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.

Moral Rights

[TubeSteak]

"It's a distortion of the original works and in that respect it violates the moral rights of the artist,"

That struck me as a very European viewpoint. However, I went to google and found out that the U.S.A. has similar thoughts (and laws) on the matter.

I can't vouch for this particular article, but similar information shows up on other sites. http://www.carolinaarts.com/902fenno.html [carolinaarts.com]

Many European countries have long recognized artists' personal or "moral" rights in their works of art. Among these rights are the rights of "integrity" (the right to prevent distortion or mutilation of an author's work) and "attribution" (the right of the author to be recognized as the author). These "moral" rights (termed "droit moral" in Europe) spring from a belief that an artist in the process of creation injects his or her spirit into the work. Moral rights are intended to protect the honor and reputation of the artist.

In 1990, Congress enacted the "Visual Artists' Rights Act" (the "Act") to provide protection for artists' moral rights in selected categories of works of art in the United States. The Act is limited in scope, protecting only works of "visual art" that are created on or after June 1, 1991. [Insert what is and isn't protected]

Subject to "fair use" rights and other limitations, the Act provides the author of a work of visual art the right to:

• Prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation;
  
• Prevent any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of a work of recognized stature;
  
• Claim authorship of the work;
  
• Prevent the use of his or her name as the author of any work of visual art that (s)he did not create; and
  
• Prevent the use of his or her name as the author of the work of visual art in the event of a distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work that would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation.

...
Since moral rights are intended to protect the honor and reputation of the artist, the Act only protects the rights for the lifetime of the artist. ...

They don't understand copyrights

[Matt Perry]

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"

He's thinking of patents. Copyrights only cover a specific creation of a work. If Google's work was created entirely by them then there's no legal issue here, no matter what ARS thinks. Feder needs to talk to a lawyer before making public statements like that. It only makes him look woefully ignorant of the law (and greedy at the same time).

Re:spotlight

[east coast]

Joan is a he not a she.

But I agree. How much value, both monetary and artistically, did Miro's work lose over this? None is my guess, frankly. While I do support the right to the works of Miro by the current copyright owners I can't see how a simple logo can distort the value of the original works. Although I will say it did make the point as I knew immediately that it was meant to represent Miro when I had seen it on Google originally.

Re:420

[Xiroth]

I doubt it's the artist who is suing, considering that he's been dead for more than 20 years [wikipedia.org]. It's just his money-grubbing family.

Re:Moral Rights

[Thorsten Timberlake]

So, is that text about the specific work, ie. the actual painting if we're talking Dali or Miro?

Today, art is very much about reference and association (sorry, no, it's not really about the pretty pictures) so if an artist can get the courts word that by referencing his/her work you are mutilating or distorting it and you are prohibited from this practice, art will effectively be at a dead end (and will end up being about the pretty pictures, which would be so very boring imo...)

Also, I can think of a few existing works of art that could be in trouble under these rules, such as Robert Rauschenberg's "Erased de Kooning Drawing" (an important work too!) and some others that would be obscure to mention here (I think RR got both permission and the drawing from de Kooning, though).

Anyway, these google logos are all artistic interpretations of the works of an artist, they honour the artist and should be well within what's allowed.

ARS is for ARSloch

[iggymanz]

Joan Miro himself borrowed and altered some things from other surrealists. Everyone write to president Dr. Theodore Feder at

Artists Rights Society
536 Broadway, 5th Floor
(at Spring St.)
New York, NY 10012
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

or drop him a line at tfeder AT arsny DOT com

Estate of Miro vs. Google

[Netssansfrontieres]

I thought it was wonderful to see the Miro pic on Google; it made me smile.

I'm saddened by the response, and - along with near-all Slashdotters - am nauseated by litigation taking over from innovation. And, that Joan Miro, being dead and all, cannot benefit from this; the only benefits inure to people who never lifted a brush, or a finger, in support of Miro.

HOWEVER: there is a little wrinkle (note: IANAL). A right that is not defended can be argued to have lapsed. Thus, if the agency and the estate of Miro hadn't at least rattled their sabres and expressed annoyance ... then some future, less-benevolent Miro-ripoff would be able to point to the earlier inaction as precedent.

THUS: if I'd been in the seat of the defenders of Miro's estate, I would also have sent of a cease-and-desist letter - and hoped that the whole matter would go away. And, Google (which is chock full-o-lawyers at the exec levels now) surely needs to create new form letters asking for non-commercial permission to exhibit content.

The Miro Estate was greedy long before this.

[jettoki]

Ever been to a travelling exhibition of Miro's work? Tickets run somewhere in the area of $10+. This is an obscene cost for an artist who, quite frankly, had little impact on the course of commercial art. I saw the Ghent Altarpiece, one of the most significant works ever painted, for like $4.

