Google Doodle for Miró Causes Stir
![[Screenshot of Google.com from April 20, 2006]](http://www.mercurynews.com/images/mercurynews/mercurynews/14389/207051147616.jpg)
Visually, Google.com is very plain. It has acres of whitespace and none of the flashing, blinky bits that make me want to browse the web with Lynx. The only piece of ornamentation is the Google logo, which is occasionally reworked into whimsical variations to honor special events. Known as "Google doodles," these versions mark special days like Thanksgiving, the Persian New Year, and the birthdays of people who Google employees admire. But the family of Joan Miró (b. April 20, 1893-1983), the Catalan surrealist painter, wasn't pleased when Google honored his birthday with a Google doodle incorporating elements of his work. Google took down the logo at the request of the "Artists Rights Society, a group that represents the Miró family and more than 40,000 visual artists and their estates." According to their representative, "the authorization process is simple: all Google needed to do was send an e-mail asking permission to use the images. [...] We would have asked the estate or the family, and they would have said yes or no."
If they said no, the reasoning goes, Google shouldn't be allowed to make a Miró homage. But at what point can we stop asking permission to comment on the world around us, including the art that is part of that world?
What do you think? Should it be illegal to make a noncommercial collage designed to honor an artist? Would it be different if the collage was made by an art critic who wanted to draw attention to formal elements in several different Miró paintings? Are those uses different from, say, Poster.com printing entire copyrighted Miró paintings and selling them?
I don't know if the Artists Rights Society threatened to sue, but their letter certainly assumes that they should have the right to do so. And so this episode underscores an inevitable outcome of permission-based culture: creativity cannot travel in a direct line from idea to artistic expression to the public -- it takes a detour through the land of negotiation, where it can be waylaid by lawyers and the fear of lawsuits.
15 Comments:
Google was not using Miro's style for profitable purposes. They were merely trying to pay homage to Miro. Why should the family be angered? Why does Google have to act as a child asking his mother for permission to go play? As part of the youth, I understand this concept extremely well. The litigous nature of all the greedy people today sure are paving the road to a worse tommorow.
While bad press is better than no press, this is still bad press. I for one will not be purchasing any Miro because of this litigious threat.
I think this shows exactly how out of hand copyright law has become. This in particular shows how copyright law can stiffle free speech. Google did not desire to or attempt to profit from the artists work. They simply wanted to pay homage to him which in most people's eyes is acceptable.
Are you implying that Google's use is non-commercial? (If so) I think it is a mistake to not recognize this as a commerical situation where a large corporation is making money by appropriating an artist's work without compensating him.
(Don't let positive feelings about Google get in the way--imagine it's Wal Mart or McDonalds or Fox, etc.)
That said, I think the extension of copyright over derrivative works is problematic, and if our copyright laws were rolled back 100 years, we'd have a more manageable (and social, rather than legal) concern as to whether the derrivative use was giving proper attribution.
I think that concern more matches what people tend to feel about this kind of situation--hey, Google is obviously honoring Miro, therefore it's a positive creative use that no one should have the right to stop.
This is a perfect example of how our society has given in to idea that law determines everything rather than common sense. Google did nothing wrong except for possibly being nice, which apparently has become crime these days.
In that case, I'll honor Microsoft by setting ablaze all of their software that I own....
The artist's family should be thanking Google because I clicked on the logo the day it appeared and spent some time viewing the artist's work. Someone I had never heard of before and may never have heard of without Google's generous promotion. Perhaps I would have been eventually motivated to purchase some of the art one day (say from Posters.com as mentioned in the article), but after seeing the insane reaction of the family, I certainly would not do so now. That is the point that is always missed by these copyright zealots- they can make more money by loosening the leash a bit. The more they tighten it, the less money they will see.
As I do believe Google created a Miro doodle in homage - they also gained revenues due to search results every time someone clicked on the Miro doodle (the hyperlink performed a Google search with resulting sponsored links – read revenue to Google). But then I do not know if Google donated the profits from all searches initiated from the Miro doodle to the Miro family / foundation.
This is prime example or lawsuit happy (If they threatened to sue) whiny ass copyright crap...
Since when do I need Permission to "Thank" or pay homage to something or someone???
Screw that, If I want to put a link to Taco Bell's website and use there logo to do so because some cook or drive through employee made me the best damn taco in the world then guess what, I'm going to...
And if it came down to court, as long as you’re not profiting from it, then what would be the basis for a lawsuit?
It's the same as quoting text out of a book or a website, as long as you acknowledge the source, they can f*** off...
Pathetic...
I think I'm missing something here - Google is a commercial site. This wasn't a non-commercial page, like their aybabtu page, with no ads - this was their main lead in to their site. This was a commercial use.
There can be discussion about whether or not it makes sense to have something basically inspired by real art, not the real art itself, protected in this way, but I don't think there's reason to doubt that this is commercial, profitable art.
I believe that the ARS based much of their claim on the artist's "moral rights", which is a concept that is supported by law in some european countries, but not in the USA.
The "moral rights" include control over who can use/display your work, no matter what relationship may exist between you. They don't recognize "fair use" or "parody" or other concepts that we hold dear over here.
This is a tough call in my opinion ...
Google is set up as a business so I can understand the Miro family expecting a call, email, or letter for permission to use images. If it's Joe Schmoe on his site saying " Hey check out Miro's work !" then I don't think they'd care. Artists (visual arts) get ripped off all the time. So there are safeguards in place. I don't think it's too much to ask for an email from Google. BUT ! How do you go after someone (Google) for HONORING the birthday of a family member ?? I think the Miro family is wound up a little too tight ... We all pick and choose our battles but they could have overlooked this one with a letter to Google saying next year email us first ...
I disagree. Google are a gigantic corporation and google.com is -for profit-. If they wany to pay "homage" to Miro, is it because it adds a 'coolness' or 'sophisicated' factor to them, or out of love? Well, a company can not love. I do love Miro's work, and if I as an individual had made a homage and put it on my blog and the estate had made a clamor, well I would be surprised.
Miro was an individual. His family and estate represents individuals he cared for in some way and so on. But google is not an individual nor should they be entitled to 'free speech' simply to further their methods of free advertising, er, 'positive pr'.
I know, how ironic, I am posting through a google site.... tsk, tsk. I am not against google, just your complaint.
I agree that google is a for-profit site, however, can anyone substantiate the claim that the presence of Joan Miro's work had an upward effect on traffic that day?
I think'nt.
ARA said Google improperly used certain works of Miro's, but as far as I can tell, I looked at the works they cited and it seems they merely imitated the man's style. I don't think they clipped and pasted actual Miro art together. Or did they? Does anyone know whether the "infringement" is about particular works, or the general Miro style??
--LandruBek
BOLOGNA!!!
They didn't use the ART they mimicked STYLE! So if I wear a knockoff suit that mimicked armani's STYLE.. I have committed no foul. This is the same thing. I think the family overestimated the pull of Miro. I would doubt that traffic went up at ALL on google that day as oppossed to the day before or afterwards.. Maybe for the search term Miro.. but it was during his BIRTHDAY, those in the know would be searching.. No harm at all in allowing this.
Post a Comment
<< Home