Asking a photographer for their RAW files...

[Frank F.]

A file will have the date of the shoot and exit data even a .JPEG is proof in court.
Also in a court of law a document by itself is only hearsay unless it is accompanied by direct testimony by the author of the document in which case it is the testimony that is considered and not the document itself.

Sorry, I cannot speak for the US law. I only learned how judges see it in Germany. They say: The owner of the RAW owns the "original world", while the owner of the JPEG only owns a "dedocted work" .. so if two people claim to be the source the one who can produce the RAW wins. Another thing is signed files as in the WB encryptions certain Nikon cameras offer. Then the photographer can produce not only the RAW but proof of ownership of the originating camera body too.

 

[Advanced Photo]

A file will have the date of the shoot and exit data even a .JPEG is proof in court.
Also in a court of law a document by itself is only hearsay unless it is accompanied by direct testimony by the author of the document in which case it is the testimony that is considered and not the document itself.

Sorry, I cannot speak for the US law. I only learned how judges see it in Germany. They say: The owner of the RAW owns the "original world", while the owner of the JPEG only owns a "dedocted work" .. so if two people claim to be the source the one who can produce the RAW wins. Another thing is signed files as in the WB encryptions certain Nikon cameras offer. Then the photographer can produce not only the RAW but proof of ownership of the originating camera body too.

That's interesting I have never heard that I wonder what would happen in a case where two or three or four people all showed up in court possessing a raw file because raw files are not magic and can be copied. I also think it's interesting that they would assume that a document which could have been created falsely would have precedence over testimony of eyewitnesses to the contrary.

Another thing is signed files as in the WB encryptions certain Nikon cameras offer. Then thephotographer can produce not only the RAW but proof of ownership of the originating camera body too.

If this is true this would assume that no photographer has ever sold an old camera body that's no longer used and it would also imply that anyone who buys an old camera body would then also own the rights to every photo that had been taken with it previously.

Could you post a link to where you found that information please?

 

[tirediron]

A file will have the date of the shoot and exit data even a .JPEG is proof in court.
Also in a court of law a document by itself is only hearsay unless it is accompanied by direct testimony by the author of the document in which case it is the testimony that is considered and not the document itself.

I'm not a lawyer, I don't play one on television and I did NOT stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, BUT... I do know that there are no absolutes in court. EXIF data is easily manipulated.

 

[Advanced Photo]

A file will have the date of the shoot and exit data even a .JPEG is proof in court.
Also in a court of law a document by itself is only hearsay unless it is accompanied by direct testimony by the author of the document in which case it is the testimony that is considered and not the document itself.

I'm not a lawyer, I don't play one on television and I did NOT stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, BUT... I do know that there are no absolutes in court. EXIF data is easily manipulated.

Exactly. The court considers the credibility of the witnesses and decides based on a preponderance of evidence. More witnesses means more evidence. The court would also consider the photograph as possible evidence but it has to be supported by Witnesses and a credible witness at that. If the person has been in court 20 times that year with fake photographs, that's going to be considered in the testimony. Generally speaking, a document with no testimony to support its authenticity is considered hearsay and is inadmissible.

 

[robbins.photo]

I'm not a lawyer, I don't play one on television and I did NOT stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, BUT... I do know that there are no absolutes in court.

Even if the judge stays at the Holiday Inn Express the night before?

Hmm....

 

[pixmedic]

Can I ask why providing RAW files would be more expensive? It seems like it would be cheaper since the photographer wouldn't spend any time processing them.

Exactly and before anyone says 'but they could mess up a raw file and it would be something with my name on it that looks bad', they can do the same with a JPEG file as JPEG files can be edited post-production also to be made to look quite bad.

because a raw file is basically a rough draft. its not a picture in-of itself. its just data.
anybody that knows even the basics of post production photography knows that there is a HUGE difference in the
amount of processing that can be done to a raw file compared to a jpeg, making a jpeg FAR less desirable than the raw file if your intent is to do your own editing.
the finished jpeg is the photographers end product.

if you pay me to take pictures for you, then you are paying for MY end product.
if you want the raw file, that means you want MY end product, AND someone elses end product. maybe yours, maybe another photographers, who knows. the point is, if you are expecting to get TWO end products, then you are going to have to pay for it, and if I took the pictures, then
I expect to be compensated differently if you want files that will presumably be used for future works other than my own.

im not saying i wouldnt sell the raw files to a client, im just saying I wouldnt give them out for free. or cheap.
in over 10 years of professional photography, me and my wife have never given raw files to a client.
other photographers mileage may vary.

