
Netflix Stole My VHS Cassette Photos for Its Stranger Things Boxed Set - johnhenry
https://petapixel.com/2017/11/27/netflix-stole-vhs-cassette-photos-stranger-things-boxed-set/
======
donarb
Sorry to say he went about this the wrong way. Seriously, calling the tech
support line for a copyright infringement?

Netflix has a corporate website at
[https://ir.netflix.com/](https://ir.netflix.com/).

What he should do is send a document outlining his claim, including his proof
and address it specifically to Netflix's general counsel, which can be found
at this page:
[https://ir.netflix.com/management.cfm](https://ir.netflix.com/management.cfm).

The letter should be sent (certified mail) to

David Hyman, General Counsel Netflix 100 Winchester Circle Los Gatos, CA,
95032

~~~
trcollinson
This is good research. But honestly you come off a bit condescending. Should
Dr. Lui really know how to handle the situation where an international,
billion dollar company steals his art from a blog he wrote? I was thinking to
myself, I have no idea how to get in touch with Netflix. If they did something
like that to me, I might go down the same path he did.

I’m glad you gave him the information he needs but let’s give him a break.

~~~
ChuckMcM
_" Should Dr. Lui really know how to handle the situation ..."_

Yes he should. This [1] is literally the second link to the Google search
"what do I do if someone steals my photograph" and it has a nice check box of
things to do which includes this step: Do some research

Find out the infringing person’s name as well as their contact information.
This information is often available in the website’s “About Us” section. Use a
website such as WhoIsHostingThis.com to learn the website’s ISP. This
information may be necessary later

Typing "Netflix General Counsel" into Google gives you the address of Dave
Hyman as the first link.

If you go to Gough Lui's website ([http://goughlui.com/about-me-a-short-
bio/publications-and-ap...](http://goughlui.com/about-me-a-short-
bio/publications-and-appearances/)) he is clearly fairly internet aware and
understands how to use search engines.

Based on that I think it is well within the GP's expectation that Dr. Lui
should be able to figure that out and send a letter to Netflix demanding
either they stop shipping their product or retroactively license his imagery
for $<x> where he might want to consult with a Photography Agent to understand
what size 'x' might represent.

[1] [https://www.whoishostingthis.com/blog/2016/01/27/images-
stol...](https://www.whoishostingthis.com/blog/2016/01/27/images-stolen/)

~~~
trcollinson
Great link! In fact according to this Dr. Lui actually did all of the right
things. Let’s recap:

The link says “make a copy of the infringed work.” It seems from this blog
post and what he sent to the customer service and PR link he certainly did
that.

“Determine that the use was actually theft.” Again I think Dr. Lui did that as
well. It seems he has at least a basic understanding of copyright law.

“Do some research.” Well he has a hard time finding the corporate information
for Netflix, or even a phone number. In his post he points this out. So as a
means to find that information he did contact customer service. I guess he
could have contacted their isp ;) which is another suggestion that your link
gives. But I’m not sure he would have found any additional help by doing so.

My point is two fold. First, your helpful checklist isn’t actually that
helpful in this case. Second, he actually followed all of those steps. I guess
he could have googled for Netflix corporate. This would have shown him
officers and directors. Whether that would be useful is hard to tell. It’s
also important to remember that General Counsel is an American term. It does
not always translate outside of the US.

~~~
tareqak
Thanks for your replies! Along with your other reply here,
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15794032](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15794032),
I do think both sides could have done better, but it not a path sufficiently
well-traveled. The issue at large seems deserving of some best practices love:
e.g.

1) All inbound corporate communication channels should have an escalation path
to the registered agent / general counsel.

2) Potential plaintiffs should be able to access the directions here
[https://blogmedia.whoishostingthis.com/wp-
content/uploads/20...](https://blogmedia.whoishostingthis.com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/12/Photographers-Images-Stolen.jpg) from here
[https://www.whoishostingthis.com/blog/2016/01/27/images-
stol...](https://www.whoishostingthis.com/blog/2016/01/27/images-stolen/) .

3) The directions in 2) need additional guidance language for international
issues.

4) Maybe 1) should have a link to 2) or something like it, but for more
general legal issues / workflows.

I can see that in this case that a web search would have helped, but the root
of every complicated, multi-party, decision problem is probably not going to
be found on the first page every single time. In 2017, I'd strongly argue that
it really should be.

------
tomelders
What’s actually happened here is that a designer has lifted an image off the
web (probably through a google image search) for a design, and that design has
made it through to production.

I’m not saying it’s ok. But I’d be willing to wager that no one at Netflix had
any ideas where those images came from. The design was most likely from a
design agency, and even the top brass at the agency probably had no idea where
those images came from. At the root of this there’s a designer who’s probably
been asked to rush out a design, they’ve taken a shortcut and they’ve been
rumbled.

Again, it’s not OK to steal images, but I seriously doubt Netflix knew that’s
what they were doing.

~~~
bambax
Of course. The image in question is the _3rd_ that comes up on Google Image
Search for "vhs tape" (and the first good one).

To people who argue that the person at the agency should have used a
microstock agency, the problem is, the image you get from a microstock agency
(without an account) almost always has a big watermark on it, so it can't be
used to make an acceptable mockup.

To get an image from a microstock agency without a watermark you need an
account, and the junior designer tasked with doing the mockup probably doesn't
have one, and she didn't have time either to go ask for one.

Bad process? Certainly. But big corporations don't necessarily have good
process. They have people sitting around in offices, subcontracting everything
to consulting companies who in turn try to have the work done by unpaid
interns if possible. Okay, that may be a caricature -- but truer than it
sounds.

~~~
Mithaldu
> big watermark on it, so it can't be used to make an acceptable mockup

Wouldn't that make it the perfect mockup material, as in, good enough to
preview the finished result, impossible to land in production?

~~~
Gh0stRAT
It wouldn't make it to production. Multiple design agencies send multiple
mockups each to Netflix. Someone at Netflix picks a few that they like and
then the original design agency has another set of artists ("Finishers") who
made the high-res, non-watermarked, final image.

The problem is, if your source images have watermarks and the competing design
agencies' don't, Netflix is going to pick your mockups for finishing less
often because they don't look as good. The market selects for design agencies
that don't use images with massive watermarks in their mockups.

~~~
Mithaldu
Insightful reply, thank you!

Makes me ponder what other kinds of angles of approach are required to "fix"
this problem.

