Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography 
Thread started 05 May 2014 (Monday) 19:03
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

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

 
archer1960
Goldmember
Avatar
4,930 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 81
Joined Jul 2010
     
May 15, 2014 14:39 |  #16

Miki G wrote in post #16884941 (external link)
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.


Gripped 7D, gripped, full-spectrum modfied T1i (500D), SX50HS, A2E film body, Tamzooka (150-600), Tamron 90mm/2.8 VC (ver 2), Tamron 18-270 VC, Canon FD 100 f/4.0 macro, Canon 24-105 f/4L,Canon EF 200 f/2.8LII, Canon 85 f/1.8, Tamron Adaptall 2 90mmf/2.5 Macro, Tokina 11-16, Canon EX-430 flash, Vivitar DF-383 flash, Astro-Tech AT6RC and Celestron NexStar 102 GT telescopes, various other semi-crappy manual lenses and stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
cory1848
Goldmember
Avatar
1,884 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Kissimmee, FL
     
May 15, 2014 14:52 |  #17

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.


Gear List
"Those are some mighty fine pots and pans you have, they must make a great dinner!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tickerguy
Senior Member
595 posts
Joined Dec 2012
     
May 15, 2014 15:47 |  #18

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.


Canon 7D & 5d3, EF-S 15-85, 24-105L, 70-200L f/4 IS, 100mm Macro/L, EF 50 f/1.4 and more

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CRCchemist
Senior Member
961 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Apr 2014
     
May 15, 2014 19:43 |  #19

cory1848 wrote in post #16906834 (external link)
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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AZGeorge
Goldmember
Avatar
2,620 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 725
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Southen Arizona
     
May 15, 2014 19:52 |  #20

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.


George
Democracy Dies in Darkness

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MattPharmD
Senior Member
Avatar
255 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jun 2011
     
May 17, 2014 18:07 |  #21

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.


Photography is just a hobby for me.
Twitter: @PharmNerdMatt (external link)
Youtube:The PharmNerd (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tickerguy
Senior Member
595 posts
Joined Dec 2012
     
May 17, 2014 23:02 |  #22

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.

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.


Canon 7D & 5d3, EF-S 15-85, 24-105L, 70-200L f/4 IS, 100mm Macro/L, EF 50 f/1.4 and more

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CRCchemist
Senior Member
961 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Apr 2014
     
May 18, 2014 02:54 |  #23

MattPharmD wrote in post #16911543 (external link)
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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,228 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Likes: 1465
Joined Dec 2006
     
May 19, 2014 08:55 |  #24

CRCchemist wrote in post #16912241 (external link)
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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CRCchemist
Senior Member
961 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Apr 2014
     
May 19, 2014 10:03 |  #25

gonzogolf wrote in post #16914673 (external link)
Yeah the 18 people in a courtoom.

LOL




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hawk's ­ Feather
Senior Member
Avatar
306 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 12
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Northwest Ohio
     
May 20, 2014 09:26 |  #26

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?


Jerry
Jerry Latta Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cory1848
Goldmember
Avatar
1,884 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Kissimmee, FL
     
May 20, 2014 09:30 |  #27

Hawks Feather wrote in post #16917057 (external link)
=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.


Gear List
"Those are some mighty fine pots and pans you have, they must make a great dinner!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nathancarter
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
5,474 posts
Gallery: 32 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 600
Joined Dec 2010
     
May 20, 2014 09:44 |  #28

Hawks Feather wrote in post #16917057 (external link)
=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.


http://www.avidchick.c​om (external link) for business stuff
http://www.facebook.co​m/VictorVoyeur (external link) for fun stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CRCchemist
Senior Member
961 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Apr 2014
     
May 20, 2014 20:27 |  #29

cory1848 wrote in post #16917065 (external link)
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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,228 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Likes: 1465
Joined Dec 2006
     
May 20, 2014 20:54 |  #30

CRCchemist wrote in post #16918577 (external link)
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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

8,779 views & 0 likes for this thread
My photos submitted for evidence in a trial without consent or subpoena
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is ChrisZP
1013 guests, 313 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.