With regard to the security camera footage, which is not the original allegedly copied videos from the cameras themselves, we will turn to the ruling inCriminal Appeal 2489/12 Anonymous v. State of Israel (October 9, 2012):
"It does not appear that there was any flaw in the District Court's decision to accept the photocopy of the text message as evidence, since the rule is that in the absence of the possibility of submitting the original, a copy can also be presented to the court as evidence, as long as the court's opinion is that the copy is reliable."
It was stated in the High Court of Justice case 1433/18 Halabi v. Beer Sheva District Court (April 12, 2018):
"With regard to the third interim decision permitting respondent 5 to submit a copy of the confidential document, we note that the ruling of this court has eroded the power of the best evidence rule, when there is a tendency to recognize a copy of evidence insofar as there is no concern about its credibility."
In Criminal Appeal 4481/14 Brownlee v. State of Israel (November 16, 2016), which dealt with a similar matter at length, the following things were stated, which are also relevant to our case:
"According to the appellant, the fact that the respondent submitted to the trial court a 'distant' copy of the recording of the central conversation, a copy that according to the appellant was produced in a deliberate and tendentious manner, impairs the admissibility of the recording as evidence. In other words, the appellant is of the opinion that since the recording of the main conversation is secondary evidence - from a third source (if referring to the portable recording device that was submitted to the trial court) or a fourth (if referring to the CD on which the recording of the central conversation was burned) - there was no room to admit it as evidence at trial. As will be clarified below, my opinion on this issue is different.
Before I go into the nature and principles of the "best evidence" rule, I will note that there is no dispute that the original recording of the main conversation, [...] was not submitted as evidence to the court. The complainant recorded the conversation on his mobile phone, and as stated, according to the appellant, the conversation was even recorded on the computers of the cellular company in which the complainant was subscribed. Later, the complainant played the conversation through the speaker of the mobile phone, and thus recorded it on a portable recording device he received from his mother. The complainant testified that he played the recording of the main conversation continuously, but from time to time, when the file on the portable recording device reached maximum exhaustion, he opened a new file, without stopping the sequence of the conversation. The complainant's mother then copied the recording of the main conversation to her computer, and later burned the conversation that was copied to the computer on a CD. [...] As stated, according to the defense's position, it is not possible to accept as evidence the recording of the main conversation on the portable tape recorder or CD, because it is secondary evidence, which was submitted in contravention of the "best evidence" rule.