------
amingilani
And the whole time I was wondering if this meets the Threshold of
originality[1], any lawyers here wanna comment?

 _The threshold of originality is a concept in copyright law that is used to
assess whether a particular work can be copyrighted. It is used to distinguish
works that are sufficiently original to warrant copyright protection from
those that are not._

Edit: More questions, the Sony logo[2] according to the Wikipedia page[1] does
not meet the threshold. If it doesn't, then does the author's simple scan-like
image of a VHS tape meet it?

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality)

[2]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sony_logo.svg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sony_logo.svg)

~~~
nhumrich
The very same wikipedia articles talks about how pictures of a vodka bottle
dont pass, and cant be copyrighted. So I would assume the VHS is the exact
same story.

~~~
prawn
The vodka example is talking about the text rather than it being a plain photo
of an inanimate object, right?

~~~
balls187
Correct. The actual ruling was that the photos taken by the photographer (Ets-
Hokin) were copyrighted.

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/225_f3d_1068.htm](https://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/225_f3d_1068.htm)

------
lsmarigo
This kind of thing is very common in the entertainment industry, curious how
Hn would react to a piece of proprietary/licensed code somehow discovered in
some highly profitable SaaS product (is that even a thing?)

 _I have no ill intentions. I have no intention to ask them to stop selling
the items. In fact, I’m happy people are nostalgic about VHS. I’m not looking
to milk the situation at all. I’m not threatening to get a lawyer on their
case. I’m just frustrated that I had to find out from someone else in the
first place._

too passive aggressive, if your work was stolen and used in a product to make
$ you have every right to be upset. Lawyer up and get paid.

~~~
techman9
Oh I'm positive this happens _all_ the time. The GPL specifically is pretty
restrictive and there are frequently cases where GPL licensed software has
made it into nonfree distributions. There are several lawsuits by the Software
Freedom Law Center regarding GPL licensed software that's been improperly
distributed. After FSF vs. Cisco, legal departments have wizened up a little
about this kind of thing, but I'm confident there is still a massive amount of
infringement.

------
Aloha
It appears he did get reached out to by netflix

"I thank everyone for their attention, time and support. It has been very
overwhelming, and has broken a number of records in regards to page-views at
my personal blog. Special thanks to PetaPixel who agreed to republish the
article in its entirety this morning.

As of 12:30pm (UTC+11) while I was away from the desk, I received a reply from
Netflix. The reply reads as follows:"

You can read the rest on his blog: [http://goughlui.com/2017/11/22/netflix-
uses-my-vhs-cassette-...](http://goughlui.com/2017/11/22/netflix-uses-my-vhs-
cassette-images-without-permission/)

~~~
croon
So 20 + "a few" days without any response at all.

But after an upvoted blog post they're back to you in an hour or two.

I suppose it's a truism but I'm increasingly annoyed that you would need a
(large) platform to be even responded to, much less be treated fairly.

~~~
masklinn
Same issue all over. It was also flagrant with Apple you notice people who try
going through proper channels it's a flip of the coin whether they'd be
handled or given the run around, whereas media would trigger a PR scramble.
Then Apple has the gall to tell you "going to the media never helps".

------
paxy
I fully support the author, but bouncing around Netflix customer service/PR
and writing a blog post trying to shame them isn't really achieving anything
here. Stuff like this happens all the time. Just get a lawyer to draft them a
real letter and make a quick buck.

~~~
hw
Not everyone wants to 'make a quick buck'. It's a shame that one has to get a
lawyer to draft a letter to get noticed when it comes to something like this.

We're in the digital age. Email should work. Customer support should escalate
and send an internal email or communicate to the appropriate person and/or
dept (legal) as well, instead of just saying 'i cant (or dont want to) help
you, please redirect here -> X'. This just shows how disconnected and teams
are at a company. Oh and don't get me started about crappy autoresponder
emails like that.

"Stuff like this happens all the time" is not an excuse. Not when it comes to
sexual harassment, and not when it comes to copyright infringement or about
shoddy customer support.

~~~
ggg9990
Even if one doesn't want to make a quick buck, making one is the best way to
get companies to behave. If Netflix ends up paying $200K every few months with
a negative PR hit for IP infringement they will improve their processes to
avoid it.

Lawyering up is a service to the entire ecosystem, not just to yourself.

~~~
hw
I totally get that that's how businesses are run now, and I'm sure that the OP
would have to lawyer up and be prepared to spend time and $ regardless if he
wants to pursue damages.

My argument is that the OP should have at least received a response from the
company or have his/her concerns moved to the appropriate dept by the CS team,
instead of being patronized by an autoresponder.

~~~
ggg9990
It's not really a customer service issue. That team isn't equipped to handle
it.

~~~
wpietri
They should be, though. I worked a university tech support line for a few
years in college and we had a a whole set of redirections and escalations
built up.

It's best that people only call you for the right things, but once they are
already on the line your only real choices are to help them get to the right
person or tell them to fuck off. To the extent the company cares either about
service or their brand, they'll pick the former.

------
IvyMike
I keep wondering: If one thinks that Netflix ripped off Dr. Lui, do they also
think that Dr. Lui rip off the manufacturer of the VHS tape? I mean, some
designer spent long hours thinking about the many specifics of the tape
design; do they also deserve credit? I don't discount that Dr. Lui spent
effort photographing the tape, but it would not surprise me to find out that
more work went into the artistic design of the tape than went into the photo.

(Does Dr. Lui even mention the manufacturer or brand of VHS tape in his post?
I did not see it)

~~~
kevinchen
Under American copyright law, no, the manufacturer probably cannot get
anything. Are you asking philosophically whether they should?

~~~
IvyMike
Yes, I'm thinking of the moral question rather than the legal one. Other
commenters seem upset that Dr. Lui didn't get his credit, but it seems to me
the next level of credit is equally interesting.

(I'm getting off topic, but the fact that the art of photography almost always
involves copying a real world object always spins my mind in circles. How much
of the credit for a great photo of the Eiffel Tower goes to the photographer,
and how much is due to Eiffel? How about a photograph of the statue of David?
How about a photograph of the Mona Lisa? How about a photograph of a
photograph?)

~~~
thatguy0900
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell%27s_Soup_Cans](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell%27s_Soup_Cans)
Down that line of thinking, I always found this example interesting. It's one
of Andy warhols most well known paintings, and it's literally just of
Campbell's soup cans. I've always wondered how the original designer of those
cans felt, that a painter just painted his design and became famous.

