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
lawyer?
Dario
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
