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

DeathFromBelow said:
If he has the right to retain ownership of a photo of a product he doesn't own... don't others have the same rights with regard to images of his own publicly displayed photos? After all, they didn't simply 'steal' his pic, what they did involved some editing. Where is the line where something becomes an original work of art?

Ultimately, the real owner is whoever is willing to spend the most in court.
Click to expand...

You're talking about "derivative works" and, no, you can't do that either. The original creator retains all rights to those, as well. By definition, nothing already existing can become an "original work of art". If you started with something else, it's clearly not original. Make sense?

You are certainly correct about the court system, though. That's why this guy is using social media to draw attention to it. That's how David has to fight Goliath nowadays.
 
Skirge01 said:
You're talking about "derivative works" and, no, you can't do that either. The original creator retains all rights to those, as well. By definition, nothing already existing can become an "original work of art". If you started with something else, it's clearly not original. Make sense?
Click to expand...

No, just looking at it philosophically that doesn't seem to follow at all. I can retain the copyright of a photo of something I don't own, but if somebody takes a photo of my publicly displayed photo and uses it in a completely different way I own the rights to their new photo?

I understand the law, but do you see what I'm getting at?
 
Verge said:
Get an effin job.


Jeez americans are lazy.
Click to expand...
RTFA
I’m extremely frustrated that the piece of art they have produced resides on a box set which I cannot even hold in my own hands, as it’s US-only. I’m half-way around the world in Australia, so did they think they could get away with it?
Click to expand...
 
DeathFromBelow said:
No, just looking at it philosophically that doesn't seem to follow at all. I can retain the copyright of a photo of something I don't own, but if somebody takes a photo of my publicly displayed photo and uses it in a completely different way I own the rights to their new photo?
Click to expand...

If that "completely different way" is not enough to move from a "derivative work" to a "transformative work" in a courtroom, then the creation and distribution of that second photo involves copyright infringement. In the end, it's all about what the courts say. But there's no evidence he registered in the US, and he doesn't live in the US either. I don't see him winning a court battle. He's probably taking the right track in his attempt to shame Netflix.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
No, just looking at it philosophically that doesn't seem to follow at all. I can retain the copyright of a photo of something I don't own, but if somebody takes a photo of my publicly displayed photo and uses it in a completely different way I own the rights to their new photo?
Click to expand...

The law isn't philosophical. The answer to your question is YES! Maybe you can understand why with a larger example, placed in your "philosophical world": I'm going to convert the movie Avatar to black & white and sell it to movie theater chains and not give the studio any money.

I "changed" the movie in a dramatic and substantial way, so I now retain all rights to that version? Nope.

I understand the law, but do you see what I'm getting at?
Click to expand...

I do, but--no offense--it doesn't make sense.
 
Skirge01 said:
The law isn't philosophical. The answer to your question is YES! Maybe you can understand why with a larger example, placed in your "philosophical world": I'm going to convert the movie Avatar to black & white and sell it to movie theater chains and not give the studio any money.

I "changed" the movie in a dramatic and substantial way, so I now retain all rights to that version? Nope.
Click to expand...

That's a different scenario. Avatar is clearly a completely unique work. We're talking about an image of a VHS tape that was not created or owned by either party.

Is the VHS tape cover itself not the original art? Doesn't whoever made that own the rights to the internet photo? Isn't your Avatar example pretty much what the photographer is doing by trying to claim ownership of a simple photo of a VHS cover? Is copying a VHS cover with a photo really any different from copying a photo from the internet?
 
Last edited:
DeathFromBelow said:
That's a different scenario. Avatar is clearly a completely unique work. We're talking about an image of a VHS tape that was not created or owned by either party. Is the VHS tape cover itself not the original art? Doesn't whoever made that own the rights to the internet photo?
Click to expand...

