Thorax: An opinionated, battle-tested, Backbone and Handlebars framework - <AUTHOR> http://thoraxjs.org/

<comment><USER2> Hey hacker news, I'm one of the primary authors of Thorax. Was rather surprised to find this on the front page as we are in the middle of revamping our docs and developer tools and weren't quite ready for press yet. We are working on a yeoman generator that sets you up with a Grunt + RequireJS project here:

[https://github.com/walmartlabs/generator- thorax](https://github.com/walmartlabs/generator-thorax)

I would recommend cloning that repo, running npm link then using it if you want to give Thorax a try. We'll be doing some more press about Thorax in a month or two.

For context, Walmart currently uses Thorax in production on mobile.walmart.com and we are working on a few other web apps that aren't public yet. It's not as sexy as Ember or Angular in many ways but it's a framework that grew directly out of building a very large Backbone application.

<comment><USER3> We've been ploughing through a redesign recently, and Thorax was on our shortlist of frameworks, along with Ember and vanilla Backbone, being "opinionated" and "battle-hardened. However, we found the documentation outdated in parts and it made it really hard to get things going in a short amount of time (Ember's documentation was an order of magnitude worse, however).

In the end we decided on vanilla Backbone, due to our needs and the possibility that Thorax was suffering bitrot (documentation is always the first thing to go). However, we'd like to give Thorax another try provided we can get what we need working.

Either way good work. Thorax is a sensible addition on top of Backbone.

<comment><USER4> Did you look at Backbone Marionette[1]? I've been using it for a while now and love it.

1: [http://marionettejs.com/](http://marionettejs.com/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I love that Walmart is so involved in open source. As one of the most demonstrably "don't do anything unnecessary" companies that exists, their participation is a great data point to support the theory that participating in open source can come from a selfish as opposed to altruistic motive (but long term selfish).

Perhaps this isn't a hard thing to prove to the hn community, but it's something that a lot of MBAs I've known have struggled with.

<comment><USER6> A more charitable way of phrasing your point: devoting resources open source provides a lot of value for a company, particularly ones not technically associated with buzztech (so either fledgling webdev shops or older/more conservative BigCos, like Walmart). It's great, actionable PR; it improves employee satisfaction; its an effective recruiting tool.

<comment><USER5> In this case, my interest is in finding the absolute least charitable, least nebulous justification for open source I possible can. Not because I agree with the non charitable interpretation, but because if I can win the argument that open source is better without imploring charity, I can win the argument with CFOs and Bankers and Lawyers.

As soon as you start mentioning intangibles like charity and reputation and recruiting, a certain group of people will stop listening to you.

I think you can justify open source based on security, quality, and cost. If you open source correctly, you get more secure, better quality, at lower cost.

My personal philosophy is one thing. The stances I employ or postulate to sway others are a sub-set.

<comment><USER2> Thorax author here again. A few non charitable things have come out of the development of Thorax. On the developer happiness / retention front, I still work on projects for Walmart because I got to help open source Thorax. I'm now extremely happy there due to other closed source projects, but when I've been less happy it's kept me there.

On the code quality front, we haven't actually gotten a ton of contributions from the OSS community, but it's a niche framework and not the next Rails, Angular, etc. But what I believed happened when we open sourced it is that we held ourselves to a higher standard of documentations, versioning, testing, etc. Now that we use it across multiple departments with teams that don't really interact with each other directly, having something more stable becomes extremely important. If there is no external accountability I think it's much easier to decide to break an API.

<comment><USER5> I really appreciate you taking the time to add that to the discussion. Thank you!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> WalMart's (rather impressive) GitHub repo: [https://github.com/walmartlabs](https://github.com/walmartlabs)

<comment><USER7> Well, except for the quality of that logo.

<comment><USER2> I agree! Mega pixelated. We'll fix it. Thanks for pointing that out. Update: now fixed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> How does Thorax compare to Chaplin.js in regards to memory management?

<comment><USER2> I'm not familiar with Chaplin's memory management strategy, but in Thorax we automatically manage the lifecycle of child views. If you need to manually manage the lifecycle of views, we've implemented `retain` and `release` methods ala obj-c. It's not an easy subject to tackle in a paragraph, but we've solved the problem enough that we aren't leaking memory in a huge app in a sensitive environment (mobile devices).

<comment><USER9> Chaplin features this as well, via a "dispose" method. It'd be great to see a comparison list of all these Backbone meta frameworks.

Note: I am just a user of Chaplin, not an author.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> IMHO, it's hard for these client side frameworks to get much steam in Angular's wake.. Though Thorax is much easier to start, I think over time Angular's power will make it the dominant front end framework out there

<comment><USER11> An analogy to the Python world: Angular is like Django, Backbone is like Flask.

If you pick Backbone, you'll be inventing a lot of patterns yourself and scaling it, but I think that appeals to a lot of people.

