6 ms·
Thank you. Honestly, it's not like the author worked 10 years on a Mona Lisa painting. It's a plain shot of a tape. Boohoo.
by vadimberman 9y ago
Thank you.
Honestly, it's not like the author worked 10 years on a Mona Lisa painting. It's a plain shot of a tape. Boohoo.
- function_seven 9y agoThat Netflix could have shot themselves. But they didn’t. It was easier (cheaper) to use someone else’s work for free.
- vadimberman 9y agoSo if the Netflix shot it, the author would not be compensated. In the current situation, he wasn't compensated. Is there a tangible difference for the "victim"?
- function_seven 9y agoIf Netflix did their own creative work, the author would not be compensated. But they appropriated his work instead, without paying or even asking. That’s not ok. Especially for a company who relies on copyrights to secure their own profits.
- vadimberman 9y agoSo you agree that there is no difference for the author.
- function_seven 9y agoNo I don’t. Maybe no difference in his bank account, but morally speaking it’s the difference between being taken advantage of and being respected. Also, there’s a 3rd option Netflix could have chosen: licensing the author’s work.
- bkor 9y agoHe just explained the difference. Using someones work vs creating your own work is different.
- hellofunk 9y agoYou are making a number of unfair assumptions about the actual act that took place and its motivation. As pointed out elsewhere, it is very unlikely that Netflix as a company did this intentionally.
- ProAm 9y agoUnintentionally breaking the law is still breaking the law. This will cost Netflix nothing to the grand scheme to remedy.
- hellofunk 9y agoTrue, but he said "Netflix could have shot themselves," when probably they had nothing to do with the image acquisition. Netflix itself, as a company, or anyone at it, most likely had no intention of using this image for free, hence some unfair assumptions made by my parent. But the victim here still needs to be compensated.
- function_seven 9y agoI’m using “Netflix” to encompass them, their agents, or affiliated production company. Somebody somewhere didn’t do their job in clearing the photo. They just found something online and went with it. That wasn’t an accident unless they don’t know their job.
- vlunkr 9y agoThat doesn't mean they don't deserve to be compensated. The work I did today wasn't incredibly difficult and someone else could have done it, but that doesn't mean I'd be fine if my boss decided not to pay me for it.
- vadimberman 9y agoHow exactly do you believe a random photo is to be compensated? If it were on a stock photo website, sure. Otherwise, how do you believe the transaction were to be arranged? It wasn't work done for Netflix. He put it somewhere and did NOT expect to be paid for it.
- ProAm 9y agoTake 1000 photos and 1 might make you earn enough to consider it a meager living, but you still had to take the other 999 to get to that point. That's how art works. That's how most jobs work.
- vadimberman 9y agoI don't think there was anything close to 1000 there. It was one puny random unremarkable photo which had nothing to do with art or a job.
- sumedh 9y agoYou are missing the point. Maybe he didnt upload those other 999 photos on the blog.
- vadimberman 9y agoReally now? If there was a way to verify, I would put money on the assumption that he has not uploaded the other 999 photos to the blog because there were no 999 photos.
- 9y ago