Daniel J. Matyola >On the contrary, courts in my jurisdiction frequently admit drawing of >the scene of a crime or an accident, as well as many other illustrations >drawn by hand or computer. Like everyone else, judges know that >photographs can be altered, and for that reason they are never admitted >on their own, but only after a person testifies, under oath, that the >photo is an accurate depiction of what it purports to show,
I asked my lawyer about this and he pretty much confirmed the above (this applies to U.S. law only, obviously): The photo, digital or traditional, isn't really worth anything as evidence in and of itself; what's important is the testimony of witnesses who swear under oath that the image is an accurate depiction of whatever it's intended to show. Subsequently, either traditional or digital photographs are acceptable. I didn't ask about drawings but what you describe makes sense. >Mishka wrote: > >> photographs are accepted in courts as evidence. >> paintings are not. >> have no idea about digital. >> this sorts it out, doesn't it? -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
