Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Google Violates Miro's Copyright? 651

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Violates Miro's Copyright?

Comments Filter:
  • by layer3switch ( 783864 ) on Sunday April 23, 2006 @10:23AM (#15184524)
    ARS-holes

    There you have it.
  • by koweja ( 922288 ) on Sunday April 23, 2006 @10:24AM (#15184528)
    Is it possible that the visual art world is more interested in money than art and expression? I can't believe it.
  • by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Sunday April 23, 2006 @10:31AM (#15184549)
    I had never heard of the artist until Google used an interpretation of her art

    It doesn't look like your knowledge of Miro has improved much since Google educated you.

    Miro is a man...
  • by expressovi ( 952511 ) on Sunday April 23, 2006 @10:34AM (#15184564)
    Why would they care? Google has a very small user base, I doubt anyone saw it...
  • by Intron ( 870560 ) on Sunday April 23, 2006 @10:34AM (#15184566)
    To whom it may concern,

    Your use of colored rectanglular windows violates the copyrights of the Mondrian estate. Please refrain from any use of colored rectangles on your site in the future. If you wish to consider licensing the use of these images, the per-rectangle license is quite reasonable. Please contact us at the address listed.

    Thank you
  • by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Sunday April 23, 2006 @10:38AM (#15184597)
    maybe he was a woman?

    He was a surrealist remember. Ceci n'est pas une man...
  • by vortex2.71 ( 802986 ) on Sunday April 23, 2006 @10:46AM (#15184636)
    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/ [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.
  • by itzdandy ( 183397 ) on Sunday April 23, 2006 @10:47AM (#15184643) Homepage
    To whem it may concern,

    Your use of such a 'warning message' violates the copyrights held by myself on sending such warning messages. in the future if you wish to send such a warning letter you may wish to license the use of specific statements such as "please refrain from" and "your use of XXXX violates the copyrights of"

    additionally, my firm maintains a patent on the method of ending such warning letters with false friendlyness and we are currently not licensing the use of the "Thank you" message at this time.

    Thank you

    ©2005 Warning letters and label Co.
    ®the "To whem it may concern," opening is a registered trade mark of Warning letters and label Co.

  • by bcarl314 ( 804900 ) on Sunday April 23, 2006 @10:53AM (#15184681)
    Come on. Maybe I'm a little old fashioned (I am over 20) but I would certainly consider having google make a rendition of my work to (assumedly) celebrate my birthday (or other event) an honor. But I guess if your an "artist" going for the "I'm poor, struggling and not recognized for my talent" approach, this could be devestating to your "morals".

    If google really wanted to get all pissy about this, they should just laugh and say "ha ha" it's a parody on your art work and therefore protected! Ha ha you're a funny artist!
  • by russ1337 ( 938915 ) on Sunday April 23, 2006 @11:29AM (#15184834)
    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.
  • by GromBulk ( 524814 ) on Sunday April 23, 2006 @11:46AM (#15184904)
    Don't buy his work!
    He's evil!

  • IP rights (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 23, 2006 @12:04PM (#15184988)
    There is a story by some guy about something related that mentions running out of new ideas , but due to copy restrictions I can't mention the specific story, the writer, or even any details about the story without violating somebody's IP rights.

    (sarcasm flag for the humor impaired!)
  • by gaijin99 ( 143693 ) on Sunday April 23, 2006 @12:07PM (#15185004) Journal
    Agree. Copyright covers a specific arrangement of words, or a specific image. An image that is similar to a copyrighted image is not a copyright violation.