<comment><USER12> I'd rather compare Angular to PHP. I keep wanting to look at it, but whenever I do, I never get past recoiling in horror at the examples that tacks attributes onto the HTML tags in a way that most reminds me of the early days of PHP development of mixing HTML and logic

It might be all beautiful when done right for big projects for what I know. But then the examples on the angularjs site are giving the wrong impression.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> What about 2-way data bindings in Thorax?

</comment><comment><USER14> This looks really nice. Comprehensive, well-written tests as well. Do you integrated this with Hapi.js, just out of interest? Obviously they're both well designed to not be dependent on each other, I'm just trying to get an idea of Walmart's stack.

</comment><comment><USER15> Does one still have to refer to Backbone documentation when using this? Or is it self-contained?

<comment><USER2> It's built on top of Backbone. It primary adds to Backbone.View, leaving models, collections and routers almost untouched. Earlier versions extended those more, but most of the functionality we were looking for ended up in Backbone 1.0.

Docs wise we only document the additions, you still need to refer to Backbone docs.

<comment><USER15> Thanks! This actually fulfills a wish list I had for Backbone.View.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This looks good. I have done a few Backbone projects and inevitably write some of this code as boilerplate. Great to see that the framework handles this for me while giving me the flexibility to fall back on standard Backbone functions when needed.

</comment><comment><USER17> Great name, now I have to give it a whirl!</comment>


The Most Important Writing Lesson I Ever Learned - <AUTHOR> http://blog.stevenpressfield.com/2009/07/writing-wednesdays-2-the-most-important-writing-lession-i-ever-learned/ <comment><USER2> "Have you ever noticed how other people's stuff is shit, and your own shit is stuff?" - George Carlin

<comment><USER3> As much as I respect George, I think its reverse applies to us hackers

"Have you ever noticed how other people's shit is stuff, and your own stuff is shit?"

<comment><USER4> Uh, but that's only because computers make us humble. (Or modest. Not sure which one.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> My project advisor once gave me a piece of advice that changed everything I've written since for the better. After apologizing for the forthcoming crudeness, she passed on this gem:

You're writing "Mary was fucked by John." You /should/ be writing "John fucked Mary."

I can say what I need to say in half the words now.

<comment><USER6> Passive vs active voice is certainly useful, but it's only one of many, many bits of writing craft.

If you want a whole lot more of those, I suggest Strunk & White: <http://www.bartleby.com/141/>

<comment><USER7> The problem with _The Elements of Style_ is that White flagrantly, persistently and delightfully violates his own rules. Given that his writing is unfailingly charming and enjoyable to read, I have to wonder about value of those rules.

<comment><USER8> The Elements of Style (which I personally dislike) isn't written for professional writers, it's written for non-professionals.

In today's culture people are barely capable of writing a sentence without losing half the vowels along the way, and god forbid you're American because you already lost half your U's before you were even born. Forget about adequate grammar, or even half-decent spelling.

White is a professional writers, and with everything there's one key thing to being talented and that's knowing when to break the rules. Breaking the rules when you know what you're doing can be amazing and produce awe-inspiring works, however breaking the rules because you're too ignorant to know they even exist certainly doesn't make you amazing and the only awe you'll inspire is stupidity.

The rules are very valuable, but any half-decent writer has already figured out the rules merely by reading.

<comment><USER9> > and god forbid you're American because you already lost half your U's before > you were even born.

My spell checker thinks that every time I write colour, endeavour, or glamour that I've made some grave error.

I really can't stand that, it doesn't allow me to change the preferences to English (which I was taught in school) or American English.

Btw, any piece about spelling contains at least one spelling error, yours is no exception ;)

<comment><USER8> > Btw, any piece about spelling contains at least one spelling error, yours is > no exception ;)

I know! It's the irony of the world. No matter what, when you complain about a general lack of spelling there is _always_ a spelling mistake, but you won't notice it until 5 hours later. It's like there's a frigging anti-spelling Nazi out there who hijacks your post just to screw with you.

God damn gremlins always plaguing English people :(

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Hacker's Corollary:

"The Most Important Programming Lesson I Ever Learned"

Nobody wants to run your shit.

Make it simple. Make it easy. Make it fun (to the extent that you can). Make it intuitive. Make it do exactly what needs to be done.

Your user is too busy for anything else.

<comment><USER11> Please don't make it intuitive, I know everybody says it should be but that assumes that all software is made to please the casual user. The best software is made to please the expert user, and makes them many times more powerful that the average user.

