22 ms·

Netflix Stole My VHS Cassette Photos for Its Stranger Things Boxed Set

• jclulow 9y ago
  I'd love to see where the practice of photographic plagiarism is covered in the famous culture deck!
• anigbrowl 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    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 9y ago
      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.
      • deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      • anigbrowl 9y ago
        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.
        • leohutson 9y ago
          Yes, I was agreeing with you, I don't think down-voters read your comment properly. I really don't think the outrage here on HN or the original post is in any way justified, legally the image may or may not be subject to copyright, but it is clearly of extremely low value. It's actually kind of funny to think the legal system is actually more pragmatic than the commenters here.
        • DanBC 9y ago
          > 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 9y ago
            Just a hunch based on past conversations
    • Teeer 9y ago
      You clearly do not understand fair use law.
      • webkike 9y ago
        This isn't educational, it's a product intended on making money.
  • justinpombrio 9y ago
    If it's that generic, they could have taken the photo themselves.
    • anigbrowl 9y ago
      That's why I suggested that at most it was worth $300, which is a pretty generous price for a couple of product shots but meant to reflect a half-day minimum for a professional.
  • beams_of_light 9y ago
    I completely agree, and find this complaint to be very minor in severity.
    • hellofunk 9y ago
      Perhaps you have never taken the time or effort to properly photograph something so that it can ultimately have the benefit of looking normal and generic. I invite you to try and photograph a VHS tape some time and see how long it takes to get an image as simple as this one. Seriously, try it. It won't take you a full day but it will take your time.
• blatherard 9y ago
  Maybe he can send them a humorous cease & desist letter http://www.businessinsider.com/netflix-stranger-things-pop-up-bar-funny-cease-and-desist-letter-2017-9 http://www.businessinsider.com/netflix-stranger-things-pop-u...
  • SolarNet 9y ago
    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.
    • shortstuffsushi 9y ago
      > he should send a cease and desist letter to every store stocking these He's just a regular guy. I don't think he's going to be able to pull that off. I think you're probably lashing out a bit hard at something that was probably unintentional. They should absolutely pull it back now that they know they've infringed, but (as pointed out in the comments) there a quick reverse search reveals many mirrors of the image. The person who pulled it may have even gotten it off a site that offered "free use," though they didn't actually own the image. As far as 10x punishment and them using IP systems for a profit? 10x what measurement? And when has Netflix used IP for profit? I wasn't able to find any relevant cases from a quick search.
      • SolarNet 9y ago
        Their entire business model is around selling access to protected IP. (Skip to the last sentence to skip the angry rant). They lobby for DRM and the weakening of security systems to protect their profit, and in doing so are asking others to trust them (or by proxy companies that implement it, like Intel), to get it right. And yet they can't make a cardboard box without failing to respect the intellectual property of others? When they should know better? When they lobby against people pirating their copyrights? When they (or lobbies that they help fund anyway) ask for additional powers in prosecuting these violations? Why do they get a pass just because of their size? Under the accounting systems used by lawyers they have funded, they should owe this person millions of dollars (each violation should be counted separately, at x3 for punitive damages, if they distributed 1000 copies, they would owe the author 2 million in damages; in bit-torrent cases they've done this to charge students who shared an album 31 times with hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines; and yes that was sustained on appeal). They've ruined peoples lives with these ridiculous calculations. You're right I am angry. They should face serious crippling fines in return for actually profiting off of this copyright violation. Oh wait, they've actually (helped) make a felony (through their lobbying contributions) of that. They should go to jail, like the copyright violators they send to jail (is that ridiculous? of course it is, but people are in jail because of it, the companies who help lobby for these things should face the same jail time, even a 10x of their own ridiculous accounting is being generous, executives should go to jail for this, people who pirate videos for profit do, what difference is a photo then?). TL;DR: First time criminal copyright violations (knowingly distributing copyrighted material you don't own for profit (across state lines, because federal government); 18 U.S. Code § 2319) are up to 5 years in jail - Netflix helped pay for those strict punishments - I look forward to seeing who gets sent to jail for this crime when it's a big corporation instead of some university student.
• Swizec 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    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 9y ago
      What about the top and sides though? They look significantly different.
      • ggggtez 9y ago
        Read the gosh darn article. He says the sides are not his image, but the top is.
