I agree with you here, to gain copyright a work must comprise a creative element, here this is a neutral photo of a VHS tape, which tries to be objective and by definition not creative at all, so it does not generate a copyright.
Besides the fact that “no special angles, lighting, design” is nonsensical (what makes an angle or lighting “special”?...) - how do you think stock photography businesses make money exactly?
Feel free to use all the “non special” photos from Shutterstock without paying them a cent and tell me how it goes.
The fact that he had to resort to careful pixel inspection of minute things like the position of the gear teeth, already tells you that the photo has no creativity behind it.
> how do you think stock photography businesses make money exactly?
By being creative in a generic sort of way. The Threshold of Originality is really not a high bar to meet. It doesn't take much. But it does take something.
> Feel free to use all the “non special” photos from Shutterstock without paying them a cent and tell me how it goes.
I rarely have such a need, but if I did I certainly would. People claim copyright all the time on things that do not actually have copyright protection. A great example is a typeface - it does not have copyright. But that doesn't stop people who make them from claiming copyright.
There was a post on HN a while back about someone who spent months carefully searching garbage in London finding examples of a really really old typeface. He then made a font out of it, and sold it. With declarations of copyright of course - but despite how hard he worked, that typeface does not have copyright protection. (nb. The font file may have copyright as a software program.)