<comment><USER12> Why can't powerful features be done in an intuitive fashion? Smart UI design will allow for that. The more typical argument is one of simplicity versus functionality. But if you choose functionality, why not put in the effort to make the features as easy to use as possible?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> _"... 1) Reduce your message to its simplest, clearest, easiest-to-understand form. 2) Make it fun. Or sexy or interesting or informative ..."_

For anyone who wants to read an antidote to this drivel, try Orwell, _"Politics and the English Language"_ ~ <http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html>

</comment><comment><USER14> Bird by Bird, by Anne Lamott is an amazing book about writing. It's funny, very helpful, inspiring, etc...

[http://www.amazon.com/Bird-Some-Instructions-Writing- Life/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/Bird-Some-Instructions-Writing- Life/dp/0385480016/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254253623&sr=8-1)

<comment><USER15> Repost but Elizabeth Gilbert wrote the best treatise on writing (and by extension, creative expression) I think I've ever read. Here are some excerpts - I believe its worthwile reading the entire essay many times:

"I often hear people say, 'I'm not good enough yet to be published.' That's quite possible. Probable, even. All I'm saying is: Let someone else decide that. Magazines, editors, agents. They all employ young people making $22,000 a year whose job it is to read through piles of manuscripts and send you back letters telling you that you aren't good enough yet: LET THEM DO IT. Don't pre-reject yourself. That's their job, not yours. Your job is only to write your heart out, and let destiny take care of the rest."

"There are heaps of books out there on How To Get Published. Often people find the information in these books contradictory. My feeling is -- of COURSE the information is contradictory. Because, frankly, nobody knows anything. Nobody can tell you how to succeed at writing (even if they write a book called 'How To Succeed At Writing') because there is no WAY; there are, instead, many ways. Everyone I know who managed to become a writer did it differently. sometimes radically differently. "

<http://www.elizabethgilbert.com/writing.htm>

<comment><USER16> Robert Heinlein's "On the Writing of Speculative Fiction" ranks pretty highly up there. Starts off with the old Kipling quote:

      There are nine and sixty ways
      Of constructing tribal lays
      And every single one of them is right!

and ends up with his rules (which he describes as "business habit")

1\. You must _write_.

2\. You must _finish_ what you write.

3\. You must refrain from rewriting except to editorial order.

4\. You must put it on the market.

5\. You must keep it on the market until it sells.

I refrain from posting the Google Books link to the essay: it's much too long, and so is left as an exercise for the reader.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> One of the most important lessons about writing that I ever learned was to make sure people could read what you wrote.

Here is a screenshot of my browser window opened onto the article in question.

<http://www.penzba.co.uk/StevenPressfield.jpg>

It will be ironic if this is one of those occasions that my ISP fails to serve the page, but if you get a "forbidden" or similar, hit "Reload".

So, for those of you who run web sites - what does _your_ site look like in an older browser, and should you care?

FWIW I could read the article if I selected all text (Ctrl-A).

<comment><USER9> It works fine for me and is actually quite good.

Just to be sure I checked it in konqueror too (4.2.2) and it works there too.

<comment><USER17> I can read it fine when I highlight the text. And the article is quite good - yes. I've up-mud it.

My point remains.

I'm actually technically fairly competent compared with most of my customers. If either of my companies served a web page like that, half my customers wouldn't be able to read it. Is that my problem?? Or theirs?

It's my problem. If you have a web page, you need to decide where the cut-off is. The author here either doesn't know that his page doesn't render correctly, or doesn't care. Either way, if I were a customer, I'd be less than impressed.

So the question remains: Can your customers read your web page(s)?

 _(In your specific case, jacquesm, I know the answer is "yes")_

<comment><USER18> Give it another try. Sometimes loading a page doesn't work and refreshing fixes it.

Also: With all respect, supporting Konqueror is really stretching support. It's got practically no market share, and isn't even the most popular Linux browser. I'm surprised it isn't working, though: I thought it ran WebKit, and so wouldn't mess up.

<comment><USER17> Loaded three times, same result each time.

I agree that it's infeasible to support all browsers, and mine, in particular, is almost certainly not worth supporting. In most other circumstances I wouldn't bother to say anything, but here I thought the observation was worth making.

Not everyone sees your web site the way you do. How do you check/test?

<comment><USER9> We have lots of browsers on hand in virtual machines, every major change gets tested in everything we can lay our hands on, we also ask our users to report problems through the help desk, and we work with them to get rid of bugs.

As for having _every_ browser work with your site, sorry but that isn't always possible. There are finite resources for everything, and if you insist on using an out-of-the-ordinary setup with a miniscule portion of the users then you must surely agree that the minor discomforts of that are of your own choosing. Just like, for instance I will not support IE3, IE4 or Netscape 1.2 (and a whole host of other browsers that have met their end-of-life long ago) any more.

I've been a long time user of Konqueror myself, but right now I wouldn't know of any real good reason to continue to use it, Mozilla/FF/Iceweasel or whatever it wants to be called is available just about everywhere for the price of a free download.