        • lighthazard 9y ago
          I guess my question was more about why the effort of changing portions of it.
          • santoshalper 9y ago
            Holy shit dude, just RTFA.
            • sctb 9y ago
• jhiska 9y ago
  >Netflix (allegedly) Stole My Photos for Stranger Things That's his personal problem, not ours.
  • devereaux 9y ago
    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 9y ago
      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 9y ago
        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 9y ago
• paxy 9y ago
  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.
  • devereaux 9y ago
    It is not a quick buck. I had some photos stolen before and commercially used in a magazine -- while I had a website, and had a side job as a photographer, and I was selling licenses to my pictures! It is a lot of hassle. I hated to deal with that. Imagine your github repository being copied, and the content being used in the next version of say the Google Pixel, with no attribution and no respect for your copyrights. Unless you enjoy suing people and making enemies, it is not fun. Unless you have a lawyer on a retainer, it is not a quick buck. Also, this is just when you "catch" the violators. How many times did I have my pictures used commercially without attribution? I don't know. It may be why I left this line of business.
    • imhoguy 9y ago
      Just curious, what is your current line of business to overcome the issue?
      • devereaux 9y ago
        Solutions-based consulting, ie from a problem, to a solution. I take care of everything. This way, IP rights matter far less.
  • sundvor 9y ago
    Why don't they deserve flak for being crap? I hate it when big corps can just bully their way. Lawyers charge arms and legs; my impression of the article is that the author was not in a position where getting a lawyer was just a "just" undertaking.
  • ozaark 9y ago
    This is unfortunate for everyone involved. The author feeling misrepresented on a successful product display sucks. I imagine the person who generated the graphic for the box is being talked to as well. Often images have misrepresented copyright details on "open source" stock sites that can lead to this sort of thing. Hopefully the two parties can agree on a credit placement to help clear it up
• guidedlight 9y ago
  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.
  • ggggtez 9y ago
    I think you are not a lawyer, and your grasp of fair use is lacking. It's a photo of a vhs tape. They are using it to represent a photo of a vhs tape with their logo on it. What "substantial modification" could you possibly be thinking of.
    • dpkonofa 9y ago
      The article admits that they modified it to get it to fit the aspect ratio of the DVD and added all the stickers on the outside of the VHS that were not present originally. Edit: For clarification, I'm not saying it qualifies as fair use but just clarifying OP's claim that there was significant modification. That doesn't mean it's legit.
      • balls187 9y ago
        Modifying dimensions is different than creating a derivative work.
        • dpkonofa 9y ago
          They didn't modify the dimensions. They added to the original artwork so that it would fit within new dimensions. They cloned parts of the image and added extra space so that the aspect ratio would stay the same but so the VHS tape would fill the entire cover. The end result is not the same aspect ratio as the original image. They also added stickers and labels.
  • GuiA 9y ago
• empressplay 9y ago
  This is clearly fair use, but rude, as Netflix could've afforded stock images.
  • GuiA 9y ago
    There is nothing clear about this being fair use. In fact, it seems to pretty clearly not fall under fair use. https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/ https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-...
  • ggggtez 9y ago
    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.
• whiddershins 9y ago
  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.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • tptacek 9y ago
    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 9y ago
      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!"
  • bitexploder 9y ago
    It is also a good question of if the images were modified substantially enough to count as a derivative work by Netflix. I think because this is also a common image with absolutely no identifying features or labeling it significantly weakens their claim against Netflix. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work -- In this case based on a lay reading of the case law it is not clear to me. http://foundrylawgroup.com/copyright-copywrong-what-are-derivative-and-transformative-works/ http://foundrylawgroup.com/copyright-copywrong-what-are-deri... -- another discussion. Based on US law I am guessing this is OK, it is not an exact rip off and has been modified at some. Anyhow it is a complex legal issue and I see a rush to judgment here ethically. Morally I agree with the author and think Netflix should just throw him a bone since they decided to ask forgiveness (maybe....) rather than permission.
• lsmarigo 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    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.
  • mr_toad 9y ago
    Depends what the license is. If someone was running their SAAS product on SQL server without a license, that's up to Microsoft to handle. If it was a GPL license, well, the standard GPL doesn't really apply to code running on servers, even if it is modified code. That's why the Affero GPL was created.