------
combatentropy
Any philosophers here? I was just wondering if anyone wants to discuss what
copyright law should be, rather than what it is.

On the one hand, if I had taken some photographs of VHS tapes and then found
that a multibillion-dollar company had used them, without telling me, I would
feel violated. And I would want some money --- if for no other reason than,
hey, Netflix can spare it.

On the other hand, it seems overblown, especially considering:

1\. The image shows up on many sites, having already been ripped off many
times, according to another comment here. So it would have been hard for
Netflix to know it was some photographer's treasure.

2\. The images are plain shots of different sides of a VHS tape. Netflix could
easily have done it themselves, and I'm sure at this point they wish that they
did. Now if they did, then Netflix would have wasted a few hours, Gough Lui
would be no richer, and the box would have looked the same.

3\. I'm convinced more and more that nothing is totally original. Take Gough
Liu's photographs. He could not have done them if Fuji hadn't manufactured the
tapes. Did he get Fuji's permission to use their product's likeness?
[https://vimeo.com/139094998](https://vimeo.com/139094998)

There is a feeling that copyright is an absolute, natural right. But it is
said that it didn't exist anywhere until 1710. And it wasn't because we
thought people deserved it, like we think they deserve the right to life or
due process. It was completely pragmatic, a supposedly artifical law, "to
promote the progress of science and useful arts." In today's digital age, it
seems more profitable for society to use each other's works freely --- at
least as far as it goes in "the progress of science and the useful arts." We
get way more out of building on past inventions and source code than
restricting it to a few people or companies.

Now if you think it would be more beneficial "to the progress of science and
the useful arts" to preserve copyright, please argue your point, along with
how strict you think copyright should be, how long it should last, etc. Also,
if you think copyright should exist for some other reason besides mere
practicality in advancing science and the useful arts, please argue that.
Again clarify whether you think copyright strictness and duration is fine as
it is or should be implemented differently.

~~~
mljoe
>He could not have done them if Fuji hadn't manufactured the tapes. Did he get
Fuji's permission to use their product's likeness?

This is actually a huge issue here, since the photo is a perfect replica of
their tape design with very little additional creativity. Photographers do
have to get rights if the stuff they photograph is the creative expression of
others.

~~~
ajross
Except in this case it's pretty clear the photo was taken as a diagram: he
wasn't trying to get benefit from the VHS tape box designers brand and image,
he was trying to explain how the device works. Consider all the youtube videos
of how to change the oil in your car or whatever. Yes, there is copyright
somewhere, but no: how-to informational stuff is clearly fair use.

But at the same time: yeah, the guy took a picture of someone else's box
design and Netflix used it. Where's the damage here?

------
acomjean
People want and use photos for free. In the early days of the internet I put
up some black and white photos of a blues artist. The photos migrated to that
artist's myspace page and from there were used by newspapers occasionally to
promote a tour. The photo went uncredited, and by the time I found out I was
working professionally the tour was over and it didn't matter.

Oddly HBO contacted me about clearing a photo for use (a Queens NY photo) in
one of there shows about 10 years ago. I asked for $250 for "lifetime rights"
they wanted. I never heard back again.

I wish Dr. Lui luck in getting some credit/ money.

~~~
jkchu
Well in your case it seems likely that they just went with another photo
rather than pay $250.

------
larrykwg
Two things dubious about this, a) should any photograph of a common object
ever be covered under copyright? talking about threshold of originality[1].
and b) was netflix use of it transformative in nature [2] and protected under
fair-use. For those reasons the author seems to me an unpleasant nitpicker to
make such a fuzz about nothing.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality)
[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformation_(law)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformation_\(law\))

~~~
chillydawg
The photographs were created at great expense: skill, equipment, time, props.
Of course copyright applies.

~~~
Doctor_Fegg
"Great expense" isn't enough in all jurisdictions. In a sweat-of-the-brow
jurisdiction like the UK it would be, but I'm not necessarily convinced that
it would be in the US.

~~~
lostcolony
"I bought a really kickass camera; all my photos are now copyright" vs "I used
my phone's camera; I don't have copyright on all my images" seems like a
rather ludicrous difference too. Because things like time are hard to measure
and irrelevant ("I waited outside all day for sunset" vs "I lucked out and got
there at the perfect time to take it"), and props, when it's literally -one-
object, being taken from the most obvious angle, also seems a bizarre thing to
consider. Not saying what is or is not the law, and in what jurisdictions,
just that it seems weird to consider it anywhere.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
If you think of it in terms of expense and recompense it makes sense. I spent
£5k making this photo vs. it cost me nothing beyond sunk costs to make.

------
whiddershins
First of all, this probably isn’t “Netflix” but rather some designer Netflix
hired to do a job. It is incredibly hard for a company to double-check all
this stuff.

Unfortunately he will get the best result with a lawyer. The infringement
pierces contracts and even can pierce the corporate veil to make people
personally liable.

I believe statuatory damages may be around $10,000 per infringement, so from
there he can likely negotiate a reasonable settlement equal to a normal fee
plus legal costs.

I doubt he will get much traction another way. Although, I hope I’m wrong, and
a little public shaming will get a reasonable result.

~~~
tptacek
It presumably won't much matter whether a contract designer or a Netflix
employee did it. This problem is what indemnification clauses in contracts are
for, and perhaps Netflix will try to take their damages out of the hide of the
contractor, but that's unlikely to be the original author's problem.

~~~
SilasX
True. But I'm also wondering: at the size and scale of Netflix, don't they
stick with more above-board agencies with better controls for this kind of
thing? I doubt they'd be happy with "Hey, guy-in-his-pajamas who freelances
with his photoshop skills, do you _pinky swear_ that you own the rights to all
the IP in your deliverable? Because we fully expect to recover our full
liability from you if you don't!"

------
SyneRyder
There is an update, Netflix have replied and said they're investigating. The
original post is on goughlui.com, the PetaPixel link is a reblog and hasn't
yet been updated: [http://goughlui.com/2017/11/22/netflix-uses-my-vhs-
cassette-...](http://goughlui.com/2017/11/22/netflix-uses-my-vhs-cassette-
images-without-permission/)

The Netflix reply (pasting here so the website isn't crushed by HN clicks):

 _Dr. Lui,

First, my sincerest apologies that no one has gotten back to you until now.