Even Opera has a huge following compared to Konqueror, which is now below 0.08%, in spite of being the 'default' browser on a whole bunch of linux distros.

Chances are you're one of very few people that has ever tried to load that page using Konqueror, and chances are that the problem lies in (your old version of) Konqueror, especially since a newer one displays the page correctly.

<comment><USER17> Let me say from the beginning that I agree that I have a very old version of Konqueror. So old that there are many, many sites that I can't browse. I accept that. I'm not actually complaining that I can't read the text without doing something "special" - namely, highlighting the text.

However, I am quite frankly _amazed_ that I'm being down-mud for pointing out that this is a serious issue. You, jacquesm, are describing extraordinary lengths to ensure that your visitors can read your site. I am pretty sure that the vast majority of people don't go to the lengths you do. And probably they shouldn't.

Perhaps I just didn't make myself clear.

But the point I'm trying to make is that people who care about customers need to make this decision, and need to know they're making it.

Is it not important? Is it not relevant? Is it not an issue for web designers to test across multiple browsers? Do you not care that there are people excluded? Are you not considering this? Have you consciously made the decision as to which browsers you won't support?

Are these questions not appropriate?

Clearly there are people who feel that these are _not_ appropriate questions.

Or maybe I'm being down-mud because they _are_ relevant, people _aren't_ considering them, and I've pricked a conscience or two.

Down-mod me if you choose, but ask yourself why. Better yet, explain why. If people agree with you, you'll get lots of karma. I don't much care about karma, as evidenced by the fact that I've replied again, risking yet more karma in an attempt to make a point that I think is important.

So I've had my say.

As for why I use such an old version of Konqueror, it's a long story. Suffice to say I regularly access HN from hardware so old that I've struggled to run anything more modern than SuSE 8. The system is so fragile that I don't dare try to upgrade anything, because it's likely everything will break, and I really haven't the time to fix it.

<comment><USER9> That's true, however, I think that you are underestimating the number of people that have consciously made the decision that any browser with less than .5% is not worth optimizing for (especially since you'll end up upsetting stuff for more popular browsers if you're not careful), and in some companies/situations that .5% might even be a lot higher.

Even my bank, which has a pretty awesome website (and a correspondingly large budget) does not work when I increase the size of my browser past 2048 pixels or when I visit using Konqueror.

It's not that they couldn't get it to work, it's just that they probably don't even care because it is a problem that is too low on their list of priorities.

It's like that with everything, finite budgets -> some of the apples will fall off the cart, and in some cases that's just too bad.

The people that make the decisions are usually well aware of that.

I think what is more amazing here is that you're actually able to see almost all other sites with a browser that old, considering that the vast majority of the site operators are definitely not testing with that particular setup.

Try finding a store that will sell you 78 rpm records or even an 8 track player. Media readers that are 'behind the times' are most of the time pretty useless, compared to that your elderly browser is doing fine.

Just for the heck of it, here are the stats for a small site:

       mozilla:   160630
       IE:        325291
       Opera:     17869
       Mobile:    45175
       Konqueror: 147

That's unique visitors, not pageviews.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I think, this is really _the_ most important writing lesson:

Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox for October 1, 1997: How Users Read on the Web <http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9710a.html>

</comment><comment><USER20> good read. it's a lesson that's emphasized by many successful authors, in addition to every writing professor i've had.

a great orwell essay with similar messages: [http://www.george- orwell.org/Politics_and_the_English_Langua...](http://www.george- orwell.org/Politics_and_the_English_Language/0.html)

</comment><comment><USER7> 851 words to convey the message, "No one wants to read your shit"? Really?

<comment><USER21> Hey, that's a fun game!

Ryan, 14 words to convey the message, "That was boring"? Really?!??!

<comment><USER7> I'm not saying it's boring; I'm saying it's needlessly verbose.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Geez! Just get another account and have your old email account forward emails to you.

<comment><USER17> If that's a reply to me, I'm not sure I understand you. The page does not render in a readable fashion in my (only slightly) elderly browser. I'm not sure what that has to do with email.

Have I missed your point? Could you expand on it a little? Thanks.

<comment><USER23> It looks more like a reply to the guy who ran out of space in his gmail account. How did it get here?

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=850827>

<comment><USER24> Good question, a wormhole in the continuation mechanism? ;-)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Chardetng: A More Compact Character Encoding Detector for the Legacy Web - <AUTHOR> https://hsivonen.fi/chardetng/ <comment><USER2> About a year ago I had a webpage which was interpreted in the wrong encoding and was taken aback that Chrome no longer allows you to override a pages encoding.

I think it's interesting how far we have come with UTF-8 adoption that it was the first time I had reached for said menu in probably nearly a decade.

</comment><comment><USER3> Fantastic write up.

I regularly use the Python port of the original chardet ([https://pypi.org/project/chardet/](https://pypi.org/project/chardet/)). In fact, most python devs do since it comes with requests.