• gwbas1c 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    Actually, if you have their app, you can speak to someone directly in a voicecall. I just did so on my iPhone.
• Sytten 9y ago
  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-formal-notice-before-filing-an-application/writing-and-sending-a-formal-notice https://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/en/your-disputes/sending-a-fo...). 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.
• chris_wot 9y ago
  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!
• donarb 9y ago
  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
  • gnu8 9y ago
    Why not just send a DMCA to their ISP and have them shut off for a few days?
    • chris_wot 9y ago
      It’s a physical item.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  • codemati 9y ago
    In 2017, it seems unreasonable to say one should have to resort to sending paid postage (from Australia) to simply get in contact with a company who has stolen their work.
    • toomuchtodo 9y ago
      Sending correspondence certified mail, return receipt [1] is standard practice for creating a paper trail [2]. There is no such thing with email. [1] https://www.wikihow.com/Send-Certified-Mail-(USA) https://www.wikihow.com/Send-Certified-Mail-(USA) [2] http://www.kalzumeus.com/2017/09/09/identity-theft-credit-reports/ http://www.kalzumeus.com/2017/09/09/identity-theft-credit-re... Control-F "Do you like paper trails? I like paper trails. I particularly like paper trails where the United States Federal Government attests to the exact minute your firm learned the contents of this letter." (hat tip to patio11)
• ekianjo 9y ago
  Its not stealing, its copyright infringement. Please use the proper words.
  • Teeer 9y ago
    It's not copyright infringement, it's fair use. Please use the proper words.
    • DanBC 9y ago
      Netflix's use is very clearly not fair use.
• King-Aaron 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    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 9y ago
      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 9y ago
        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.
• ryacko 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    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+plastic+snap-on+case&tbm=isch&tbs=simg:CAQSmQEJPgGL4FiAeLYajQELEKjU2AQaBggUCAAIAwwLELCMpwgaYgpgCAMSKI8BkAHADPQM8wyOAdMBngyLAaEM4TbEM8814iaoM_1k8oTPzNf8mqTMaME300xJVC2UAe59W4oElOAObm0BHimr55XyYWrh4aCG-HRxpKELelLfbDuz-QA_1XmSAEDAsQjq7-CBoKCggIARIEb7SQ5gw&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwii4PnYn-DXAhXK44MKHci0BAMQwg4IJSgA&biw=1605&bih=644#imgrc=_ https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en-CA&q=custom+black+hard+pl... 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 9y ago
      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.
    • abnry 9y ago
      I don't know if it is unreasonable. I don't have lawyers working for me, but even I know that you don't just use random images you find from Google image search for commercial purposes. Even for noncommercial but public use can be iffy.
• bradyd 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    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.
• bdowling 9y ago
  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
• apetresc 9y ago
  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?
  • rodorgas 9y ago
    If people are licensing a proprietary work as open source, they are in trouble, not you. What if Netflix actually bought/licensed the image from a third-party that stole from the original author?
  • abritinthebay 9y ago
    Yes, it absolutely IS reasonable. In fact it’s a basic part of the job
  • rgbrenner 9y ago
    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 9y ago
      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_infringement.2C_fair_use_and_related_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Books#Copyright_infring...
• tomelders 9y ago
  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.
  • will_hughes 9y ago
    You're almost certainly correct on your guess. That said, the top brass at the agency/Netflix/etc should be ensuring processes are in place to require obtaining/verifying licences for the images used. If some idiot designer grabs images from Google Image Search, and fails to inform anyone, it's still management's fault for not verifying those things.
    • justonepost 9y ago
      Yep, junior designer isn’t really that much at fault. Senior Manager who owns the process Should really know better. That’s why they pay them the big bucks.
      • 52-6F-62 9y ago
        Don't mean to come across as nit-picky, here. I work for a media company (not Netflix): Just to keep things going straight — that's usually an art director's role on such a project. Senior management likely wants nothing to do with tasks like ensuring copyrights and IP issues are paid out. The art directors are usually the ones who know better. Senior-level managers may know, but they may also pay other people to know better.
      • pc86 9y ago
        Junior designer isn't at fault, and shouldn't know that you can't just lift random photos off the internet for commercial use? Please. Of course their boss is at fault too, but the person who actually did Bad Thing is - at a minimum - 50.1% responsible.
• 120photo 9y ago
  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.
