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.
They are big watermarks so they cannot be used without paying. Agencies are supposed to pay for theses photos, and most good ones do so (I'm currently working in a design agency). As they are working for a company like Netflix, I doubt they do not have the money to do so.
What's the appropriate process for situations like this one? Would you just make a note of the copyright holder and have someone contact him if the client likes the mock-up?
Typically, in my experience, you just buy one or more photos and show the client options. You don't nickel and dime this stuff in any serious operation.
[ADDED: But, yeah, lots of last minute stuff happens on deadline.]
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.
Not really, because the blog post says the image was modified, and parts cloned, to match the aspect ratio of the final packaging. If you do this on a watermarked image, they you have to do the work again on a non-watermarked image.
...and the occasional IP hiccup is the logical outcome. In this case, it should be simple enough to maybe even turn this into a microscopic PR win with swift application of money.
But there is one more if: if the box design was commissioned into the subcontractor chain by Target and not by Netflix (with Netflix only licencing the Blu-ray content), then no company will consider themselves responsible: not Netflix, because they really had nothing to do with the box design and not Target, because the bad PR will appear in front of Netflix's door.
Google Image Search also lets you to specify the license you are searching for, which is something anyone designing anything professionally should be well aware of.
Commercial stock image sites were invented for situations like this. Not having time (or whatever) to pay for your stock photography stops being a valid excuse when you rise above the level of "bake sale flyer".
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.