This post is full of gems. E.G: I learned that it's important for your meta charset to be in the first 1024 bytes of your HTML :)

<comment><USER4> FWIW Firefox issues a warning if it finds your charset declaration late, outside the 1024. Long copyright or license headers can cause this problem, annoyingly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is super cool and interesting. Great write-up, thanks.</comment>


Open Bank Project - <AUTHOR> https://www.openbankproject.com/ <comment><USER2> I really don't understand this fascination with enabling new "banking products." There are only five (4) features in the MVP of banking:

* Protection: I want my SoV to remain mine--which means the bank should not be corrupt [ghost transactions, transaction reordering for generating unnecessary fees] and it should not be incompetent [vulnerable to social engineering, easily hacked, denial of services, etc.]

* Transactions: When I send MoE to someone else, it should get there and everyone agrees that it did, and if it didn't, some explanation why.

* Privacy: How much SoV I have and where I send/receive MoE should be between me and the bank and no one else.

* Audit-ability: Every interaction between the bank and my account(s) should be audit-able by myself. If someone is sniffing my account(s) for social engineering purposes, you had better believe that I want to know that someone tried to call 100 times asking about my accounts and the customer service rep should know it too.

Out of these, the UoA is the only matter where banks have the least control except in their use of fractional-reserve banking in the sense of lending money back into the economy. When banks over-cook this and put too much debt into the economy it screws with the UoA.

SoV == store of value MoE == medium of exchange UoA == unit of account

"Banking products" that only seem to concentrate on sales of more debt aren't something that end-users care about and in fact should be wary of. While there is an application that "sings your bank account information" using this Open Bank Project API is probably one of the most ridiculous ideas I have ever seen with banking systems, at least it isn't selling you more debt.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> How is this project progressing? Are the banks interested and getting on board? Are there any examples of the applications using this?</comment>


How Fair Is My D20? - <AUTHOR> http://www.markfickett.com/stuff/artPage.php?id=389 <comment><USER2> Previous: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11574638](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11574638)</comment>


Netflix Stole My VHS Cassette Photos for Its Stranger Things Boxed Set - <AUTHOR> https://petapixel.com/2017/11/27/netflix-stole-vhs-cassette-photos-stranger-things-boxed-set/ <comment><USER3> 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

<comment><USER4> This is good research. But honestly you come off a bit condescending. Should Dr. Lui really know how to handle the situation where an international, billion dollar company steals his art from a blog he wrote? I was thinking to myself, I have no idea how to get in touch with Netflix. If they did something like that to me, I might go down the same path he did.

I'm glad you gave him the information he needs but let's give him a break.

<comment><USER5> _" Should Dr. Lui really know how to handle the situation ..."_

Yes he should. This [1] is literally the second link to the Google search "what do I do if someone steals my photograph" and it has a nice check box of things to do which includes this step: Do some research

Find out the infringing person's name as well as their contact information. This information is often available in the website's "About Us" section. Use a website such as WhoIsHostingThis.com to learn the website's ISP. This information may be necessary later

Typing "Netflix General Counsel" into Google gives you the address of Dave Hyman as the first link.

If you go to Gough Lui's website ([http://goughlui.com/about-me-a-short- bio/publications-and-ap...](http://goughlui.com/about-me-a-short- bio/publications-and-appearances/)) he is clearly fairly internet aware and understands how to use search engines.

Based on that I think it is well within the GP's expectation that Dr. Lui should be able to figure that out and send a letter to Netflix demanding either they stop shipping their product or retroactively license his imagery for $<x> where he might want to consult with a Photography Agent to understand what size 'x' might represent.

[1] [https://www.whoishostingthis.com/blog/2016/01/27/images- stol...](https://www.whoishostingthis.com/blog/2016/01/27/images-stolen/)

<comment><USER4> Great link! In fact according to this Dr. Lui actually did all of the right things. Let's recap:

The link says "make a copy of the infringed work." It seems from this blog post and what he sent to the customer service and PR link he certainly did that.

"Determine that the use was actually theft." Again I think Dr. Lui did that as well. It seems he has at least a basic understanding of copyright law.

"Do some research." Well he has a hard time finding the corporate information for Netflix, or even a phone number. In his post he points this out. So as a means to find that information he did contact customer service. I guess he could have contacted their isp ;) which is another suggestion that your link gives. But I'm not sure he would have found any additional help by doing so.

My point is two fold. First, your helpful checklist isn't actually that helpful in this case. Second, he actually followed all of those steps. I guess he could have googled for Netflix corporate. This would have shown him officers and directors. Whether that would be useful is hard to tell. It's also important to remember that General Counsel is an American term. It does not always translate outside of the US.

