Asking a photographer for their RAW files...

[Frank F.]

Beweis und Vermutung der Urheberschaft an Bildern - Recht am Bild

Wie beweise ich, dass ein Foto von mir ist?

Urheberrecht und Fotografie - Tipps zu Meta und Exif Daten


"The ownership of the original work (Negative or RAW) is the strongest base indicator of the ownership of the copyright"

 

[Advanced Photo]

I was asking for a link to the law that says a RAW file is given more weight in a German court than direct testimony of a credible witness, not a book on Amazon about the rights and limitations of photographers to take photos. Something like this:

Title 17, Chapter 5, Section 504 of the Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws states:

(a) In General. — Except as otherwise provided by this title, an infringer of copyright is liable for either —

(1) the copyright owner's actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer, as provided by subsection (b); or

(2) statutory damages, as provided by subsection (c).

(b) Actual Damages and Profits. — The copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement, and any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing the infringer's profits, the copyright owner is required to present proof only of the infringer's gross revenue, and the infringer is required to prove his or her deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work.

(c) Statutory Damages. —

(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.

(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was: (i) an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives acting within the scope of his or her employment who, or such institution, library, or archives itself, which infringed by reproducing the work in copies or phonorecords; or (ii) a public broadcasting entity which or a person who, as a regular part of the nonprofit activities of a public broadcasting entity (as defined in section 118(f)) infringed by performing a published nondramatic literary work or by reproducing a transmission program embodying a performance of such a work.

(3) (A) In a case of infringement, it shall be a rebuttable presumption that the infringement was committed willfully for purposes of determining relief if the violator, or a person acting in concert with the violator, knowingly provided or knowingly caused to be provided materially false contact information to a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority in registering, maintaining, or renewing a domain name used in connection with the infringement.

(B) Nothing in this paragraph limits what may be considered willful infringement under this subsection.

(C) For purposes of this paragraph, the term “domain name” has the meaning given that term in section 45 of the Act entitled “An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes” approved July 5, 1946 (commonly referred to as the “Trademark Act of 1946”; 15 U.S.C. 1127).

(d) Additional Damages in Certain Cases. — In any case in which the court finds that a defendant proprietor of an establishment who claims as a defense that its activities were exempt under section 110(5) did not have reasonable grounds to believe that its use of a copyrighted work was exempt under such section, the plaintiff shall be entitled to, in addition to any award of damages under this section, an additional award of two times the amount of the license fee that the proprietor of the establishment concerned should have paid the plaintiff for such use during the preceding period of up to 3 years.

Source
I don't think that law exists anyways so I'll just let it drop.

 

[Frank F.]

I was asking for a link to the law that says a RAW file is given more weight in a German court than direct testimony of a credible witness, not a book on Amazon about the rights and limitations of photographers to take photos. Something like this: I don't think that law exists anyways so I'll just let it drop.

No, I do not think such a law exists and I cannot remember I ever said that. The court decisions are quite clear: If you want to claim your copyright have you negative or RAW file ready. That is what I said. Everything else might be "added in translation", sorry for that

 

[Advanced Photo]

Beweis und Vermutung der Urheberschaft an Bildern - Recht am Bild

Wie beweise ich, dass ein Foto von mir ist?

Urheberrecht und Fotografie - Tipps zu Meta und Exif Daten


"The ownership of the original work (Negative or RAW) is the strongest base indicator of the ownership of the copyright"

Ok, the 'strongest base indicator" and the final word on the matter is not close to the same thing. Anyhow, it was fun debating with you, no hard feelings.

 

[Frank F.]

PS: Wofgang Rau is not "a book on amazon". He is a real world lawyer dealing with these questions for his clients every day. That is why he is invited to teach, that is why he wrote the book.

 

[Advanced Photo]

But the link was a book on Amazon. That's what I was referring to.
Anyhow, I understand what you are saying, and it's probably best if you own the raw file to bring it with you to court for the hearing, but I don't see it as the end all of the case.
That was my contention.
It's just silly anyways since neither of us has a case pending it's all conjecture. Judges can do odd and funny things and find in strange ways, that's why we have appeals.

 

[Frank F.]

It's just silly anyways since neither of us has a case pending it's all conjecture. Judges can do odd and funny things and find in strange ways, that's why we have appeals.

Absolutely. Any measure you take to insure your rights only increase the probability you might win. It might even not fit into your plan of life to waste any of your time in court. That is what Elon Musk said basicly on why he decided to give away the patents of Tesla: "Patents are just a lottery ticket and you might win in court or not." -- That is also why my business model as a photographer is to sell my precious time not copyrights. I want to spend my time creating things not fighting wars.

 

[Braineack]

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.

I dont know a lot about computers, but there is this thing called "copy and paste".


in case you're not reading between the lines: If i were to give someone a RAW file, I wouldn't delete my copy of it. Now two people have the same RAW file and could both go to court with it. Now what? You would also write a bill of sale when you sold them the file and made them sign a license agreement... I wouldn't throw that away either.

 

[Frank F.]

If there is a clearly written contract, there is rarely a problem. If the contract & conditions are unclear...

...or if someone pulled a file from the internet & used it and you write them a bill and they say it is not his picture, you need to go to court and proive that it is your work.

***

Interesting point raised earlier: What about signed files and you have sold the equipment in question?

Difficult. Like to see a case in writing.

 

[DanOstergren]

If you were to ask me, I would hand them right over for the right amount of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Maybe I should add a few more $$$ for good measure.