Your blog post was brought to my attention so I wanted to reach out and let
you know that we’re currently looking into this matter with the creative
agency that worked on the product design for the tapes.

Will update you as I know more. Feel free to reach out in the meantime.

Best, Marlee_

Also worth pointing out that the image in question is also being used on
dozens of other websites (including BuzzFeed). You can find them by using a
reverse Google Image search, and noting the specific camera tripod reflection:

[https://www.google.com/search?sa=X&tbm=isch&tbs=simg:CAQSmQE...](https://www.google.com/search?sa=X&tbm=isch&tbs=simg:CAQSmQEJhkcoXhoqXF4ajQELEKjU2AQaBggUCAAIAwwLELCMpwgaYgpgCAMSKI8BkAHADPQM8wyOAdMBiwGeDNUM4TbiJs81xDPzNfk8qDOhM6kz9iYaME0_1ihVVC6cA94hW9YExtwebm0AHiGr55VyaUrh4yCS-
Hfxq6O3dlLffDuzaQfvWmSAEDAsQjq7-CBoKCggIARIEVtCQWww&ved=0ahUKEwiLkoT72uDXAhXJJpQKHUhRC6AQ2A4IJigB&biw=1280&bih=800#imgrc=9gVQ44zkeOJT4M):

------
apetresc
If you do a reverse image search on the original stock photograph in question,
you will see that it has been reposted hundreds of times before this, surely
without proper attribution. Obviously some guy in the graphics department
found it and saw it was everywhere, attributed in all sorts of ways.

Is it really reasonable to expect everybody to go on an archaelogical dig to
track down stock photos through hundreds of copies to trace the original from
some Australian blog? If I use a snippet of "open source" code, am I
morally/legally obligated to also scour the internet, trace its geneology
through hundreds of Stack Overflow answers/random Github repos that it's
already in, just to make sure the person licensing it as open source didn't,
himself, steal it from somewhere else?

~~~
rgbrenner
Yes... because the creator reserves all rights to copyrighted works (with some
legal exceptions). If you cant find the creator, then you have no rights to
use the image. To get such rights, you need to contact the creator and ask.
That's the way it works.

Just because you don't know who to ask, doesnt mean you're magically granted
rights you dont have to an asset you had no part in creating.

~~~
PhantomGremlin
_Just because you don 't know who to ask, doesnt mean you're magically granted
rights you dont have to an asset you had no part in creating._

Huh? I think you just described Google Books.

They "got away with" copying over 25 million books in their entirety. Not that
I agree with the US courts in this matter.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Books#Copyright_infring...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Books#Copyright_infringement.2C_fair_use_and_related_issues)

~~~
bkanber
Situation is obviously completely different. Google was not reprinting,
packaging and selling the books like Netflix was in the OP.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Google are commercially benefitting from having copied works in their
entirety. It's not so different.

------
blatherard
Maybe he can send them a humorous cease & desist letter
[http://www.businessinsider.com/netflix-stranger-things-
pop-u...](http://www.businessinsider.com/netflix-stranger-things-pop-up-bar-
funny-cease-and-desist-letter-2017-9)

~~~
SolarNet
OP should totally throw Netflix to the wolves, he should send a cease and
desist letter to every store stocking these, and the service providers of
every website advertising these.

Netflix enforces it's copyrights through the legal system - regardless of how
humorous - and fail to comply with it themselves? Complete hypocrites, I still
wonder how corporations get so much leeway in this country. Honestly, IP
infringement like this from a company like Netflix should involve a 10x
penalty; the onus should be on them - as people who regularly use the IP
systems for profit - to get it right.

~~~
ars
> and fail to comply with it themselves

This photo has no copyright protection because it does not meet the
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality)
so Netflix is not doing anything wrong here.

~~~
hellofunk
I assume you are a copyright attorney and are thus speaking with good
knowledge on the matter, and therefore are already aware of the legal
precedent for the OPs case, and not just a wikipedia page.

Prior cases very similar to this one have successfully been tried in favor of
the photographer.

------
bdowling
On the question of copyrightable subject matter in rather plain photographs of
a VHS tape, see Ets-Hokin v. SKYY Spirits Inc., 225 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir.
2000)(holding that product shots of vodka bottle merited copyright protection)
[0].

[0]
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/225_f3d_1068.htm](https://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/225_f3d_1068.htm)

------
S_A_P
I had trouble determining if this was satire or not. Its a picture of a VHS
cassette and not a particularly interesting one. Im not saying that he
shouldn't get attribution for his work, but this is also generic enough as to
not be a unique work of art.

~~~
exodust
If the VHS tape looks generic, it's because the photographer did a good job.
Lens choice, tripod, angle, lighting, post processing, publishing hi-res
version. That is work.

I've done plenty of "generic" photo shoots that I've needed to re-shoot
because something such as minor reflection or details are wrong.

~~~
ars
> That is work.

The US does not have a "sweat of the brow" law. It's irrelevant how much work
it took. All that matters is if there is creativity, vs simply mechanical
reproduction.

~~~
tptacek
This is such a weird objection (and it's occurring all over the thread, not
just here). By the same logic, do you think you're entitled to any commercial
stock photo, so long as it's "generic" or "mechanical" enough?

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Your even allowed to copy movies of they're remakes you know. /s

~~~
tptacek
Right, but you have to put NO COPYRIGHT INTENDED on them.

------
exodust
I used a Google Images photo of cinema seats for a promotional graphic for a
big media company a few years back. I did not seek permission as I had a
looming deadline. I felt guilty, so I spent 2 hours in Photoshop altering the
image significantly until it barely resembled the original.

I pushed pixels around in the fabric of the seats, changed colours, erased
things and even then it formed only part of the graphic I made. I still felt a
bit guilty, but I think I did enough.

In this case, the VHS tape is not significantly altered, it's clearly the
photo from his blog. That's lazy. If you're going to rip off an image from
Google images, at least push a few pixels around with clone stamp and healing
brush to make it different and unrecognisable from original.

~~~
jordache
this is an interesting point. If you take someone else's original work and
modify the contents of it. At what point of modification can the output no
longer be associated with the original work?

yes you based your modifications off the original work but carry overs from
the original content is protected by copyright law?

~~~
exodust
At the point that nobody notices that you ripped off the image! That's the
point you can feel safe, although you may not feel satisfied with your work
ethic.

The more commercial the usage, or bigger the company, the more responsibility
to do the right thing by the rights holder of image.

