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.
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?
It is not being lucky. It feels bad when it happens to you. It will not be a lot of money. It is just a lot of problem and the realization that some people use your work to make money without even paying the small fee you are charging, and it gives you a bad reputation as the person who sued xxx over a picture.
