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.
I doubt any of the original artists would have a problem with it. It seems that it is family's that are interested in the financial gain from complaining to Google about it. This tiny excerpt from the article explains it all: "In September, the Authors Guild sued Google for reproducing works..." Come on! The Google symbol in the likeness of an artist is honoring them. It would only help increase the value's of their works, and peoples awareness of them. They just see Google as a big money pit they can take from.
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.
Read radical news here
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.
It's not that they don't understand, it's more that they're trying very hard to make everybody else forget that fact. They, as well as certain **AAs, behave like rabid dogs protecting their food, so that they have grounds to claim money for the use of this or that piece of art whenever possible and not be contested.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
this is nothing more than selfishness at work!(ok, maybe some greed!)
paying respect to a dead artist is perfectly acceptable and should be encouraged! this has been happening for 'EVER' and many many many of the most famous artists are only famous now because their work has been emulated and now integrated into modern culture.
no exploitation is happening here, just good ol' respect!
I don't think anybody should have to ask permission to use elements of a dead artist's work which are over 65 years old. Miro's contribution to popular culture is pervasive. There is no basis for restricting wholesale reproduction of his works outside of the obscene length of time we allow for copyright in the West. Much less should we be allowed to restrict the use of simple elements and basic tributes of extremely common, influential, and well publicized art.
they created their own, in a style that was influenced by him.
imagine if Manet had been able to copyright French Impressionism, or Picasso cubism, or Renoir portraits.
While I agree with the above post, IMHO, Google should have the courtesy of asking permission from the controlling body.
Why? Why should they need to ask permission to use the style of a dead artist in their logo?
Miro, like him or not, contributed something to our shared culture. We ALL have the right (morally, not necessarily legally) to make use of that contribution. In this case Google did a tribute to him, which makes the complaints all the more offensive, but I would say the same thing if they had created their "normal" logo, purely out of commercial self-interest, from his style.
Miro family: Get out of the shadow of your one famous ancestor and do something with your lives. The modern world doesn't need de facto aristocracies. Make a name for yourselves, or fade into oblivion. Don't expect society to let you rest on the long-dead laurels of a relative who did accomplish something.
Theodore Feder and the Artists Rights Society: You spout non-stop self-aggrandizing BS about how much your members contribute to our culture, then deny us access to that same culture. You disgust me as the worst kind of hypocrits. Just cease to exist.
1. Google puts up company logo in the artistic style of Joan Miro to honor him.
2. Miros and ARS family tells Google to take it down as it is violating copyrights.
3. The net says "WTF?"
4. Profits from publicity? (NOT)
Shouldn't it be:
1. Google puts up company logo in the artistic style of Joan Miro to honor him.
2. Web surfers Google "Joan Miro".
3. More people find they like his art and buy some.
4. Profit goes to his family and everyone's happy.
Sounds like they are being penny-wise and pound-foolish.
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
Indeed. In addition - could the Google logo be considered a parody? IIRC, you can make parodies without infringing on copyrights. Weird Al does this a lot, though I get the impression that he does ask first out of courtesy. I think the paridy factor is the whole reason Coolio is unable to take action against Weird Al for Amish Paradase (a parody of Gangsta's Paradise that Weird Al claims he got permission from the record company to do, but Coolio claims he never gave permission).
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
Just to follow up on my own point, Google being barred from doing a Miró-like logo is the same as if, not only were you not allowed to draw an unuathorized Charlie Brown, Linus or Snoopy, but you couldn't even sketch an anonymous character in a "Peanuts-esque" style. Taking that to an extreme, future sitcom writers could get sued for writing scripts that veered too close to "Seinfeldian" humor. Fast food joints could get hauled into court for having processed meat chunks that were too "McNuggetty." Future presidents could be impeached for aping an authoritarian swagger that was too "Bushist."
Hmm, objection withdrawn, Your Honor.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
. . .google did not just happen to make a logo that looked like miro's style and use it.
"Style" is not something that can be copyrighted. Only works can be copyrighted.
See ragtime, blues, jazz, boogie woogie, rock & roll, etc., as opposed to Maple Leaf Rag, Sweet Home Chicago, Take Five, Roll 'em Pete and Purple Haze.
The former are styles, the latter are works. You can copyright Take Five. You cannot copyright 5/4 time.
In fact, the Google logo was their own creative work that they own the copyright on. It was just in emulation of Miro's style, not a copy of one of his works.
The claim of any "moral" rights is so assinine I almost don't know what to say about it. The law does not recognize "moral" rights. It grants a monopoly on copying and may impose monetary recompense against losses incured by such copying. Without the law the artist has absolutely no rights whatsoever, except maybe to be a dickhead.
And I wonder just what sort of monetary losses the Miro heirs feel they have suffered by Google making an original work in tribute to Miro?
KFG
I'm...speechless.
Let's get this straight.
*The* most popular search engine in the world, with billions of hits per day, puts *your* work on its front page.
Billions of people who've never heard of you before will now find out about you.
And you say...
"TAKE IT DOWN AT ONCE!!"
I've seen stupid, but then there's *STTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTUPID*.
I wouldn't say it's a parody, but rather a homage. That said, unless they incorporated his art directly, I don't see how copyright applies. You can't copyright a style. If Google's logo was incorporating art that wasn't Google's, they either need to license it or make a case for "fair use."
--JoeProgram Intellivision!
copying other artists' styles is such a common practice in art that it's more noteworthy to see an original style than to see a copied (albeit altered) style.
Agreed whole-heartedly! As a visual artist, myself, it is nigh impossible to create something that isn't influenced by established styles. In fact, that was part of my education at Pratt Institute in NYC - learning the styles and accomplishments of Miro and countless others, and incorporating some of their ideas in clever, new executions. Likely, this sort of thing is more subtle than Google's outright references, but that could easily be argued as a subjective perception.
If somebody made a visual reference or "quotation" of my work, I would be flattered, to say the least. I guess Google's main mistake was verbally attributing the inspiration for the restyled logo to Joan Miro. But in my opinion as an artist, this was a best-intentioned and visually witty tribute.
In other words, the organization that owns the Olympics logo would have had a legitimate complaint, while the ARS most emphatically does not.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
What's totally hilarious about this is what ultimately the google logo thing brings more attention to the artist's work. You go to google one day, the logo looks funky, and you wonder why. So you click the logo and are now finding out all about Miro, etc.
Not only is this not any obvious violation of copyright law, but IT HELPS THEM. It's free freaking advertising for the artist and presumably could lead to better returns on sales of the art, etc. Whiners.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Having looked at The Escape Ladder, Nocturne, and The Beautiful Bird..., I don't see where they "incorporated images" directly from any of these paintings. Certainly the style is the same, but that is the purpose of the tribute.
The sad part is I'd never heard of Miro before and usually enjoy learning from the little sporadic tidbits Google provides. It would be a shame if Google decided to stop including artists because ARS is over-protective. I could understand their point if Google was trying to profit from using Miro's art in any way, but it just seems to be a fun way to raise awareness.
Does anyone else find it ironic that you can't buy advertising on Google's front-page and people who get some free publicity on one of the most-visited pages on the 'net are complaining.
Comment removed based on user account deletion