It doesn’t matter, and the artistic value of it doesn’t come into play at all. If you are selling things based on a photo of a napkin I scribbled on while drunk, you’re still violating my copyright.
The author here holds the copyright for those images, and Netflix is using them as part of the design for a product they’re selling.
This is probably just a Netflix designer (or contractor) who got sloppy by using images off the internet, but that reflects extremely poorly on Netflix or the agency/contractor they decided to use.
I work as a designer for a large company, and any time I make assets that might see the light of day, the company takes extreme precautions to make sure situations like this don’t happen. There’s no reason Netflix shouldn’t be held to that standard.
I thought Fair Use was a curiously USAmerican thing, do they really have it in Australia, I expected they'd have something more like Fair Dealing which gives _practically_ no usage rights (I'm exaggerating, but only a little).
The author here holds the copyright for those images, and Netflix is using them as part of the design for a product they’re selling.
Fair use only applies when it is for a “”transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work.” (https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-...) which is not the case here.
This is probably just a Netflix designer (or contractor) who got sloppy by using images off the internet, but that reflects extremely poorly on Netflix or the agency/contractor they decided to use.
I work as a designer for a large company, and any time I make assets that might see the light of day, the company takes extreme precautions to make sure situations like this don’t happen. There’s no reason Netflix shouldn’t be held to that standard.