------
akaa
Im the person who drew the etchmarkings you see on every vhs cassette today.
Also I was responsible for placing the vhs trademark logo on it. No just
kidding. Im not of course. But in my opinion these claims are a little absurd.
Taking a photo of an everyday household item is, in my opinion, not some
original work of art they intentionally stole. Some graphic intern used them
off the web instead of shutterstock. Big deal. These posts make it soind like
netflix had a secret executive meeting where they decided to rip off a poor
photographer which, i think, did not happen. Some graphic intern will get
sacked most probably.

~~~
scrollaway
A billion dollar company that constantly bugs their non-US customers across
the globe on copyright infringement issues, committed copyright infringement
because did not have as much as a process in place to get original or paid-for
art for an original production they're spending millions of dollars for.

As you said, big fucking deal, uh-huh?

Either get rid of copyright law, or hold billion dollar companies to the same
standard as customers. I'll take one or the other.

~~~
akaa
I dont think they (netflix) design a dvd inlay inhouse tbh. I think the design
agency should know better but nonetheless i dont see the harm done.

------
jwildeboer
It is literally the first result when I do an image search on Google for "VHS
Cassette". And when I go to the "Contact me" page on his site [1] I read a lot
of passive-aggressive "Don't talk to me, bro" language ;-)

Also none of the pictures have any kind of license or copyright info. I cannot
even see from the article at [2] that he took the pictures himself.

In conclusion my opinion is yes, the designer should have asked for
permission. But also the author should add copyright/license info to his site
and make that info easy to discover.

I'm sure Netflix will do the right thing and we all live happy ever after :-)

[1] [http://goughlui.com/about-me-a-short-bio/contact-
me/](http://goughlui.com/about-me-a-short-bio/contact-me/) [2]
[http://goughlui.com/the-vhs-corner/intro-inside-the-vhs-
cass...](http://goughlui.com/the-vhs-corner/intro-inside-the-vhs-cassette-
vcr/)

~~~
Freak_NL
> But also the author should add copyright/license info to his site […]

To be fair, any professional worth his salt knows that no licensing info
strongly implies copyright in most jurisdictions. Only material marked
explicitly as public domain or being under a suitable permissive license is up
for grabs without notice, and even then permission is usually sought in one
form or another to prevent having to recall a product or spend a lot of money
on remuneration afterwards.

~~~
jwildeboer
Full ACK on that. My point is that any author/creator/maker/crafter that
expects to be credited for his work should make it really easy to find the
relevant information about licensing/using content. To avoid exactkly these
kind of things happening.

Put it in the footer or the "About me" page, add a license blurb to all your
entries in a blog etc. It's just a bit of one-time work but it helps a lot in
building reputation.

------
Sytten
Not sure if the system is like that in the US, but the best way to make a
company react fast without involving a lawyer where I live (Quebec, Canada) is
to send them a formal notice ([https://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/en/your-
disputes/sending-a-fo...](https://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/en/your-
disputes/sending-a-formal-notice-before-filing-an-application/writing-and-
sending-a-formal-notice)). Basically saying you will sue them if you don't get
compensation. Most companies will contact you shortly after and it's way
better than trying to go through the general help desk.

------
evan_
This is kind of interesting because my friend and co-worker had some of his
photos licensed for use in the actual production- e.g. shown on screen- and
they were VERY respectful and cooperative with him:

[https://tau0.wordpress.com/2017/10/30/stranger-
things-2/](https://tau0.wordpress.com/2017/10/30/stranger-things-2/)

------
bradyd
Netflix probably has nothing to do with the DVDs. They don't own Stranger
Things, they just license it to show it on their service. You need to contact
the production company, not the network.

~~~
CreepGin
Since Netflix is the distributor, I think contacting them is not wrong here.
But yes, contacting The Duffer Brothers and 21 Laps Entertainment may also
help.

------
guidedlight
I think this would fall into the category of ‘fair use’.

The OP had a very generic high quality photo of a VHS tape. There was nothing
particularly artistic about it.

Netflix provided new value, by substantially modifying the image for a new
purpose.

I know everyone gets worked up about big evil corporations vs the little guy,
but I don’t think there is much substance here.

~~~
jhugg
IANAL, but fair use doesn’t cover commercial art used to sell something, like
this DVD packaging. If it did, the stock photography business might crumble
overnight.

~~~
Teeer
Nope, commercial or non-profit it doesn't matter. See Myth #1:
[http://www.adweek.com/digital/fair-use-
youtube/](http://www.adweek.com/digital/fair-use-youtube/)

~~~
mthoms
There are 4 criteria used for evaluating whether fair use applies. The first
being:

1\. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

Source
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors)

To be clear, commercial usage doesn't _automatically_ indicate a violation but
it would be considered.

------
King-Aaron
Aah, the old "Australian IP taken by an American company" thing.

I feel sorry for the bloke, but my own experience tells me that he's probably
not going to get this resolved very easily to the effect he's hoping. (If he
was an American and his IP was taken by an Australian firm, the gates of hell
would open.. but the reverse doesn't hold especially true I've found).

My personal opinion - the image is pretty generic, and he should feel happy
that he's got at least a (tiny) level of recognition by the design team using
his photo. But then, there's a big part of me that agrees with him and that
Netflix should do the right thing and at least provide some attribution. At
the end of the day, he has got a copyright notice at the bottom of the page,
it's his IP, and any professional design studio should know better.

~~~
exodust
Uncredited is not even tiny recognition. He received zero recognition and zero
dollars for using his photo on a big time product. He should be paid, end of
story.