    Now, maybe if his family had patented his artistic style they could claim Google violated their patent. Hmmm... I wonder if I could patent an artistic style and exploit the US patent system for my own profit. To heck with business model patents, can you imagine owning the patent for slasher flicks?
  • Re:PR (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 23, 2006 @12:20PM (#15185067)
    Didn't you people ever listen to Tone Loc? He knew this was a deficiency in today's educational system and wrote a song that addresses the mystery of Joan Miro's gender. Behold:

    I went up to this girl, she said, "Hi, my name is Joan Miro"
    I thought she'd be good to go with a little Funky cold Medina
    She said, "I'd like a drink, " I said OK, I'd go get it
    Then a couple of sips, she sold licked her lips
    And I knew that she was with it
    So I took her to my crib, and everything went well as planned
    But when she got undressed, it was a big old mess
    Miro was a man
    So I threw him out, I don't fool around
    With in Oscar Meyer weiner
    You must be sure that your girl is pure
    For the Funky Cold Medina
  • by Kadin2048 ( 468275 ) <slashdot.kadin@xox y . net> on Sunday April 23, 2006 @01:20PM (#15185339) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • by Buran ( 150348 ) on Sunday April 23, 2006 @01:49PM (#15185464)
    I have never heard of a country called Egipt. Now, if you meant Egypt, that wasn't a Disney movie, that was Dreamworks.

    Now who the hell are Desney and Miky and Cinerela? And your U key seems to be malfunctioning and producing Os instead.
  • by nihaopaul ( 782885 ) on Sunday April 23, 2006 @01:52PM (#15185483) Homepage
    Dear Theodore Feder,

    I am disappointed in your act towards google in the tribute they done for miro, in-fact i wasn't aware who miro was until i saw the tribute and done some research, its people like you and companies like yours that shame artists like those. i hope you can sleep at night knowing that you had the chance to help educate millions of people, but took it away with one FOUL swoop.

    sux2bu(TM)

    Paul

    _Legal Notes_
    sux2bu(TM) is a trademark of nihaopaul, reproduction, use or storage of sux2bu(TM) without prior written consent will result in a banana being shoved up your arse by a family member. by reading this digital transmission you agree to comply with these terms set forth
  • by linvir ( 970218 ) on Sunday April 23, 2006 @02:11PM (#15185579)
    No, Google were obviously trying to masquerade their logo as official work of Joan Miró in order to trick his devoted fans into using their search service. It's the only possible explanation, and it's only right that they be stopped!
  • by Catskul ( 323619 ) * on Sunday April 23, 2006 @02:12PM (#15185582) Homepage
    Dear Russ one three three seven,

                Your use of of the concept of the "running gag", as patented by me, is in violation of "running gag" patent which I hold. You too can make use of this concept with four easy payments of $19.95 plus s/h to

    1337 beowulf cluster lane,
    Doesitrunlinux, VA, 3133t

              Thanks,
              TiredRunningGags.com
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 23, 2006 @03:06PM (#15185802)
    Yeah, I'd like to be able to buy a Miró too but hey... It costs a major dollar.
  • by john82 ( 68332 ) on Sunday April 23, 2006 @03:28PM (#15185907)
    "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."
  • by nmb3000 ( 741169 ) on Sunday April 23, 2006 @03:55PM (#15185997) Journal
    U.S. Patent 123,456,788: "Method for killing off annoying characters first."

    So that's why Anakin didn't die until the 3rd movie. Lucas didn't want to get sued!

    It makes so much more sense now.
  • by Lectrik ( 180902 ) on Sunday April 23, 2006 @04:17PM (#15186091)
    Anakin doesn't die in the 3rd movie.


    Geez, thanks for the spoiler warning.
    Next thing you know, you're gonna tell us the monkey dies at the end of King Kong
  • Dear Catskul,

    Your attempt to get the "last word" on this highly moderated "running gag" is in violation of the "last word" patent which I hold.

    However no action is required on your part. The posting of this notification is sufficient to transfer the "last word" to another party.

    Any further attempts by you or anyone else to obtain the "last word" in this "running gag" will be met with laughter and derision.

    Regards,

    Last Words Inc.

Intel CPUs are not defective, they just act that way. -- Henry Spencer

Working...