Stranger Things: Season 1 (2016) (Target Exclusive)

[LordCrumb]

The guy who created the VHS case design should sue the guy who took the photo, and then netflix lol

[InuYashaCrusade]

Originally Posted by StankYouSmellyMuch

Still tons of these. Won’t be surprised if it goes on clearance for under $10 sooner than later.

That's what I'm thinking. Not a shot in hell these are ever going to sell out at MSRP with how stocked they are.

[Brandon K]

Originally Posted by Zero_Cool

It's a blank VHS tape. No one will get paid. Maybe a free lifetime to Netflix and a copy of the movie.

When I create product mockups, I always start with taking my own source photos and I would never steal an image from someone else's website. I won't even use paid stock just because I prefer to take my own photos. The fact that the design firm used by Netflix was too lazy to take their own nice photo of an old VHS tape, and instead just stole one off the internet, speaks volumes about that agency - I hope someone got fired for that, because as a designer myself I'm offended by it. From the original article (not the petapixel, which is a mirror and wasn't updated the last time I looked), the guy whose photo was ripped off has received a compensation offer from Netflix that he was happy with. Good on Netflix for doing right by the guy. Just because something is on the internet doesn't make it public domain to be appropriated - certainly not for a relatively high profile release, for profit, by a huge media company. If I was Netflix, I would not be using that design agency again, and I'd imagine they won't be - not smart to risk working with a design company that isn't creating their own images or getting permission for image use. Turned out okay in this case, but absolutely not something that would be tolerated at any of the design agencies I've worked for or worked with.

[TheZatch]

Originally Posted by cinemacrash

I didn't backread this thread so sorry if this may have been brought up before already. I'm just curious to see if you guys have to deal with all the discs scratched and with fingerprints. I just opened what I bought during BF and was extremely disappointed with the discs being all scratched. I don't care about slips or other gimmicks with cases and stuff but the one thing I hate is seeing scratches with a newly purchased movie. The last time I had to deal with this was when I bought The Mummy Trilogy. Anybody else had the same problem? I'll try to exchange it tomorrow.

BD disc 1 of the copy I bought on Black Friday had several circular scratches on the data side of the disc and skipped several times during the first episode. It immediately went back to Target in exchange for a new copy, so you're definitely not alone.

I don't think it would have been from moving around inside the case though because of how the disc hubs are designed. It almost looked like the disc was spun on a hard flat surface or something.

[El_Fez]

Originally Posted by Zero_Cool

It's a blank VHS tape. No one will get paid. Maybe a free lifetime to Netflix and a copy of the movie.

It's not so much the content of the photo, but that someone had his photo stolen and used to turn a profit. That's not right (and straight out against copyright law).

It doesn't mean it's free just because you can find it on the internet.

[Cherokee Jack]

On sale for $14.99 on the Target website right now.

https://www.target.com/p/stranger-th...16#lnk=sametab

[Zero_Cool]

Originally Posted by El_Fez

It's not so much the content of the photo, but that someone had his photo stolen and used to turn a profit. That's not right (and straight out against copyright law).

It doesn't mean it's free just because you can find it on the internet.

Mayb I am not getting it. Are all VHS the same design? Kind of like a CD/DVD. The guy didn't make the artwork, just the tape?

[El_Fez]

Well, it's the picture that's the problem, not the content of the picture. Oh sure, the back of all tapes look the same, tapes are (well, were) ubiquitous and that photo could be easily recreated by anyone with a light source, a good camera and a cassette.

All that matters is that the work - his photo - was original. It doesn't matter whether someone considers it "art" or not, that photo is copyrighted. It doesn't even have to be registered as such (although that always helps with proving the right).

It applies to any kind of work so long as it isn't "slavish copying." Taking a photo of a three dimensional object is a "substantial transformation" of the videotape. It makes absolutely no difference if anyone subjectively views the work as "art" or not.

TL;DNR: It was someone else's photo and permission/license was not granted.

[Gold Ranger]

Just saw that target has a 4k release of this.
Im kinda pissed!

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Gold Ranger

Just saw that target has a 4k release of this.
I'm kinda pissed!

Where have you been, Gold Ranger?

That said, it's a disappointing UHD release compared to the regular Blu-ray set. Netflix dropped the ball.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by Zero_Cool

It's a blank VHS tape. No one will get paid. Maybe a free lifetime to Netflix and a copy of the movie.

You don't seem to understand how copyrights work. He took the photos. He legally owns the rights to it. It was used without his permission. He's 100% in the right and the law is 100% on his side. It doesn't matter what the photo is. He took it himself. In the US, the photographer automatically owns the copyright to the photo.

[WhiteTim]

Originally Posted by mar3o

You don't seem to understand how copyrights work. He took the photos. He legally owns the rights to it. It was used without his permission. He's 100% in the right and the law is 100% on his side. It doesn't matter what the photo is. He took it himself. In the US, the photographer automatically owns the copyright to the photo.

Actually there are tons of loopholes was the image changed by 50%?

[Jar Jar Stinks]

Originally Posted by WhiteTim

Actually there are tons of loopholes was the image changed by 50%?

That's not a legal loophole.

The question is how was he damaged? The next question is whether one can copyright a photo of x? If it has no artistic merit, perhaps no. They should pay him $2,000 just to make this go away.

[MifuneFan]

All photographs are copyrighted as soon as they're shot. It's not about damages, but about using copyrighted images without permission. He could get more than $2000 if he went to court, so they certainly wouldn't settle for such a little amount if they were to take legal action.

[Brandon K]

Netflix offered him compensation that he was happy with, and he's now received payment. So whatever your own opinions about "copyright" etc are, it's now kind of a moot discussion. (Original blog with updates here.)

[jayman3]

If Netflix has a 15 month wait until physical disc release (Stranger Things Season 1 came out July 2016. Disc came out in October 2017), then that means we might not get Stranger Things Season 2 Blu-ray until January 2019

[willbfree]

It is kind of like the Shepard Farley Obama poster, in which an excellent painting was made out of an ordinary photo of the president. And even though there were literally hundreds of photos of Obama that loked exactly the same, taken from the same angle with similar lighting (since millions of photos were taken of him by the press, especially during speeches when the photographers tend to be bunched in one place) the one photographer whose particular photo was used as the basis of the painting was able to sue for royalties.

Absurd, but, they did the work and the person who failed to license the pic did not.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

All photographs are copyrighted as soon as they're shot. It's not about damages, but about using copyrighted images without permission. He could get more than $2000 if he went to court, so they certainly wouldn't settle for such a little amount if they were to take legal action.

Exactly. Some people in here don't seem to understand. As soon as you take the photograph, you own the copyright legally. You don't even have to register, although it helps make it easier if you ever end up in court defending yourself. It doesn't matter what it's a photo of. The photographer own the image, and nobody has the right to use it to profit from it without consent or compensation.

[MifuneFan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-4r...ature=youtu.be

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by mar3o

Exactly. Some people in here don't seem to understand. As soon as you take the photograph, you own the copyright legally. You don't even have to register, although it helps make it easier if you ever end up in court defending yourself. It doesn't matter what it's a photo of. The photographer own the image, and nobody has the right to use it to profit from it without consent or compensation.

Except that you can't sue in Federal Court unless it has been registered, but it can be registered after the fact.