Comment by combatentropy | Hacker News Reader

Comment by combatentropy | Hacker News Reader

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

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.

Netflix is 100% in the business of using copyright to charge for things. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Regarding point 1, that's now how copyright works. All they have to know is that they don't have a license for the photos. Regarding point 2, yes, that's how commerce works. People do things for other people; one saves labor and the other gets paid. Regarding 3, under US law the videotape is likely a "utility object", meaning Fuji can't assert a copyright claim.

As to your questions on copyright, there are many reasonable solutions, and I think our current copyrights are far longer than necessary to reward creators. However, I don't think anybody would suggest that photos have a copyright of just 3 years, as would be the case for these photos to have an expired copyright.

>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.

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?

It sounds like the whole thing is making a mountain out of a molehill, but even more absurd claims were made in the Apple/Samsung lawsuits.

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.

That 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.

How 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.

Take 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.

I 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.

You are missing the point. Maybe he didnt upload those other 999 photos on the blog.

Really 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.

Do you upload each and every photo you take to your blog?

Do you believe that someone in sound mind will take 1,000 photos of a VHS tape to put on a low-traffic blog?

You have completely missed the metaphor. Let me break it down for you.

Everyone is not born as a good photographer. So people practice by taking many photos of various things, now all of them wont be good, some of them can be good but they probably wont be noticed by anyone but there will be that one photo which will be good and gets noticed by people that matter and they will pay a good amount for that photo.

So that 1 photo will make up for zero revenues from all the other photos. The 1000 photos is a metaphor, dont take it literally.

Now do you get it?

The point is you don't know which of the 1000 is going to be your pay day.

That's the whole purpose of a stock photo website.

To easily track down the owner of the image and buy a license to use it for money.

You can do it manually by contacting a person directly, negotiating a fee for a license to use that image, but that takes time. Stock sites speed up the process.

Just because the photo was not sourced from a stock photo website does not remove the need for copyright or payment.

It's like saying "I copied a dvd and didn't buy it from a dvd shop, so I don't need to pay for it".

That Netflix could have shot themselves. But they didn’t. It was easier (cheaper) to use someone else’s work for free.

So 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"?

If 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.

So you agree that there is no difference for the author.

No 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.

He just explained the difference. Using someones work vs creating your own work is different.

You 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.

Unintentionally breaking the law is still breaking the law. This will cost Netflix nothing to the grand scheme to remedy.

True, 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.

I’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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com