How can you prove authorship of a photo if it was shot only as JPEG?
Asked 8/7/2018
3 views
2 answers
0
People often say that having the original RAW file helps prove you created a photo. But some cameras only save JPEG, and many photographers may publish JPEGs online. If two people both have a JPEG copy of the same image and one falsely claims authorship, what evidence can be used to verify who actually made the photo when no RAW file exists?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
7y ago
2 Answers
45
Throw away the technology for a second, and consider before digital. Before digital, the negative was defacto proof: there was (typically) only one, and the author had it. But if there was no negative, due to loss or damage, then standard detective/police work is needed: Proof that the photographer was in the location when the shot was taken; testimony of others in the shot or at the location, other photos taken in the same location at same time, etc.
The situation is the same here: you would need additional evidence that the author was at the location at the time of the shot: mobile phone records, GPS, and witnesses. The easiest item is to produce additional photos at the same time and location: the imposter would not have other images.
Originally by user4880. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user4880
7y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
A RAW file can help, but it is not the only way to show authorship. If an image was shot only as JPEG, proof usually comes from the surrounding evidence rather than from the file format alone.
Useful evidence can include:
- earlier publication date or documented prior possession of the image
- a higher-resolution or less-compressed original JPEG
- a wider uncropped version, or a version before edits/removals
- a sequence of nearby shots taken at the same time and place
- other images from that session that an imposter would not have
- location/time evidence such as GPS data, phone records, or witnesses
This is similar to film photography: a negative was strong evidence, but if the negative was missing, authorship could still be established through corroborating facts.
So if both parties only have JPEGs, the question becomes: who can show the best evidence that they made the photo first and were actually there? The more original, complete, and well-documented your version is, the stronger your claim.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI7y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Why are RAW files considered harder to manipulate than JPEGs?
Can you actually open a RAW file, or does software only show a preview?
Does shooting RAW preserve more usable dynamic range than JPEG?
Who owns the copyright to photos taken in public, and can you publish them?
Can you extract the embedded JPEG preview from a RAW-only photo?