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

gonzogolf wrote in post #16918627
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.

Simple way to get your voice heard is by having the defense ask about it.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16918627
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.

I imagine it would be up to the defense lawyer to bring up the facts concerning unauthorized use of photos, IF it even matters.

groundloop wrote in post #16918674
I imagine it would be up to the defense lawyer to bring up the facts concerning unauthorized use of photos, IF it even matters.

If it reaches the point of you being on the stand its likely that the photos and you have been subpenaed and their present use is authorized. But seriously no judge is going to let a witness or defense attorney sidetrack a trial over copyright issues of evidence.

I have to say I really don't see what all the fuss is about.

Did your friend perform? Yes (Factually true)
Are there photographs of them performing? Yes (Factually true)
Do the photographs prove your friend performed on a particular date and location? Yes (Factually true)

The photographs prove categorically that they did perform at the time and date it has been alleged they did so. That is all the photographs prove and from what I gather is not in dispute. In which case why are attempts being made to hide evidence of something which is factually true and is already agreed by both parties?

As to your friend's limited capacity to perform the photographs prove nothing either way.

It just seems to me to be very lacking morally to try and hide the fact that your friend did actually perform on the time and date they are alleged to have performed.

memoriesoftomorrow wrote in post #16918935
I have to say I really don't see what all the fuss is about.

Did your friend perform? Yes (Factually true)
Are there photographs of them performing? Yes (Factually true)
Do the photographs prove your friend performed on a particular date and location? Yes (Factually true)

The photographs prove categorically that they did perform at the time and date it has been alleged they did so. That is all the photographs prove and from what I gather is not in dispute. In which case why are attempts being made to hide evidence of something which is factually true and is already agreed by both parties?

As to your friend's limited capacity to perform the photographs prove nothing either way.

It just seems to me to be very lacking morally to try and hide the fact that your friend did actually perform on the time and date they are alleged to have performed.

The fuss is about an insurance company trying to get out of paying its obligation. They are happy to take your money but when it comes time to pay out, they do everything in their power to deny a claim. The plaintiff makes the assumption the photos are legit, it is up to the defense to make it as difficult as it can be to either prove otherwise or get those photos dismissed based on improper evidence collection or some other reason.

It is not about what is factually true, it is only about what can be factually proven to be true. It is all a game, no need to allow the other to win without a fight.

cory1848 wrote in post #16919445
The fuss is about an insurance company trying to get out of paying its obligation. They are happy to take your money but when it comes time to pay out, they do everything in their power to deny a claim. The plaintiff makes the assumption the photos are legit, it is up to the defense to make it as difficult as it can be to either prove otherwise or get those photos dismissed based on improper evidence collection or some other reason.

It is not about what is factually true, it is only about what can be factually proven to be true. It is all a game, no need to allow the other to win without a fight.

Bingo. A sleazy attorney pulled the images off the guys page and is trying to use them for his advantage without asking as well. HUGE fuss is justified over that.

Plus, it's more than just that. The lawyers always have their own interpretation of evidence and what they assume it means and how their assumptions relates to building their case. Memories of tomorrow act like the practice of law is a robotic act. It's an art, just like medicine is.

If the friend has nothing to hide why would they want to hide something that actually happened? For which there is no doubt what so ever that it happened. It is dishonest.

CRCchemist wrote in post #16919527
Bingo. A sleazy attorney pulled the images off the guys page and is trying to use them for his advantage without asking as well. HUGE fuss is justified over that.

Plus, it's more than just that. The lawyers always have their own interpretation of evidence and what they assume it means and how their assumptions relates to building their case. Memories of tomorrow act like the practice of law is a robotic act. It's an art, just like medicine is.

How do project that this is a sleazy lawyer? The lawyer was made aware of photos that may or may not show something. He's trying to get it into evidence. Thats what an attorney is supposed to do. There seems to be an impression here that the copyright and ownership of the photos has some bearing on whether they may be used as evidence and its not the case. If the photographer is subpoenaed he can charge a fee to produce the photos, but he cant deny they exist or prevent them from being used based on copyright laws.

The photos you posted were for public viewing and as such are admissible as evidence like any other forum, blog, or social network postings. You stated that you are going to testify in court. This would be to verify the time, date and location as well as the defendant in the photos. When you speak with the attorney prior to your testimony or deposition, he can site the case law for your state regarding the use of your photos.

Has anyone actually found if the law addresses whether or not an attorney needs permission (or a license) to use a copy of a copyrighted work as evidence in a court of law?

It still doesn't seem like a copyright infringing use.

memoriesoftomorrow wrote in post #16918935
It just seems to me to be very lacking morally to try and hide the fact that your friend did actually perform on the time and date they are alleged to have performed.

The American legal system is a big game of picking and choosing which evidence is most helpful to your argument, and suppressing evidence that is helpful to the other party. Valuable evidence is thrown out all the time because it was inappropriately acquired. I'm not saying it's right, or that I agree with it, but that's just how the system is played.

Morality has very little bearing on legal proceedings, at least not in America.

MattPharmD wrote in post #16919718
Has anyone actually found if the law addresses whether or not an attorney needs permission (or a license) to use a copy of a copyrighted work as evidence in a court of law?

It still doesn't seem like a copyright infringing use.

Not yet, but I'll try to make an update if I find out, and am permitted to do so.

Good luck Nathan!

nathancarter wrote in post #16919744
The American legal system is a big game of picking and choosing which evidence is most helpful to your argument, and suppressing evidence that is helpful to the other party. Valuable evidence is thrown out all the time because it was inappropriately acquired. I'm not saying it's right, or that I agree with it, but that's just how the system is played. Morality has very little bearing on legal proceedings, at least not in America.

Hang on you are willing to assist in hiding a fact which you know full well to be true. You are agreeing with it through your actions of trying to suppress a fact which you know full well is true. Basically assisting a lie.

nathancarter wrote in post #16919744
The American legal system is a big game of picking and choosing which evidence is most helpful to your argument, and suppressing evidence that is helpful to the other party. Valuable evidence is thrown out all the time because it was inappropriately acquired. I'm not saying it's right, or that I agree with it, but that's just how the system is played.

In this case you are making an assumption that the photos were taken by some lawyer when in all reality anybody could have taken a screen shot and sent it to him. Maybe someone felt that it was not morally correct for this person to be performing when they stated they were hurt. You too can be morally correct and just submit the photos rather than "play the game."

Dave3222 wrote in post #16920985
You too can be morally correct and just submit the photos rather than "play the game."

How is helping an insurance company deny a claim morally correct? Do you think the insurance company cares about morals?