For instance, in Belcher v. State , we held the trial court erred in admitting a duplicate document because "two major portions of the document" were obscured. 797 N.E.2d 307, 310 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). Conversely, in Hamilton v. State , we held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a copy of a surveillance video recording rather than the original recording because the copy was the same as the original in all substantive respects and the defendant did not show that admission of the copy rather than the original was unfair to him.