VentureBeat - Latest Comments in Google takes down Miro image

Re: Google takes down Miro image

Not fair use, derivative work — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 04:14:42 -0000

First, my understanding is that some elements are copied, but more so, this is clearly a derivative work --> pt to Miro.

Second, this hardly passes a fair use test - it is for commercial purposes, and it is not a parody. Imagine if they we're paying tribute to FIFA and didn't pay for the logo rights. If google wanted to pay tribute they could have and should have coordinated it with the family.

Third, someones personal ignorance of Miro is no defense for google. Miro is arguably one of the most important painters in the last 200 years - if you can afford Miro's works you know who he is. Miro died with a deep cultural legacy, who knows what google will be in 10 years. Would it be OK if Malborough payed a tribute to Miro in their logo? Hustler? I mean, more people would know about Miro...

Re: Google takes down Miro image

Cole — Sun, 07 May 2006 00:58:25 -0000

Hey Weegee,

It was Vanilla Ice, not Marky Mark. If you approximate more than 10% of a song you must have permission, otherwise you don't need it.

Re: Google takes down Miro image

Search Engines WEB — Sat, 06 May 2006 16:45:22 -0000

This was very short sighted of the Miro family - This act of Google would have introduced the Artists to literally MILLIONS and an entire new generation.

Sometimes it is counterproductive to be so focussed on ideas that that larger picture is not understood.

Also, Google does add a hypelink to those logos, to related SERPs, thus helping even further to publicize the Artist's legacy.

Re: Google takes down Miro image

UC — Sun, 23 Apr 2006 03:24:42 -0000

From J: "What do you think would happen if Google did this on dead celebrities b-days...To be sure, they'd be in a lot of trouble..."

Absolutely. For instance, if they put up doodles that were clearly in the style of Monet, Picasso, Warhol, Piet Mondrian, MC Escher, Michaelangelo, da Vinci, van Gogh, and Frank Lloyd Wright, there would be a big stink about it, right?
http://www.google.com/holidaylogos.html

I was one of the many, many people that had never heard of the artist before I clicked on the doodle, and I am simply appalled that Google had the audacity educate me without consent of the family.

P.S. The only way that Google would make money from doodles is if you to go to a sponsored link after you click on one of their doodles, which I'm quite certain they don't force you to do.

Re: Google takes down Miro image

Me Myself — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 23:13:08 -0000

If you ask me, this seems like another instance of the use of "intellectual property" as a tool for enforcing the will of the greedy on the rest of us. Unfortunately, this has become a rather common practice.

Recommended reading: http://www.eff.org (Electronic Frontier Foundation, a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting "us" from greedy people. The site contains quite a bit of information about copyright and patent law abuse among other things.)

Re: Google takes down Miro image

R. Shaw — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 18:30:22 -0000

I've looked over the three Miro artworks which the Mercury-News reported were claimed as the source of the Google Miro logo (available on the net, by the way). There is only general sense of similarity, and NO actual copying (with the posible exception of a single asterisk-like star).

This seems to be an attempt by the Miro copyright owners to wheedle extra money. Very much a matter of business over art.

Re: Google takes down Miro image

En — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 22:08:23 -0000

It is appalling to see how obsessed with money everyone is. Anyone with ANY sort of artistic inclination would appreciate the gesture made by Google to honour an artist that they admire. All this copyright nonsense takes the focus away from the ART, and turns it into a mere PRODUCT. Miro's family ought to be ashamed.

Re: Google takes down Miro image

weegee — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 17:42:02 -0000

It's no different than Marky Mark taking the song "Under Pressure" by David Byrne and David Bowie and using elements of it for his song "Ice Ice Baby." It was blatant copyright law because it was done WITHOUT PERMISSION of the original artist who created the work. Copyrights on the net are hard to enforce, but in this case, I wholeheartedly agree with the artist for asking Google to take it down. And to their credit, Google complied and hopefully apologized. The last thing we need is some big corporation, in this case Google, to think they are above basic copyright law when it comes to using images. They are not.

-weegee

Re: Google takes down Miro image

weegee — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 17:41:46 -0000

It's no different than Marky Mark taking the song "Under Pressure" by David Byrne and David Bowie and using elements of it for his song "Ice Ice Baby." It was blatant copyright law because it was done WITHOUT PERMISSION of the original artist who created the work. Copyrights are hard to enforce, but in this case, I wholeheartedly agree with the artist for asking Google to take it down. And to their credit, Google complied and hopefully apologized. The last thing we need is some big corporation, in this case Google, to think they are above basic copyright law when it comes to using images. They are not.

-weegee

Re: Google takes down Miro image

Carmen — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 12:35:01 -0000

I knew who Mirà·¡ was and I liked his work. The google design made me smile in tribute to the man and I dind?t think for a moment that it interfered with the artist?s creativity, work, property rights or anything of the sort. I think the family has the right to interpret this as it wishes, but by choosing to reject it, are denying people the knowledge of the artist and his fans the opportunity to remember him.

Re: Google takes down Miro image

Fri, 21 Apr 2006 10:09:18 -0000

The question of whether the logo benefitted Miro's estate is not the point. The mere fact that they requsted it to be taken down says a lot about what motivates them. The question is whether Google did this in violation of copyright law, or basic etiquette in asking permission for such a thing.

