Art Trouble
I agree with you.
That is plainly not in violation of copyright. At BEST (and this would be quite a stretch indeed) it could be considered trademark infringement.
I think Miro's family acted irrationally. I can't see how google infringed any copyright of miro's. Did miro write the word "google"? I think not. It was just a good pastiche of some of his stylistic elements. Does a few bits of spashed/pour paint infringe a Jackson pollock? Did Picasso get permission to rip off african art in his invention of cubism? Grow up "estate-of-miro" and be grateful for the priceless publicity.
Google should have had some guts and told them to take a flying leap. I can't imagine any court finding that google had a case to answer.
Wow! I've only just seen this post on your blog and I'm pretty shocked. There are loads of examples of Miro's vocabulary of signs being co-opted for various projects. I think there's even a font of moons, stars and vulvas somewhere. I did see this on the day and thought it was a suprisingly effective variation on the Google logo (Google doodles are normally pretty dodgy looking). What a shame they had to pull it.
Commenting by HaloScan
