pef vs dng
gdigiorgi at gmail.com
Wed Oct 7 18:16:45 EDT 2009
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Dario Bonazza <dario.bonazza at virgilio.it> wrote:
> Godfrey, I know and agree with you about the way proprietary RAW files such
> as PEF store conversion data as opposed to DNG. Everyone trying to use both
> formats should have noticed that, including those only trying "the other"
> format (whichever it is) once or twice.
> That makes me think that in case someone has to sue someone else about
> copyright infringement, etc., a converted DNG could look "manipulated" and
> not "original". Looking at the file date/hour could be enough for finding
> it's "newer" than the day the picture was taken, thus raising suspect. Do
> you believe the author cold find more difficulties in using a DNG as proof
> of ownership on image rights than using a proprietary "untouched" RAW file?
> I agree that falling into such a rough trap would be idiotic, but do you
> believe a judge can be awaken enough not to be fooled into doubt by a shrewd
The documentarian or forensic credibility of digital image data has
little to do with the time/date stamping, whether by file system or in
the EXIF data embedded by the camera. There are so many vagaries to
accommodate there, and it is so easy to alter, that any judge worth
having sit on a bench in this day and age understands that.
Ultimate credibility of a copyright ultimately rests on one thing, and
one thing only: copyright registration. Few judges will award damages
or assign ownership of an image legally without the copyright having
been registered formally by whomever claims to be the image's owner.
Disputes if two persons claim damages under copyright, or claim
ownership, for the same image will always turn to that registration.
More information about the PDML