

I have read all of the posts and have a question. What is the difference between an attorney obtaining an image in the way he/she did, and anyone else doing the same thing to any other image that might be posted on a website? Since they are posted on a public site, I would understand if the attorney used a device connected to the internet to show the court the images, but since the attorney “swiped photos of my friend off my website” how is this different than anyone else doing the same thing?

Hawks Feather wrote in post #16917057
=Hawk's Feather;16917057]I have read all of the posts and have a question. What is the difference between an attorney obtaining an image in the way he/she did, and anyone else doing the same thing to any other image that might be posted on a website? Since they are posted on a public site, I would understand if the attorney used a device connected to the internet to show the court the images, but since the attorney “swiped photos of my friend off my website” how is this different than anyone else doing the same thing?

It isnt any different. All the defense should have to do is object or challenge the authenticity of those photos and then people get called in to testify to that. If it were me, I would make it very clear they were taken without permission. I wouldn't be doing them any favors in helping them out.

Hawks Feather wrote in post #16917057
=Hawk's Feather;16917057]I have read all of the posts and have a question. What is the difference between an attorney obtaining an image in the way he/she did, and anyone else doing the same thing to any other image that might be posted on a website? Since they are posted on a public site, I would understand if the attorney used a device connected to the internet to show the court the images, but since the attorney “swiped photos of my friend off my website” how is this different than anyone else doing the same thing?

That was essentially my question in the original post.

If any other "professional" lifted images off a photographer's website, and used those images in the course of their business without license or consent, I think the responses in this thread would be very different. Just because they're on my website doesn't mean they're free for other people to use as they see fit.

If they're required by the court, by all means, please send me a subpoena. However, without a court-approved subpoena, it seems to be misappropriation of my intellectual property.

Anyway, we've got a for-really-reals lawyer working on it.

cory1848 wrote in post #16917065
It isnt any different. All the defense should have to do is object or challenge the authenticity of those photos and then people get called in to testify to that. If it were me, I would make it very clear they were taken without permission. I wouldn't be doing them any favors in helping them out.

Haha. I'd do the same thing. Spend as much time on the stand as I can repeating that my image was taken off my website by the counsel without my permission. And that they didn't pay me, or even seek my advice on the image before stealing it. And if they tried to mess with the watermark I have plastered on my image, I'd be talking about that too. I'd be happy to totally ruin the effort the attorney who stole my image was trying to make and waste his time for wasting my time.

CRCchemist wrote in post #16918577
Haha. I'd do the same thing. Spend as much time on the stand as I can repeating that my image was taken off my website by the counsel without my permission. And that they didn't pay me, or even seek my advice on the image before stealing it. And if they tried to mess with the watermark I have plastered on my image, I'd be talking about that too. I'd be happy to totally ruin the effort the attorney who stole my image was trying to make and waste his time for wasting my time.

On the stand? You dont get to make speeches on the stand. You would be asked when the image was taken, any relevant information, and when you tried to speechify you would get an admonition from the judge.