  • bdowling 9y ago
    The photographer can register his copyright at any time. [0]. You're right though that there is an advantage to registering before infringement occurs, since if it's registered the case will be eligible for statutory damages, which can be up to $150,000 in the case of willful infringement. 17 U.S.C. § 504. [1]. Otherwise, actual damages to a photographer who doesn't sell any images will likely be zero. [0] https://eco.copyright.gov/ https://eco.copyright.gov/ [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504
    • 120photo 9y ago
      Yes you can but then you would have to be able to prove that an infringement took place after you registered. I don't recall the site off the top of my head but there is a service for photographers that will scrape the web and search for their images and see who is using their images. I think the software will even help a photographer collect damages for a cut. I saw a commercial photographer demo the site and he makes a lot of money. The laws are confusing and photographers lose out in tons of royalties by not registering their copyrights especially if a huge company like Netflix uses your work.
      • tgsovlerkhgsel 9y ago
        Well, to avoid continued infringement, wouldn't Netflix have to either get to an agreement or recall and destroy their entire already-produced stock? I suspect the former would be way cheaper...
  • NamTaf 9y ago
    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/An_Introduction_to_Copyright_in_Australia.aspx https://www.copyright.org.au/acc_prod/ACC/Information_Sheets...
• Aloha 9y ago
  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-images-without-permission/ http://goughlui.com/2017/11/22/netflix-uses-my-vhs-cassette-...
  • shortstuffsushi 9y ago
    Hmm, he included his contact @ Netflix's full name... that's no good.
    • cypherpunks01 9y ago
      It's the Corporate Communications Manager at Netflix, they are pretty much a public spokesperson for the company so I don't think there is any harm done here. It's not a low-level employee.
      • shortstuffsushi 9y ago
        Fair enough. I guess it shouldn't be a big deal, but still a little weird to leave that in to me.
        • pbhjpbhj 9y ago
          It's informative as to whom others should contact in the future.
          • lucb1e 9y ago
            (1) You shouldn't have to find this info in some blog post after some googling. (2) You should address functions, not people. People change, but someone dealing with copyright infringement at Netflix will still be there in five years. I don't think it's a big deal to leave some public figure's name in there (though I would personally have censored it out), but the argument you make doesn't make sense to me.
• sealthedeal 9y ago
  This guy is just trolling right?
• davidbanham 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    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).
• fencepost 9y ago
  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!"
• dgut 9y ago
  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.
  • exodust 9y ago
    I don't understand your position. Another small time blog has not used his VHS photo, Netflix has. Or more precisely, the production company behind the packaging. There are professional standards and processes in place that require everyone in the chain to get paid for their work.
  • 0x0 9y ago
    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.
• kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
  Shame on Netflix. They should have used a VHS-C in an adapter. Way to maintain continuity guys.
• S_A_P 9y ago
  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.
  • bitexploder 9y ago
    I think you are right. Certain types of images you can't even copyright as they do not meet the standard as a work of copyrightable material.
    • tptacek 9y ago
      What might those types of images be, and what statute entitles you to use them?
      • GFischer 9y ago
        "Familiar symbols or designs" depending on the country, wording may vary. https://research.ncsu.edu/nctc/study-guide/infrastructure/regulatory-compliance/intellectual-property/ https://research.ncsu.edu/nctc/study-guide/infrastructure/re... (Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer)
        • tptacek 9y ago
          That says the symbols themselves can't be copyrighted, so that for instance you can't go after someone for photographing or painting a stop sign. It does not say that photographs of familiar symbols and designs can't be copyrighted.
  • exodust 9y ago
    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.
• exabrial 9y ago
  DMCA takedown?
• balls187 9y ago
  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-misusing-47000-photos/ https://petapixel.com/2016/08/04/getty-images-sued-accused-m...
  • dragonwriter 9y ago
    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 9y ago
      (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.
• exodust 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    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 9y ago
      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.
  • lysp 9y ago
    That's definitely a good point. The fact that a 3rd party looking at the picture managed to recognise that it was his tape (when it could have been one of potentially millions of tapes) shows that it is not significantly different.
• dustinpkane 9y ago
  Yeah but this guy stole Netflix's IP when he made the VHS in the first place...
  • packetized 9y ago
    I'm not sure I understand the point of your comment. Could you expound?