<comment><USER6> Thanks for your replies! Along with your other reply here, [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15794032](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15794032), I do think both sides could have done better, but it not a path sufficiently well-traveled. The issue at large seems deserving of some best practices love: e.g.

1) All inbound corporate communication channels should have an escalation path to the registered agent / general counsel.

2) Potential plaintiffs should be able to access the directions here [https://blogmedia.whoishostingthis.com/wp- content/uploads/20...](https://blogmedia.whoishostingthis.com/wp- content/uploads/2015/12/Photographers-Images-Stolen.jpg) from here [https://www.whoishostingthis.com/blog/2016/01/27/images- stol...](https://www.whoishostingthis.com/blog/2016/01/27/images-stolen/) .

3) The directions in 2) need additional guidance language for international issues.

4) Maybe 1) should have a link to 2) or something like it, but for more general legal issues / workflows.

I can see that in this case that a web search would have helped, but the root of every complicated, multi-party, decision problem is probably not going to be found on the first page every single time. In 2017, I'd strongly argue that it really should be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> 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.

<comment><USER8> Of course. The image in question is the _3rd_ that comes up on Google Image Search for "vhs tape" (and the first good one).

To people who argue that the person at the agency should have used a microstock agency, the problem is, the image you get from a microstock agency (without an account) almost always has a big watermark on it, so it can't be used to make an acceptable mockup.

To get an image from a microstock agency without a watermark you need an account, and the junior designer tasked with doing the mockup probably doesn't have one, and she didn't have time either to go ask for one.

Bad process? Certainly. But big corporations don't necessarily have good process. They have people sitting around in offices, subcontracting everything to consulting companies who in turn try to have the work done by unpaid interns if possible. Okay, that may be a caricature -- but truer than it sounds.

<comment><USER9> > big watermark on it, so it can't be used to make an acceptable mockup

Wouldn't that make it the perfect mockup material, as in, good enough to preview the finished result, impossible to land in production?

<comment><USER10> It wouldn't make it to production. Multiple design agencies send multiple mockups each to Netflix. Someone at Netflix picks a few that they like and then the original design agency has another set of artists ("Finishers") who made the high-res, non-watermarked, final image.

The problem is, if your source images have watermarks and the competing design agencies' don't, Netflix is going to pick your mockups for finishing less often because they don't look as good. The market selects for design agencies that don't use images with massive watermarks in their mockups.

<comment><USER9> Insightful reply, thank you!

Makes me ponder what other kinds of angles of approach are required to "fix" this problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> 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)

<comment><USER12> 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.

<comment><USER13> The vodka example is talking about the text rather than it being a plain photo of an inanimate object, right?

<comment><USER14> 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)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> 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.

<comment><USER16> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> 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-...](http://goughlui.com/2017/11/22/netflix-uses-my-vhs- cassette-images-without-permission/)

<comment><USER18> So 20 + "a few" days without any response at all.

But after an upvoted blog post they're back to you in an hour or two.

I suppose it's a truism but I'm increasingly annoyed that you would need a (large) platform to be even responded to, much less be treated fairly.

<comment><USER19> Same issue all over. It was also flagrant with Apple you notice people who try going through proper channels it's a flip of the coin whether they'd be handled or given the run around, whereas media would trigger a PR scramble. Then Apple has the gall to tell you "going to the media never helps".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> 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.

<comment><USER21> Not everyone wants to 'make a quick buck'. It's a shame that one has to get a lawyer to draft a letter to get noticed when it comes to something like this.

We're in the digital age. Email should work. Customer support should escalate and send an internal email or communicate to the appropriate person and/or dept (legal) as well, instead of just saying 'i cant (or dont want to) help you, please redirect here -> X'. This just shows how disconnected and teams are at a company. Oh and don't get me started about crappy autoresponder emails like that.

"Stuff like this happens all the time" is not an excuse. Not when it comes to sexual harassment, and not when it comes to copyright infringement or about shoddy customer support.

<comment><USER22> Even if one doesn't want to make a quick buck, making one is the best way to get companies to behave. If Netflix ends up paying $200K every few months with a negative PR hit for IP infringement they will improve their processes to avoid it.

Lawyering up is a service to the entire ecosystem, not just to yourself.

<comment><USER21> I totally get that that's how businesses are run now, and I'm sure that the OP would have to lawyer up and be prepared to spend time and $ regardless if he wants to pursue damages.

My argument is that the OP should have at least received a response from the company or have his/her concerns moved to the appropriate dept by the CS team, instead of being patronized by an autoresponder.

<comment><USER22> It's not really a customer service issue. That team isn't equipped to handle it.

<comment><USER23> They should be, though. I worked a university tech support line for a few years in college and we had a a whole set of redirections and escalations built up.