~~~
King-Aaron
You miss my point. I mean that the fact that someone used his photo means that
they discovered something he made, amongst the countless number of things
floating around in the internet, and as such there is a small amount of
satisfaction that _could_ be taken from it. Indeed, I did say that I feel he
should be compensated however, so I don't understand the sense of animosity in
your comment.

~~~
exodust
No animosity here. I get what you're saying, but we all know that "Google
Images" will be the answer to the question "where did you get the VHS image
from". The answer won't be "Gough Lui".

And the choice of image wasn't decided by "Netflix" but by a designer probably
trying to meet a deadline. Personally I would not feel one tiny bit of
satisfaction, but I understand and accept that you would if you were the
photographer.

------
herodotus
I have complained to large companies a couple of times: I have only had actual
success twice. In both cases, I knew (or found) the email of the CEO of the
company and I emailed that address. I doubt that the CEO actually read the
messages, but in both cases the complaint was legit and followed attempts by
me to use the "normal" customer channels. In the first case I received a phone
call from someone high up in the company, and in the second case an email from
a VP who actually addressed my concern and told me how they were planning to
fix it.

And, BTW, when I worked for Apple, radars originated by Steve Jobs or Tim Cook
obviously received very special attention.

------
oldandtired
Clarification.

No theft involved - nothing was stolen.

since this is a copyright claim, it is about a non-authorised copy - notice
copy not original.

Please, let's call this for what it is and not what it is not.

No theft involved, only copying.

------
fencepost
Is this a situation where (like dealing with management) going to them with a
proposed solution is appropriate?

I'm sure that if you're trying to get as much as possible from them (based on
the statutory fees/penalties, etc) then it makes sense to let lawyers handle
it and negotiate, but if all you're looking for is an acknowledgement and a
little something then I could easily see sending something to their General
Counsel (as provided by donarb) saying something like "I propose that in
return for a retroactive and unrestricted right to use the artwork on any
Stranger Things packaging, advertising, promotional materials or products you
will compensate me with two (2) physical copies of the currently-available
Stranger Things release and a free subscription to the middle tier of Netflix
service for (lifetime, 10 years, 5 years, 1 year, whatever)."

That's assuming that such would be something of interest to him and that he'd
consider it adequate. The advantage is that by presenting it like that he gets
something out of it and Netflix says "Oh hell yes, that's basically free for
us, here you go!"

------
Analemma_
Like other people, I fully support the author here and do hope he sees fair
compensation for this. But my eyes rolled out of my head at this part:

> _" Initially, I was in disbelief for two reasons. I’ve not watched Stranger
> Things, but I’ve heard a lot of good things about it. Could it be true that
> my work has become a part of their product and I should be so honored to be
> part of it? The images I were seeing did not lie. They were my photos."

> "Then it turned into a feeling of betrayal. How could they, a large
> corporate company with day-to-day experience in handling rights-protected
> materials, use my material without so much as asking me for permission? How
> did they think they can get away with it?"_

Dude, get a grip. This was very obviously the mistake of a (probably rushed)
junior designer whose work wasn't checked over thoroughly, not a sinister plot
coming straight from the boardroom. Assert your rights and get your due, but
please avoid the histrionics.

~~~
hellofunk
You are being awfully hard on a guy who probably has no idea how marketing and
professional design workflows occur. To many people, the actions inside any
company are quite opaque. It's fair for him to ask these questions; most
people would.

------
dgut
Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I don't regard a photo of an object as having
much value. These photos could have taken by literally anybody. Think of it as
somebody using a piece of code you have posted online in their huge
enterprisey app. I don't see the problem with that, or what makes a photo of
an object worth any special treatment.

~~~
0x0
If it's so easy, why didn't they take a photo themselves? Could it be that
using someone else's existing photo actually saved them time and money? If so,
then it sounds like there's value in the original photo. If not, why wouldn't
they just create an original photo on their own.

------
ZeroGravitas
Aren't these photos public domain?

I'm sure Wikipedia was involved in a court case against museams that decided
that scans and non-artistic photographs of 3-D things like sculptures and
friezes didn't give the photographer any copyright claim on older works that
were in the public domain.

Unless the person who designed the moulds for the cassette has some kind of
claim then I'm not sure this photographer has any copyright either.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp).

(edit: I notice there's a discussion about "fair use" way down at the bottom
of this discussion, which doesn't seem a popular opinion. I'd say it's not
fair use, but only because the photographer probably doesn't have a copyright
claim in the first place, but I'm not a lawyer etc. etc.)

------
vatotemking
Netflix should compensate. Its a win-win for both.

Its good PR and the money ask by Dr Lui is small. It'll make him a fan too.
And Stranger things message is to listen and help the disenfranchised and the
marginalized.

Or they could use their legal power to raindown a firestorm on the guy. But
then Jim Hopper would probably punch Netflix in the face:

"... Now, as we act and the continuing narrative of “Stranger Things,” we 1983
Midwesterners will repel bullies. We will shelter freaks and outcasts, those
who have no homes. We will get past the lies. We will hunt monsters. And when
we are lost amidst the hypocrisy and the casual violence of certain
individuals and institutions, we will, as per Chief Jim Hopper, punch some
people in the face when they seek to destroy the meek and the disenfranchised
and the marginalized. And we will do it all with soul, with heart, and with
joy. .."

------
exodust
It's resolved:

From his blog... " I have received a very courteous phone call from Netflix in
which we discussed the matters at hand and appropriate compensation. The
matter has now been settled to my satisfaction, and pending a few bits of
paperwork, I shall receive a very satisfactory licensing fee and copies of the
items as noted.

They have expressed their apologies over the mistakes made by their third
party agencies as well as letting the initial e-mail contact get lost within
the system.

As far as I am concerned, this is the best possible outcome that could have
happened. Thank you all! "
[https://twitter.com/lui_gough/status/935633632688930816](https://twitter.com/lui_gough/status/935633632688930816)

------
davidbanham
There's no requirement to register copyright in Australia. Copyright vests in
the creator immediately upon creation.

Given that this guy is an AU resident and I'm guessing that the works were
created here, I'm pretty sure that means he's got more than just a moral
right.

~~~
learc83
It's the same in the US. Registration isn't required. It just allows you to
recover specific statutory damages, rather than just compensatory damages (you
don't need to prove actual damages if you register).

------
gambiting
No. Just no. This reads like the author is fighting some "good fight" but they
are not. It's a picture of a common object, not even framed in any special
way. I don't think Netflix should have asked them or reimburse them a single
cent.

------
diogenescynic
I believe it. As a film fan, this is why I really dislike Netflix—they seem a
repeat offender at ripping off other artists. A few of their shows like
Stranger Things (Alien, Poltergeist, Akira, Goonies) and especially Godless
(Rio Bravo; Magnificent Seven; Good, Bad, and the Ugly) go beyond homage and
into outright copying and stealing ideas. I understand tropes and references,
but I think Netflix has shown a pattern of basically just making imitation
products of other successful products. I can watch nearly anything on HBO, but
can hardly find anything half worth watching on Netflix and it’s nearly all
derivative of something else more interesting.