I didn't even want to see the Miro exhibit, but I was forced to pay the price of admission so I could walk by the whole damn thing and find the El Grecos in the back of the gallery.

I understand the problems that the Miro Estate face -- I'll be inheriting a similar body of copyrights from my own father -- but Jesus Christ, people. One of my father's works was featured in a political cartoon (non-parody), and my family loved it. We didn't spit on the cartoonist. And under U.S. law, you do not have to protect your trademarks from non-commercial tributes in order to maintain them. These people are just a bunch of greedy snivellers.

Re:This is what I think about ARS

[Alystair]

You know it's personal when they submit an email address in the content of a slashdot article ;)

Re:Its all about the money

[flogic42]

Google's use is obviously within the bounds of Fair Use [answers.com]. In particular, transformative works that cannot be substituted for the original and do not detract from profits on the original (except as criticism might deter buyers) are protected under fair use. Obviously, for example, you don't need Disney's permission to write a book analyzing Disney. If you did, copyright law would be in blatant conflict with the first amendment. Quite frankly the first amendment is infinitely more important than anyone's ability to make a buck. And, in this particular case, Google's tribute was only serving to publicize the artist. It would be impossible to argue that their fair use detracted from the profits of the copyright holders.

Re:Estate of Miro vs. Google

[mrchaotica]

I thought it was wonderful to see the Miro pic on Google; it made me smile.

First of all, it wasn't a "Miro pic." It was a Google pic done in a Miro-esque style, which is why the ARS has no legitimate claim to begin with.

HOWEVER: there is a little wrinkle (note: IANAL). A right that is not defended can be argued to have lapsed. Thus, if the agency and the estate of Miro hadn't at least rattled their sabres and expressed annoyance ... then some future, less-benevolent Miro-ripoff would be able to point to the earlier inaction as precedent.

I'm not a lawyer either, but from what I understand, that reasoning applies to trademarks but not copyrights or patents.

And, Google (which is chock full-o-lawyers at the exec levels now) surely needs to create new form letters asking for non-commercial permission to exhibit content.

Google doesn't have to ask permission for a damn thing, because it was their own content that they were exhibiting!

Re:This is what I think about ARS

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Parody isn't a legal exception to copyright in all jurisdictions (e.g. Canada), sadly.

Weird Al vs Coolio

[John Straffin]

From http://www.al-oholicsanonymous.com/faq/#coolio [al-oholicsanonymous.com]:

9. What's the beef with Coolio?

Added: 8/12/03

The story goes like this. Al wanted to do a parody of Coolio's 'Gangstas Paradise' called "Amish Paradise". He tells his record label to get permission. They do. Al records and releases the song. Coolio then hears the song and says he never gave permission for it and wasn't happy about it. Al figures there was a communications breakdown somewhere and sends Coolio a public and sincere apology for the mixup saying he wouldn't have done the song if there was no permission. Coolio doesn't respond. This all took place back in the day of 1996, and by now, it's old boring news.

Moral rights

[alexo]

> 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.

Doesn't it? [harvard.edu]

Re:Wish Groucho Marx could type up the response

[Piquan]

And the REAL story (or at least, more real than the one those letters spell) can be found here [snopes.com].

While Marx's letter makes it sound like Warner Brothers was upset about the use of the word "Casablanca", that's not really how it happened. That's just what Groucho wanted the public to THINK happened.

Re:This is what I think about ARS

[niktemadur]

I think the parody factor is the whole reason Coolio is unable to take action against Weird Al for Amish Paradise

Man oh man, that's a knee-slapper if I ever heard one. Does anybody remember that Gangsta's Paradise is a straight out rip-off of Stevie Wonder's Pastime Paradise, from the 1975 album Songs In The Key Of Life? I mean, to what absurd lengths can these people go in believing their own hype and revisionist history?

The lack of originality in pseudo-musicians gunning for the Top Forty is a sight to behold. I don't mind hip-hop sampling a drum here and/or a bass there, but to use the full recycled arrangement as some sort of personal karaoke... once may be cute, twice is tiresome, three or more instances is bulls**t. But hey, if the formula works and you're gettin' paid, go for it, right?

However, the prize of hypocrisy goes to the Rolling Stones who, from one of their two hundred room estates in the english countryside, slapped a lawsuit against The Verve for Bittersweet Symphony, even as the Stones bought their estates by ripping off dozens of old-time blues artists without paying a single cent in royalties to them.

Re:This is what I think about ARS

[poot_rootbeer]

The difference is that Weird Al clearly made a parody while this logo doesn't have anything funny about it.

Being funny is not a requisite condition of parody. The term is broad enough that it covers many different forms of appropriating style or content, for a variety of purposes.