It's best that people only call you for the right things, but once they are already on the line your only real choices are to help them get to the right person or tell them to fuck off. To the extent the company cares either about service or their brand, they'll pick the former.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> 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)

<comment><USER25> Under American copyright law, no, the manufacturer probably cannot get anything. Are you asking philosophically whether they should?

<comment><USER24> 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?)

<comment><USER26> [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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> 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.

<comment><USER28> >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.

<comment><USER29> 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?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> 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.

<comment><USER31> Well in your case it seems likely that they just went with another photo rather than pay $250.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> 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_\(law\))

<comment><USER33> The photographs were created at great expense: skill, equipment, time, props. Of course copyright applies.

<comment><USER34> "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.

<comment><USER35> "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.

<comment><USER36> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> 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.

<comment><USER38> 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.

<comment><USER39> 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!"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> 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-...](http://goughlui.com/2017/11/22/netflix-uses-my-vhs-cassette- images-without-permission/)

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:CAQSmQE...](https://www.google.com/search?sa=X&tbm=isch&tbs=simg:CAQSmQEJhkcoXhoqXF4ajQELEKjU2AQaBggUCAAIAwwLELCMpwgaYgpgCAMSKI8BkAHADPQM8wyOAdMBiwGeDNUM4TbiJs81xDPzNfk8qDOhM6kz9iYaME0_1ihVVC6cA94hW9YExtwebm0AHiGr55VyaUrh4yCS- Hfxq6O3dlLffDuzaQfvWmSAEDAsQjq7-CBoKCggIARIEVtCQWww&ved=0ahUKEwiLkoT72uDXAhXJJpQKHUhRC6AQ2A4IJigB&biw=1280&bih=800#imgrc=9gVQ44zkeOJT4M):

</comment><comment><USER41> 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?

<comment><USER42> 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.

<comment><USER43> _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_infring...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Books#Copyright_infringement.2C_fair_use_and_related_issues)

<comment><USER44> Situation is obviously completely different. Google was not reprinting, packaging and selling the books like Netflix was in the OP.

<comment><USER36> Google are commercially benefitting from having copied works in their entirety. It's not so different.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Maybe he can send them a humorous cease & desist letter [http://www.businessinsider.com/netflix-stranger-things- pop-u...](http://www.businessinsider.com/netflix-stranger-things-pop-up-bar- funny-cease-and-desist-letter-2017-9)

<comment><USER46> 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.

<comment><USER47> > and fail to comply with it themselves

This photo has no copyright protection because it does not meet the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality) so Netflix is not doing anything wrong here.

<comment><USER48> I assume you are a copyright attorney and are thus speaking with good knowledge on the matter, and therefore are already aware of the legal precedent for the OPs case, and not just a wikipedia page.

Prior cases very similar to this one have successfully been tried in favor of the photographer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> 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)

</comment><comment><USER50> 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.

<comment><USER51> 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.

<comment><USER47> > That is work.

The US does not have a "sweat of the brow" law. It's irrelevant how much work it took. All that matters is if there is creativity, vs simply mechanical reproduction.

<comment><USER38> This is such a weird objection (and it's occurring all over the thread, not just here). By the same logic, do you think you're entitled to any commercial stock photo, so long as it's "generic" or "mechanical" enough?

<comment><USER36> Your even allowed to copy movies of they're remakes you know. /s

<comment><USER38> Right, but you have to put NO COPYRIGHT INTENDED on them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> 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.

<comment><USER52> 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?

<comment><USER51> 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> 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.

<comment><USER54> 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.

<comment><USER53> I dont think they (netflix) design a dvd inlay inhouse tbh. I think the design agency should know better but nonetheless i dont see the harm done.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> 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- cass...](http://goughlui.com/the-vhs-corner/intro-inside-the-vhs-cassette- vcr/)

<comment><USER56> > 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.

<comment><USER55> 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> 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-fo...](https://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/en/your- disputes/sending-a-formal-notice-before-filing-an-application/writing-and- sending-a-formal-notice)). 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.

</comment><comment><USER58> 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/)

</comment><comment><USER59> 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.

<comment><USER60> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> 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.

<comment><USER62> IANAL, but fair use doesn't cover commercial art used to sell something, like this DVD packaging. If it did, the stock photography business might crumble overnight.

<comment><USER63> Nope, commercial or non-profit it doesn't matter. See Myth #1: [http://www.adweek.com/digital/fair-use- youtube/](http://www.adweek.com/digital/fair-use-youtube/)

<comment><USER64> There are 4 criteria used for evaluating whether fair use applies. The first being:

1\. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

Source [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors)

To be clear, commercial usage doesn't _automatically_ indicate a violation but it would be considered.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> King-Aaron 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.

<comment><USER51> 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.

<comment> King-Aaron 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.

<comment><USER51> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> 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.

</comment><comment><USER66> Clarification.

No theft involved - nothing was stolen.

since this is a copyright claim, it is about a non-authorised copy - <USER2> copy not original.

