GreyWolf

OK.. Will try here for possible further clues from shooters who have actually had a need to produce evidence in court re copyright violation...

Brief background... the copyright issue is an element in a much bigger action, but would illustrate the mentality/track record of the 'perps' and their disregard for the property of others, and, put together with the main case, it just adds weight towards conviction.

Question is this.... What evidence have you ever used to establish that you did, in fact, own copyright of images?

I'm talking about seriously concrete evidence which would stand up as "core evidence" in court. Sure... there may be support evidence such as witness testimony etc, but, stuffing on the devils advocate hat, any witness can lie.

This is not an adult-related case, however an adult type example could be...
You shot a series of images of a model on X date and at that time you had the model sign a model release etc. From the lighting setup, set background/s and sequence of images, it becomes clearer that X image was part of that image sequence. I'm still having a struggle to consider this "concrete evidence" - tho you could introduce the testimony of the model to support it.

Judges are a fussy breed and it needs "concrete" evidence as opposed to "supporting evidence" from the human species. Normally concete evidence would be introduced and, if challenged, supporting evidence would then be introduced to support the core evidence.

If establishing copyright evidence is messy or have an angle of doubt - it's prob not worth keeping this element in the case since it would probably detract from the stronger core issues.

OK... you may "know" it is your content and that you own copyright, but any clues how concrete evidence could be presented to a judge to leave no doubt???