But, the guy who took the photo DID create the photo and he DOES own it*. Just because the picture is meaningless to one person does not mean it's worthless. This is precisely why ALL photographs are automatically protected by copyright. Clearly, it's worth something if Netflix found it good enough to market a Blu-ray using it. That very occurrence shows that it IS a completely unique work WITH value; otherwise, they wouldn't have felt the need to use his.

Regarding the physical VHS tape and the rights for that, go back to page one and read my first comment in this thread.

* Well, to be fair, I'm using US law. Australian law might be different, but I doubt it. Even if it were, we have trade agreements with them which causes some/many of each country's laws to apply to the other.
 
1468908745-rickroll.jpg
 
I think a lot of people don't know how these things really go down most of the time. A company hires someone or hires a company to make them some art, the artists steals the images because they are lazy and think they wont ever get caught, because after all it happens a lot. Then the image gets big and people find out, the company has to go back and make it right with the original content creator but the cat is already out of the bag so things get complicated. There are tons of cases like this, whole countries have minted coins with stolen art, CSGO has a skin that was stolen and now is worth tons as it is labeled contraband, stories after stories. I just think that most people like to go judging Netflix and saying man the big evil corp, but its more likely that no one of any power realized this had happened until shortly before we found out about it or even after we found out. And believe me they would have happily paid the $250 way back at the beginning instead of having a PR nightmare, or lawsuits or all the other problems associated with the discovery now.

What is complicated now is that the original creator whom would have sold out for $250 if they had bought it from the start will now want a lot of money since its a big story and a mass market company and product.

Also BTW, it doesn't matter how easy it was to take the photo or anything else, what matters is that it is someone elses property and its not yours to steal. That's like saying hey it was cool for me to steal a coffee mug from some guys front porch and he shouldn't care because it cant be worth more than $20. No he might care just cause he likes the mug, if you want it, ask for it, or ask to buy it. Theft doesn't become ok just because your perceived value of the items is low. The counter argument to this is that if its so worthless and easy why didn't the artist at Netflix get off his lazy ass and take his own picture? Answer because he is just that lazy.
 
Verge said:
Get an effin job.


Jeez americans are lazy.
Click to expand...

Vege said, as he adjusted his engineer cap. Feeling proud of himself, he tooted the whistle of his model train set, that he kept safely in his parents' basement in Utah.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
As Bugs would say "What a maroon."

He never had IP rights to the images he used in the first place to create the VHS tape image.

Money Grab is Grabby
Click to expand...

Gasaraki_ said:
What? I read that article and he's complaining that Netflix took his photo that he took of a VHS video cassette tape. UMM, he doesn't own the copyright to the picture of a generic video cassette tape. The question is, is his picture of a VHS cassette tape copyrighted?
Click to expand...
Don't know AUS law, but in the US it'd be copyrighted. If he didn't submit the image the the copyright he'd only receive limited damages, but he's not really looking for a lot of money anyway. Copyright exists from the second you take the picture.
 
Wow, so many clueless people about copyright in this thread. Go educate yourselves before posting if you have no idea what you're talking about. Jesus.

P.s. No wonder you guys think piracy is OK.
 
Amazing how many people don't understand how this works.

His photo that HE took, regardless of it's contents is his own copyright. This has been legally established for a long time.
They then took that picture without permission, without compensation and altered it for their own commercial use. (And clearly it is simply photoshoped)

That's copyright infringement.


Here's a fucking terrible example of work that was only *BASED* on an actual picture.
https://waxy.org/2011/06/kind_of_screwed/
 
Last edited:
I use to work in a photo lab a long time ago.

Pretty much what MrBonk said nailed it on the head.

It isn't about the content of the photo but rather the photo itself.

Whoever pressed the shutter is the copyright holder of the photo itself.

Though the laws might change a bit in different countries such as person B using person A's camera and took for few pictures.
 
Last edited:
Hey, there are pictures of penises on the internet. Surely one of them is mine. Someone send me free money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top