------
ghaff
I suspect that there are a lot of times when even well-meaning organizations
have this sort of thing slip through. I can think of a couple times when I've
had frantic obviously last minute emails or calls from organizations who had
used one or more photographs of mine they had gotten either online or
elsewhere--and things were presumably either in production or on the verge of.
This includes a PBS station so we're not talking total amateurs here.

I never asked for any money as it's been PBS or, in other case, the Head of
the Charles.

------
andy_ppp
How much are these images really worth, it looks to me like they took <1h of
time and I doubt it’s reasonable to ask for more than $50 as a non
professional photographer.

Maybe you could argue that because they were stolen there is some higher
prize? This really isn’t the same thing as stealing a Netflix series that
supports the livelihoods of many hundreds of people. In fact I’d argue that
because no attempt was being made to make a living out of these photos
therefore no actual losses were incurred.

~~~
crooked-v
> Maybe you could argue that because they were stolen there is some higher
> prize?

That is generally the standard in lawsuits, yes.

~~~
andy_ppp
Wasting time in a court for trivial things like this is of course up to the
party who has been “harmed”.

~~~
emodendroket
I'm sure if the shoe were on the other foot they'd have no compunction about
using the legal system to go after someone who'd profited from the sale of
clips of Stranger Things.

------
m0d0nne11
This is the same NetFlix behind the death-penalty-for-even-trivial-DRM-
infractions movement, yes?

------
Dowwie
Are the changes that netflix's designer made to the cassette material enough
for the design to qualify as an original work of art? How would this be
treated differently than any other remix?

------
Fricken
I did a Google image search for 'VHS tape', and of course, the image in
question was the second to come up.

This happens a lot. Graphic artists go to Google images for their source
materials.

------
mvkel
A nice lesson in “ask for forgiveness, not permission.” Netflix came out way
ahead on this one.

------
jordache
Wait! I read his whole article fully accepting that target is selling Stranger
Things box set in VHS format..

------
jclulow
I'd love to see where the practice of photographic plagiarism is covered in
the famous culture deck!

------
chris_wot
I'm a paying customer of Netflix in Sydney. I just called their support line
and asked them to respond. The lady told me that she would escalate this.

Hopefully you will get a response soon!

------
senthilnayagam
one last question will fuji cassette company or their designer get anything as
it was their product, which was photographed

------
kevin_thibedeau
Shame on Netflix. They should have used a VHS-C in an adapter. Way to maintain
continuity guys.

------
guywaffle
They look like different

------
bolololo1
Did Netflix respond yet?

------
exabrial
DMCA takedown?

------
dustinpkane
Yeah but this guy stole Netflix's IP when he made the VHS in the first
place...

~~~
lovelearning
My understanding is: The author is a VHS electronics enthusiast and had
published photos of unmarked VHS cassettes [1]. Some designer photoshopped
them to add the "Stranger Things" graphics and Netflix used the photoshopped
images without attribution. Author's photographs are literally the first hits
in a google search for "VHS cassette". Author did not create a VHS version of
the TV program.

[1]: [http://goughlui.com/the-vhs-corner/intro-inside-the-vhs-
cass...](http://goughlui.com/the-vhs-corner/intro-inside-the-vhs-cassette-
vcr/)

------
gwbas1c
If you are a Netflix subscriber, just open a support chat window and ask about
this issue. They seem to be pretty ignorant on the whole thing.

~~~
chris_wot
Actually, if you have their app, you can speak to someone directly in a
voicecall. I just did so on my iPhone.

------
120photo
The first thing a lawyer will ask a photographer is, "Did you register your
copyright?" No lawyer is going to take a case if you don't register your
copyright as there is no money to be won.

~~~
NamTaf
From the PDF here, you'll note that the second and third dot points state very
clearly that there is no registration system for copyright in Australia. It
exists implicitly, is free and applies automatically.

[https://www.copyright.org.au/acc_prod/ACC/Information_Sheets...](https://www.copyright.org.au/acc_prod/ACC/Information_Sheets/An_Introduction_to_Copyright_in_Australia.aspx)

~~~
120photo
I don't know about international and only know the basics in the US. As a
photographer I own the copyright the moment I create an image but to actually
be able to sue for copyright infringements (and get money) I would need to
register with the copyright office. I can register an individual image or
bulk. If I don't register I don't think a lawyer would take my case.

------
ryacko
I don't think he can prove it if he tried.

Netflix can just as easily buy the same VHS cassette and claim it was based on
it.

~~~
apetresc
It is obvious they are the same photo, especially the backside. Any jury would
believe it, just superimpose the images on top of each other.

The defense isn't that they took the photo themselves, it's that they stumbled
upon the photo on a site that misattributed it to a CC license, which is
probably exactly what happened. If you do a reverse image search on the
original photo, it has been uploaded as-is to hundreds of places:
[https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en-
CA&q=custom+black+hard+pl...](https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en-
CA&q=custom+black+hard+plastic+snap-
on+case&tbm=isch&tbs=simg:CAQSmQEJPgGL4FiAeLYajQELEKjU2AQaBggUCAAIAwwLELCMpwgaYgpgCAMSKI8BkAHADPQM8wyOAdMBngyLAaEM4TbEM8814iaoM_1k8oTPzNf8mqTMaME300xJVC2UAe59W4oElOAObm0BHimr55XyYWrh4aCG-
HRxpKELelLfbDuz-QA_1XmSAEDAsQjq7-CBoKCggIARIEb7SQ5gw&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwii4PnYn-
DXAhXK44MKHci0BAMQwg4IJSgA&biw=1605&bih=644#imgrc=_)

My sympathies are with Netflix here. It's unreasonable to expect them to do a
full genealogical search for every random stock photo they use so that they
can trace these hundreds of photos back to some Australian blog.

~~~
sverhagen
If they got it from some random image search site ("Google Images"), shame on
Netflix. A professional stock image site likely wouldn't have featured these
images.

------
empressplay
This is clearly fair use, but rude, as Netflix could've afforded stock images.

~~~
ggggtez
It's actually clearly copyright violation, but whatever, who am I the internet
Police. Believe whatever you want, but if you did this you'd be sued for sure.

------
balls187
IANAL, but I'm a hobbyist photographer.

It wasn't clear from the article if the the images were registered with the US
Copyright office.

If they were, great. Based on timing, he can sue for statutory damages plus
attorney fees.

If not, he's pretty much out of luck. He can't sue in the US for copyright
infringement (even though he does own the copyright)[0]. He can sue in
Australia, but I have no idea if that is going to be worth the time and
effort.