  • lovelearning 9y ago
    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-cassette-vcr/ http://goughlui.com/the-vhs-corner/intro-inside-the-vhs-cass...
• jordache 9y ago
  Wait! I read his whole article fully accepting that target is selling Stranger Things box set in VHS format..
• IvyMike 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    Under American copyright law, no, the manufacturer probably cannot get anything. Are you asking philosophically whether they should?
    • IvyMike 9y ago
      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 9y ago
        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.
• evan_ 9y ago
  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/
• diogenescynic 9y ago
  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.
• akaa 9y ago
  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.
  • zoul 9y ago
    Taking a photo of an everyday household item is, in the eyes of the copyright law, an original work of art. It does not matter if they have used it without a license intentionally or not, they just did. What’s dumb is that this is not a poor non-profit we are talking about, this is a big company that makes money depending on the copyright law. If these cases are taken lightly, next time they will do it again – why bother when the chance of getting caught is pretty small and in the worst case you can always sacrifice some pawn?
    • akaa 9y ago
      It might be. But is it relevant? If they ripped off an entire tv show yes. But, again, im pretty sure they outsource designwork like this.
  • scrollaway 9y ago
    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 9y ago
• andy_ppp 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    > Maybe you could argue that because they were stolen there is some higher prize? That is generally the standard in lawsuits, yes.
    • andy_ppp 9y ago
      Wasting time in a court for trivial things like this is of course up to the party who has been “harmed”.
      • emodendroket 9y ago
        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.
• combatentropy 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    >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.
• amingilani 9y ago
  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
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • nhumrich 9y ago
    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 9y ago
      The vodka example is talking about the text rather than it being a plain photo of an inanimate object, right?
      • balls187 9y ago
        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
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  • zaarn 9y ago
    IANAL but I think that this rather works in the manner that for example, the Sony Logo can be freely recreated without repercussions. So you can make your own Sony Logo no problems. Same for a vodka bottle as some other commenter stated. But a copy of someone's photo of a vodka bottle or a copy of someone's Sony logo can be a IP/CR violation.
• Analemma_ 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    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.
• senthilnayagam 9y ago
  one last question will fuji cassette company or their designer get anything as it was their product, which was photographed
• SyneRyder 9y ago
  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-images-without-permission/ http://goughlui.com/2017/11/22/netflix-uses-my-vhs-cassette-... 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:CAQSmQEJhkcoXhoqXF4ajQELEKjU2AQaBggUCAAIAwwLELCMpwgaYgpgCAMSKI8BkAHADPQM8wyOAdMBiwGeDNUM4TbiJs81xDPzNfk8qDOhM6kz9iYaME0_1ihVVC6cA94hW9YExtwebm0AHiGr55VyaUrh4yCS-Hfxq6O3dlLffDuzaQfvWmSAEDAsQjq7-CBoKCggIARIEVtCQWww&ved=0ahUKEwiLkoT72uDXAhXJJpQKHUhRC6AQ2A4IJigB&biw=1280&bih=800#imgrc=9gVQ44zkeOJT4M https://www.google.com/search?sa=X&tbm=isch&tbs=simg:CAQSmQE...:
• larrykwg 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    The photographs were created at great expense: skill, equipment, time, props. Of course copyright applies.
    • Doctor_Fegg 9y ago
      "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 9y ago
        "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 9y ago
          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.
• gambiting 9y ago
  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.
• jwildeboer 9y ago
  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-cassette-vcr/ http://goughlui.com/the-vhs-corner/intro-inside-the-vhs-cass...
  • Freak_NL 9y ago
    > 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 9y ago
      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.
• oldandtired 9y ago
  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.
• m0d0nne11 9y ago
  This is the same NetFlix behind the death-penalty-for-even-trivial-DRM-infractions movement, yes?
• Fricken 9y ago
  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.
• Dowwie 9y ago
  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?
• bolololo1 9y ago
  Did Netflix respond yet?
• acomjean 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    Well in your case it seems likely that they just went with another photo rather than pay $250.
• herodotus 9y ago
  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.
• ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  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_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel.... (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 9y ago
  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. .."
• guywaffle 9y ago
  They look like different
• ghaff 9y ago
  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.
• exodust 9y ago
  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
• mvkel 9y ago
  A nice lesson in “ask for forgiveness, not permission.” Netflix came out way ahead on this one.