 

[Vtec44]

Way too many Internet lawyers.

 

[Advanced Photo]

Way too many Internet lawyers.

lol yep, and not enough people understand the laws they are required to abide by. And, to make things worse, according to the law, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

 

[Vtec44]

Way too many Internet lawyers.

lol yep, and not enough people understand the laws they are required to abide by. And, to make things worse, according to the law, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

To be honest, I don't think anyone on this forum knows the laws well enough. We just act like we do because it's the Internet.

 

[Advanced Photo]

Way too many Internet lawyers.

lol yep, and not enough people understand the laws they are required to abide by. And, to make things worse, according to the law, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

To be honest, I don't think anyone on this forum knows the laws well enough. We just act like we do because it's the Internet.

Or in general, not just on this forum.

 

[Wildcats160]

Or in general, not just on this forum.

Out of curiosity, are you an attorney in real life?

 

[Wildcats160]

Can I ask why providing RAW files would be more expensive? It seems like it would be cheaper since the photographer wouldn't spend any time processing them.

Exactly and before anyone says 'but they could mess up a raw file and it would be something with my name on it that looks bad', they can do the same with a JPEG file as JPEG files can be edited post-production also to be made to look quite bad.

because a raw file is basically a rough draft. its not a picture in-of itself. its just data.
anybody that knows even the basics of post production photography knows that there is a HUGE difference in the
amount of processing that can be done to a raw file compared to a jpeg, making a jpeg FAR less desirable than the raw file if your intent is to do your own editing.
the finished jpeg is the photographers end product.

if you pay me to take pictures for you, then you are paying for MY end product.
if you want the raw file, that means you want MY end product, AND someone elses end product. maybe yours, maybe another photographers, who knows. the point is, if you are expecting to get TWO end products, then you are going to have to pay for it, and if I took the pictures, then
I expect to be compensated differently if you want files that will presumably be used for future works other than my own.

im not saying i wouldnt sell the raw files to a client, im just saying I wouldnt give them out for free. or cheap.
in over 10 years of professional photography, me and my wife have never given raw files to a client.
other photographers mileage may vary.

Ah, I got it. I've spent too much time in the world of being paid for my time only.

 

[Frank F.]

Could you post a link to where you found that information please?

I can do some research and point you to German court decisions and comments on "Urheberrechtsfragen", but I do not know how good your German might be to understand the details.

Currently I work on a book on climate change and need tmy time for that.

Yet, if you drop me a message I can connect you to a lawyer that wrote one of the best books on "Urheberrecht für Fotografen".

I know him personally and he might be willing & able to answer your questions in English.

All the best

Frank

 

[Advanced Photo]

Could you post a link to where you found that information please?

I can do some research and point you to German court decisions and comments on "Urheberrechtsfragen", but I do not know how good your German might be to understand the details.

Currently I work on a book on climate change and need tmy time for that.

Yet, if you drop me a message I can connect you to a lawyer that wrote one of the best books on "Urheberrecht für Fotografen".

I know him personally and he might be willing & able to answer your questions in English.

All the best

Frank

Just a link will be fine. I speak and read German. No need to spend a lot of time on this and a link will be a lot faster and easier for you. It does seem odd that a court will give credibility to a possibly faked image file than a person's testimony even if it is then substantiated with the testimony of several other witnesses to the original photo being taken, but some countries are a bit backwards I suppose.

 

[Frank F.]

https://www.amazon.de/Recht-für-Fotografen-Ratgeber-fotografische/dp/3836225808

This is the book I was referring to. Very well written, comprehensive and current by Wolfgang, whose every day business this is.