More over he's defaming Netflix (IANAL). It seems very plausible that those
are his images, and Netflix used them without authorization. What's not clear,
is if Netflix actually stole his images. The images could have been provided
by a creative agency who used the works without permission (likely) or Netflix
or the creative agency could have purchased a license for use from someone who
was not actually authorized to sell a usage license.

GettyImages has been accused of stealing images, then selling licenses for
use.[1]

0:
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/411](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/411)
1: [https://petapixel.com/2016/08/04/getty-images-sued-
accused-m...](https://petapixel.com/2016/08/04/getty-images-sued-accused-
misusing-47000-photos/)

~~~
dragonwriter
The section of law you cite, makes clear that registration has to occur before
filing suit, but does not have to occur before the infringing action. It's
perfectly legal to register _after_ you become aware of a potential
infringement and then file suit.

So, if he hasn't previously registered the works in question, that's a
procedural step that needs to happen before litigation, but not a barrier that
would make him “pretty much out of look”.

~~~
balls187
(This is specific to the US--the author is Australian)

Yes, that's correct, but at that point you can only sue for actual damages,
not statutory damages.

For someone who does not sell photos, the damages would amount to be the cost
of a license for use of that photograph. GettyImages has an image of a VHS
Tape for $600, which includes royalty free usages globally.

How much will it cost to fire a legal shot across Netflix' bow, and negotiate
a license agreement? $300/hr?

I just don't see any scenario that can playout in which the author comes out
ahead--hence out of luck.

~~~
dragonwriter
Attorneys fees and costs are usually awarded in addition to whatever damages
are allowed, so shouldn't be considered against the damage award.

~~~
balls187
Only if you had registration before or within 3-months after infringement
(safe-harbor).

[https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=753081a5-e633...](https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=753081a5-e633-48a0-910e-02ca37b1e3ee)

------
jhiska
>Netflix (allegedly) Stole My Photos for Stranger Things

That's his personal problem, not ours.

~~~
devereaux
No, it's ours (1) because a company violating copyrights for pictures may as
well violate them for source code or something else.

(1): unless you have never created anything. Then it is not your problem.

~~~
goldenkey
But its a hugely silly thing to care about. I really dont see anyone being
actually sentimental about a top down generic shot of a plain black tape. We
would all lawyer up though, and fake caring, because money. Without acting
like a victim, its harder to milk the cash cow.

Now, should we care about this mans "plight?" Not if we have any sense - it's
about money...we would have to be naive as an ignoramus to think hes actually
hurt about his black tape picture.

And most of us..at least when polled..believe that copyright is defunct. So
naturally, most people are happy when their creations gain visibility. They
have to flip the switch on their brain to feign angst and victimhood so they
can lawsuit up and get that money. We all would. But lets not kid ourselves if
its about anything but the money. Because most of us are pretty copyleft,
especially about things we created and thought no one would ever appreciate.

~~~
devereaux
Silly?? Are some copyrights less important than others?

It is not "fake caring, because money." I had that happen to me. It is not
fun. It is not milking the cash cow. If you no not value the intellectual
property you create, or if you have some specific ideological reasons, put
your work in the public domain or GPL it or any other source of copyleft.

If you do that, respect the rights to get offended of those who use their
copyrights to make money

~~~
goldenkey
These pictures were just up on a blog..there were no legal or licensing
disclaimers. Because like most of us, he never even thought anyone would value
a plain picture of a tape used for demonstration instructional purposes.
Netflix normally wouldnt pay licensing fees for something they could reproduce
in 10 minutes flat. If they knew they had to pay the fee they would have just
created their own or used stock images..etc. Some contractor or dumb employee
did it...but now they are going to have to pay up. This guy just got really
really lucky. I dont see the "plight" or anything that we are needed
for..other than to read a curious happening about someone who got really
really lucky on someone elses fuckup.

~~~
darklajid
Why do you create such an argument when the article _explicitly states_:

"Given the prominent copyright notice printed in the footer on each page, I
assert my moral right to copyright over this image."

Ignoring the difficulties I have with people shrugging this off as "meh", why
would people comment that way without even reading the article in the first
place?

------
anigbrowl
I'm usually pretty supportive of copyright claims, but such generic photos of
generic objects are really pushing the envelope. Seems like you could make an
argument that it's not sufficiently transformative under Bridgeman-Corel,
given that it's the VHS Cassette design that's being fetishized rather than
any particular contribution of the photographer. The publicity from the
alleged infringement is probably worth more than any putative licensing fee -
maybe $300?

~~~
webkike
It doesn't matter how generic the object is, it's the fact that this person
was not paid for the effort put into taking the photo

~~~
leohutson
No that's not true. Facts for instance are usuallly not copyrightable,
regardless of how much effort goes into gathering them.

Photographs of artworks that are in the public domain often aren't
copyrightable for instance, if they are exact reproductions.

How much effort goes into pressing the button is completely irrelevant to
copyright law, creating an uncopyrightable photograph is likely a great deal
more strenuous than a copyrightable one.

~~~
anigbrowl
Which is exactly why I mentioned Bridgeman-Corel, though I admit that's a bit
of a legal leap.

I find it terribly amusing how HN consistently jumps on these stories to vent
its outrage but the same people don't think independent filmmakers and
musicians should be able to control distribution if people want to
torrent/stream their stuff.

~~~
DanBC
> HN consistently jumps on these stories to vent its outrage but the same
> people don't think independent filmmakers and musicians should be able to
> control distribution if people want to torrent/stream their stuff.

What makes you think these are the same people?

~~~
anigbrowl
Just a hunch based on past conversations

------
Swizec
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not.

How can the author tell Stranger Things producers didn't take a photo of any
of billions of same-looking VHS tapes?

I understand the verification that the author took the images they claim they
did. I can't tell how that proves that the images strange things used are the
same as the ones from the author's screenshot.

Wouldn't every straight-on cropped photo of a VHS tape look the same?

Edit: looks like I didn’t read/observe carefully enough. There are details
that are too much the same.

~~~
JohnJamesRambo
Check closer, even the position of the teeth is the same. If it is so easy,
Netflix should have photographed one instead of stealing an image.

~~~
lighthazard
What about the top and sides though? They look significantly different.

~~~
ggggtez
Read the gosh darn article. He says the sides are not his image, but the top
is.

~~~
lighthazard
I guess my question was more about why the effort of changing portions of it.

