I don’t think much about photography as evidence, but it is certainly a part of law as it relates to photography. I found an interesting article about digital photography as evidence. It talks about metadata and keeping a totally original copy of all files (no name changes, no caption information, etc.), which I don’t do. I just prefer to caption and rename everything as a first step when I ingest, or immediately after. I would flunk “Forensic Photo 101.”
The article discusses authentication procedures for digital photography. Basically, any changes, including toning, tend to open the door to questions about the photos. It also talks about how shooting with a wide-angle or telephoto lens can create concerns about the authenticity of the image. Hmmm. Is it possible that “photojournalistic ethical standards” could be slashed to pieces by forensic standards?
Thinking about the forensic examination of a digital image also has implications for defending a photo against an orphan works claim and I plan to explore this concept more. But for now, I give you this fascinating article:
“Authenticating Digital Photographs as Evidence: A Practical Approach Using JPEG metadata”
Photo Blawg 
Alicia: One way to preserve a file, such as a jpeg and its metadata, for legal purposes is to sign it with a voice signature. See http://hack-igations.blogspot.com/2008/04/text-message-investigations.html What do you think? –Ben
Ben,
An interesting idea. But would that stay with the photo as it was moved digitally from one place to another? The problem we are trying to solve is the problem of the digital photo, floating out there with no name attached to it.
Alicia