Sunbeltblog comments
What a fool they are. I have an art degree for god sake, and one of the first things you do on an art degree is start making transcriptions (ie nice arty word for making ripped-off "inspired by" copies of OTHER PEOPLE'S ART.
The only people worried about artistic copyright and related issues are the vultures that circle round them, the dealers, the brokers, the merchants and the flunkies from the "we will help you!!" groups lika that one.
In reality, most practicing artists out there in the real world are more concerned about where their next paycheck is coming from, then whether Google "stole" their image.
Joan Miro has the luxury of not having to worry about this anymore, because he is already a) filthy rich and b) dead.
Alex..
If Theodore sees your screenshot.. he's NOT going to be happy...
Well I never. In all my years I never realised that Joan Miró held the copyright on the Google logo.
It is very sad indeed to know that you can't even celebrate a great artist without some fool objecting on doubtful grounds and getting away with it.
Isn't Western society litigious enough already?
Having typed the above, I note with some disdain that today, on the 80th birthday of HRH Queen Elizabeth II, Google UK does NOT have as much as a balloon or anything remotely birthday-related on its home page.
I am depressed. Who wants to buy my Google shares?
If anything it was free awareness building (advertising) for Joan Miró. Taking into consideration the laws of supply and demand, this move was not just sad, but also from a valuation point of view, stupid.
As a nerd with strong artistic leanings, I feel confident in saying that asking google to pull the logo was so far over the line that Theodore had better be applying for a resident alien card.
It's horrifying and smacks of creating a chilling effect on the artistic community.
Quote from the Guardian newspaper, UK: "This is a good illustration of how to turn a powerful free advertisement for Miro into a publicity disaster."
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/
tech...ation_logo.html
How ridiculous, I saw the logo, and like I always do when Google changes its logo for a special day, I clicked on it - it links to more detail and further sites to visit about that subject. I didnt realise they had to take it off after I'd viewed it. Everyone is inspired by something, and the fact that they wrote Google in the style of someone else surely celebrates that artist.
who is Theodore Feder i ask is he an artist ?
or is he just another money grubbing lawyer feeding off people far more talented than he is ......
Feder is an ass. There is no copyright infringed by the Google illustration. If you look at Miro's work you will see pieces of his art that found its way onto Mondrian's work. Feder thinks if something reminds him of Miro, it must be Miro. Wrong. Clearly, Teddy is just a bit too wacky to be taken seriously. I believe Google decided to take down the logo because of the grief factor only. Take a look at eBay seller, who use clippings of Miro's art for their sites. Feder doesn't stick his nose in there. Hope TF doesn't expode, whilst swelling with such public importance. The only reason he did this was that he *easily* found Google's email address for copyright infringement. It is Friday, and no one wants to work weekends.
Brian
"Only bad lawyers are ugly."
As a nerd married to an art teacher, I knew who Miro was. My wife showed all her students. Having Google capitulate was wrong.
From what I've read, Feder appears to have been acting somewhat reluctantly at the insistance of the family... I think the familly was misguided, but Google did the right thing.
Creators' rights is a tricky thicket. Years ago, I worked for several big orgs that repped artists' works (not fine art, but comic book and comic strip creators, animators etc). The line between homage and infringment is blurry, particularly when it comes to dead creators. There is a responsibility to ensure that the works don't slide into the public domain due to the copyright holders' lack of action to defend copyright.
In general, most artists understand homage; most rights holders get nervous about it. In this case, the family went overboard and was just stupid (unless of course they were being really, really smart by magnifying the free publicity with their complaint, but I don't think that's what they were trying to do). In any case, Google was right to respect creators' (survivors) feelings, no matter how misguided. Google has plenty of issues pending with regard to balancing respect for creators' rights with the public good of disseminating broad access to a wide variety of works.
FWiw, I believe that this same group went after Google for the Dali homage they did.
Yes, it's the Artists Rights Society. Their job is to represent artists' rights... and deal with crazy families who don't understand the difference between homage and infringement.
With that big bankroll, Google could have happily dropped a train on the "ARS" (pronounce it the same as an English insult). But Google's not much of a fan of over-litigation itself... or is it?
Odd timing on dropping the logo, but, of course, the birthday came and went. We'll see what Googly-Moogly does next year.
I Guess ARS has never heard of the "Fair Use" provision....
Just to play devil's advocate for a moment. If Google have had this sort of problems before (re the Dali Homage incident as Alex pointed out), then surely they could have avoided all this fuss with a quick phone call to the family of the artist?
I mean, that logo they created could not exactly have done in 5 minutes or something ie would have taken some time to make it. That way, everyone would have been happy.
And if the artist said no, fair enough. But I suspect, if the family of the artist were asked first, they may have been more than happy to grant permission.
Side Note: I personally, don't understand why they did not agree to leave the logo like it was - as in a sense they state that its copied/plagurised from someone else - ie when you click on it, all those links about the artist come up. Still, a phone call would have saved the controversy.
I remember Google doing a really great Escher logo in honor of him. Did they get any crap from Escher's estate for doing that?
Way to kill some great free advertising for your artist, Theodore. Smart move, real smart.
Commenting by HaloScan