What do you think would happen if Google did this on dead celebrities b-days -- like for example maybe a collage of Elvis Presley photos on his b-day, or compiling other works of art (film, media, music) into their logo? To be sure, they'd be in a lot of trouble ...

Re: Google takes down Miro image

Sven — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 10:00:51 -0000

To maintain a copyright the holder has to defend it, or it will lapse. I suspect the family (?) felt the need to go through the motion and Google just decided not to make a stink of it even if what they did was probably fair use.

Re: Google takes down Miro image

Yuri Ammosov — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 09:20:55 -0000

This art amounts to a fair quotation, plain and simple, which is permitted by copyright laws. Google should have hired a better lawyer.

Re: Google takes down Miro image

Robbie — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 08:38:17 -0000

I think that the family should be happy that Google wanted to honor him. I'm not sure if they took exact elements from his art work, which they shouldn't have done, but he created an entire genre of artwork, which has been replicated time and again (and sold!). Either way, I think the family has made a bigger fuss out of this than needed.

Re: Google takes down Miro image

catlebrity — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 08:12:08 -0000

Doing a pastiche in some artist's style isn't copyright violation. I sometimes draw Miro-esque doodles in my notebooks, and somehow I don't think this makes me an intellectual property thief.

Re: Google takes down Miro image

jh — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 05:53:42 -0000

it seems rather darn stupid to have such a prominent pointer to miro's work removed by those that try to honour his work and further its appeal and appreciation.

Re: Google takes down Miro image

Adam Brown — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 05:08:32 -0000

I am a fan of Miro and even have some framed posters. A friend of mine has signed Miro prints.

Some people do not like his work, some love it. Regardless of how you feel, I'm astonished that his family got upset that Google was paying a tribute to the man and his work.

Re: Google takes down Miro image

Salvador Dali — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 04:35:32 -0000

Miro? Bah!

(actually folks, maybe the Miro folks would be cool with Google doing it, but not every other Tom, Dick, and Harry. To keep their costs low while still protecting their rights, they -- unfortunately in this case -- needed to put a clamp on Google.)

Re: Google takes down Miro image

Manolo — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 04:06:54 -0000

La familï¿½a de MIRO deberï¿½a de sentirse alagada y no tomarse las cosas como lo que no son.
!!!!!!Ay mi Espaï¿½a!!!!!!

Re: Google takes down Miro image

vanjulio — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 03:48:06 -0000

Perhaps it is less of a copyright issue and more of an issue of etiquette and respect for the artist. Probably no one from Google consulted the Mirï¿½ family and they felt offended. They probably would have liked to had some say in what was presented as a "Mirï¿½" object (the Google logo -Mirï¿½-ized). I am just speculating. However, don't you agree that it would be a typical corpoate American haughtiness and insensitivity to the rest of the world if they did not first consult and make some communication to the foundation before making such a universal statement by their voice alone? The protocol might have been violated here.

Re: Google takes down Miro image

Megan — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 03:15:26 -0000

"Stealing an artist's work and using it to sell more products is outrageous."

Let me get this straight: On the one hand, we have Miro, a less-than-obscure-but-not-so-famous 20th c. painter, of whom I'd say 90% of Google's users have never heard until yesterday (I am an art afficionado, and only heard of Miro a few years ago, when I visited the Guggenheim). On the other we have Google, one of the best known websites in the world, which is NOT selling a thing on its home page (where the Miro logo appeared). See where one might see the trouble with this logic?

Re: Google takes down Miro image

Paul Watson — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 01:00:12 -0000

The Miro family should realise the extra awareness having Google feature his work on their homepage brings. Plenty of us neophytes who have no idea who Miro was until we saw it on Google and went looking.

And for free, no exhibit costs, no advertising costs. Very shortsighted and petty of the Miro family IMO.

Re: Google takes down Miro image

toby — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 00:52:47 -0000

Let's not forget the Google is a COMPANY. Stealing an artist's work and using it to sell more products is outrageous.

"choose sides on this, we'd pick Google's" What kind of comment is that? ...it really comes across as SB not being objective.

If google had a Harry Potter doodle without paying J. K. Rowling, would you still be on Google's side? What is the difference?

Re: Google takes down Miro image

Cole — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 21:51:59 -0000

For real??

So who's going to tell me that our entire society isn't based on syntheses of past creations? When does "influenced by" become "copyright violation"?

It's such a shame that people's greed can still surprise me.

Re: Google takes down Miro image

Frank J. Mattia — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 21:15:14 -0000

well... copyright violation or not - which i dont think anyone here is a well reputed copyright lawyer - the link (as usual google style) probably linked to a google search for this artist. im gonna say that this link probably introduced about 23423423423421234 people to an artist who they otherwise would have never even known existed. yeah - people like me. but after reading this, i kinda think that these people are more about making money on art that they didnt create (and im not talking about the logo, im talking about the artists actual works) rather than actually doing something positive for the arts.

tell me ... what ever happened to karma? did he leave the building? i wanted to ask him if he could get anyone in that family involved with this to fall into a wood chipper... feet first... :) im a mean spirited son of a bitch - but hey, at least ill be useful when (if) america ever falls into another civil war.... :) :) wheres my shotguns at...