Slashdot Mirror


Google Violates Miro's Copyright?

Anonymous Coward writes "In a homage to Joan Miro on his birthday, Google changed its logo as to spell out the word "Google" in Miro's style. Google has a history of changing its logo in order to commemorate events and holidays of particular significance. In this case, the homage was not well received by the Miro family or the Artists Rights Society which represents them, as reported by the Mercury News. According to Theodore Feder, president of the ARS, "There are underlying copyrights to the works of Miro, and they are putting it up without having the rights". The ARS demanded that Google removed the logo, and Google complied, though not without adding that it did not believe it was in violation of copyright. The ARS has raised similar complaints regarding Google's tribute to Salvador Dali in 2002. "It's a distortion of the original works and in that respect it violates the moral rights of the artist," Feder said." It seems to me that the art world has a glorious history of incorporating prior art into modern creations. It's amusing to me that ARS doesn't understand that.

5 of 651 comments (clear)

  1. Could it be? by koweja · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is it possible that the visual art world is more interested in money than art and expression? I can't believe it.

  2. CEASE AND DESIST by vortex2.71 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dear Unity100,

    As the legal representative of "PatentRight" a conglomerate of over fifty major multinational companies that have organized to protect their joint legal rights against patent and copyright violation, we hereby inform you that your April 23, 2006 posting to Slashdot (http://slashdot.org/ is in violation of five of our clients patent and copyright holdings. Please remove your post immediately: "Well, it seems that after some 50 years or so, we wont be able to use any shape, image, saying, metaphor or the like without consulting an intellectual property expert and acquiring appropriate rights, the way things going." Violations include:

    1) The use of "Well" in this context is owned by the American Groundwater Corporation.
    2) Bicentenial Celebrations Inc. owns a copyright for the use of "50 years".
    3) While "shape, image, saying, metaphor" is not explicitly governed by previous copyright or patent filings, SISM (Systemically Integrated Seismology Measurments, LLC) does own rights to the SISM acronym and has the legal right to slogans which attempt to infringe on this acronym.
    4) Several patent law firms are currently in arbitration to decide the legal owners of "Intellectual Property Experts" and your use of this phrase here will not be tolerated.
    5) "apropriate rights" is held by Planned Parenthood.

  3. Re:'Intellectual property' concept is going too fa by russ1337 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dear Itzdandy,

    Use of comical parody, being your post on /. on Sunday 23 Day of April in the year 2005, is a violation of the parody copyright with which our company holds.

    If you wish to make a parody of someones post, we are able to licence this to you at a reasonable cost.

    Regards,

    Parody Inc.

  4. My future portfolio... by Kadin2048 · · Score: 5, Funny

    U.S. Patent 123,456,789: "Method for incorporating a teenage girl in a shower in a horror movie."
    U.S. Patent 123,456,788: "Method for killing off annoying characters first."
    U.S. Patent 123,456,787: "Method for splitting up and covering more ground this way (and sending that fat kid into the basement by himself)."

    I can feel the money rolling in already.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  5. Re:Its all about the money by john82 · · Score: 5, Funny

    "In other news, a New York law firm has filed a class-action lawsuit against the estate of Spanish surrealist artist Joan Miro and a group calling itself the Artists Rights Society. The suit was filed on behalf of millions of seven to nine year old children world wide. The firm, Dewey, Cheatham & Howe, claim that numerous pieces by the late artist infringe on the implied copyrighted works of elementary school children who, owing to their age, have been by and large drawing in a flat linear style mimiced by Miro. In filing the suite, DCH released a statement saying that Miro had knowingly been copying the works of children for years without proper attribution or remuneration."