Please, let's call this for what it is and not what it is not.

No theft involved, only copying.

</comment><comment><USER67> 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!"

</comment><comment><USER68> 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.

<comment><USER48> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> 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.

<comment><USER70> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> 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...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp).

(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.)

</comment><comment><USER72> 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. .."

</comment><comment><USER51> 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)

</comment><comment><USER73> 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.

<comment><USER74> 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).

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> 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.

</comment><comment><USER76> 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.

</comment><comment><USER77> 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.

</comment><comment><USER78> 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.

<comment> crooked-v > Maybe you could argue that because they were stolen there is some higher > prize?

That is generally the standard in lawsuits, yes.

<comment><USER78> Wasting time in a court for trivial things like this is of course up to the party who has been "harmed".

<comment><USER79> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> This is the same NetFlix behind the death-penalty-for-even-trivial-DRM- infractions movement, yes?

</comment><comment><USER81> 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?

</comment><comment><USER82> 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.

</comment><comment><USER83> A nice lesson in "ask for forgiveness, not permission." Netflix came out way ahead on this one.

</comment><comment><USER52> Wait! I read his whole article fully accepting that target is selling Stranger Things box set in VHS format..

</comment><comment><USER84> I'd love to see where the practice of photographic plagiarism is covered in the famous culture deck!

</comment><comment><USER85> 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!

</comment><comment><USER86> one last question will fuji cassette company or their designer get anything as it was their product, which was photographed

</comment><comment><USER87> Shame on Netflix. They should have used a VHS-C in an adapter. Way to maintain continuity guys.

</comment><comment><USER88> They look like different

</comment><comment><USER89> Did Netflix respond yet?

</comment><comment><USER90> DMCA takedown?

</comment><comment><USER91> Yeah but this guy stole Netflix's IP when he made the VHS in the first place...

<comment><USER92> 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- cass...](http://goughlui.com/the-vhs-corner/intro-inside-the-vhs-cassette- vcr/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER93> 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.

<comment><USER85> Actually, if you have their app, you can speak to someone directly in a voicecall. I just did so on my iPhone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER94> 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.

<comment><USER95> 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...](https://www.copyright.org.au/acc_prod/ACC/Information_Sheets/An_Introduction_to_Copyright_in_Australia.aspx)

<comment><USER94> I don't know about international and only know the basics in the US. As a photographer I own the copyright the moment I create an image but to actually be able to sue for copyright infringements (and get money) I would need to register with the copyright office. I can register an individual image or bulk. If I don't register I don't think a lawyer would take my case.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER96> 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.

<comment><USER41> 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+pl...](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=_)

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.

<comment><USER97> 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER98> This is clearly fair use, but rude, as Netflix could've afforded stock images.

<comment><USER99> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> 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-m...](https://petapixel.com/2016/08/04/getty-images-sued-accused- misusing-47000-photos/)

<comment><USER100> 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".

<comment><USER14> (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.

<comment><USER100> Attorneys fees and costs are usually awarded in addition to whatever damages are allowed, so shouldn't be considered against the damage award.

<comment><USER14> Only if you had registration before or within 3-months after infringement (safe-harbor).

[https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=753081a5-e633...](https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=753081a5-e633-48a0-910e-02ca37b1e3ee)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER101> >Netflix (allegedly) Stole My Photos for Stranger Things

That's his personal problem, not ours.

<comment><USER102> 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.

<comment><USER103> 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.

<comment><USER102> 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

<comment><USER103> These pictures were just up on a blog..there were no legal or licensing disclaimers. Because like most of us, he never even thought anyone would value a plain picture of a tape used for demonstration instructional purposes. Netflix normally wouldnt pay licensing fees for something they could reproduce in 10 minutes flat. If they knew they had to pay the fee they would have just created their own or used stock images..etc. Some contractor or dumb employee did it...but now they are going to have to pay up. This guy just got really really lucky. I dont see the "plight" or anything that we are needed for..other than to read a curious happening about someone who got really really lucky on someone elses fuckup.

<comment><USER104> Why do you create such an argument when the article _explicitly states_:

"Given the prominent copyright notice printed in the footer on each page, I assert my moral right to copyright over this image."

Ignoring the difficulties I have with people shrugging this off as "meh", why would people comment that way without even reading the article in the first place?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER105> 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?

<comment><USER106> 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

<comment><USER107> 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.

<comment><USER105> 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.

<comment><USER108> > 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?

<comment><USER105> Just a hunch based on past conversations

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER109> 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.

<comment><USER110> 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.

<comment><USER111> What about the top and sides though? They look significantly different.

<comment><USER99> Read the gosh darn article. He says the sides are not his image, but the top is.

<comment><USER111> I guess my question was more about why the effort of changing portions of it.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>