What is Digg?233 Comments
- desiv, on 10/12/2007, -6/+263How dare you pay tribute to my relative!!!
...idiots... - grooviekenn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+174If you clicked on the logo it took you to a search result page for the artist...
...Doubly idiotic - quokkapox, on 10/12/2007, -3/+157Yes, how dare Google create tens of thousands of new Miro fans, thus making Miro owners everywhere slightly richer?! What a crime!
- Junto, on 10/12/2007, -5/+159Google seemingly lacked choices for the 20th of April. Joan Miró, Muhammad, Luther Vandross or Adolf Hitler. I doubt a red Swastika would be seen as a good choice for an alternative Google logo.
- exilio, on 10/12/2007, -8/+61Cry me a river ... all of this copyright ***** is out of control.
- Wolfboy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+50re: "I'd never heard of her before"
Joan Miró was a "him," not a "her."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Mir%C3%B3 - Genma, on 10/12/2007, -7/+49I'd never heard of her before that, just like the rest of the world who saw that page. which would have been up for ONE DAY. this is just a big "***** you" from the ARS basically out of spite, just like the Dali logo after that whole library thing. any chance to protect the cash and jump on someone using their name on the scary interweb. gimme a break, it's not like they actually put up a copy of a painting, it's a few thousand pixels containing 6 letters decorated with style.
- elioty, on 10/12/2007, -6/+47So the ARS has the copyrights to all of Miros paintings and they're asking Google to take down the image because it is "a plain and brazen violation of copyright law." Does that mean Miro has a painting with the word 'Google' in it? Just as Google said, they were only doing it to "celebrate people we admire," yet the ARS finds fault with that? I mean, come on.
- sarcoma, on 10/12/2007, -1/+41http://www.google.com.au/logos/miro.gif
- Kuipo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+39Not if they are paying tribute to him! How DARE they!
- acarneiro, on 10/12/2007, -6/+38Message to the president of the Artist's Rights Society:
Dear Dr. Feder:
With regards to your request to Goole to remove their tribute image from their website, all I have to say is that it seems to reveal an extraordinary narrow-mindedness and complete alienation of the world of today on your part.
Google is, whether you like it or not, a powerful entity in the world of the Internet and as a result a growing influence in society today.
It seems to me like you lost a great oportunity to further Miro's work and fame, and in the process came across to the Internet community as an old, dusty and decrepit organisation who is unable to change and keep up with evolution.
Yours sincerely
A. Castro Carneiro - Mesach, on 10/12/2007, -4/+34so no one can pain in the miro style?
- TheReport, on 10/12/2007, -5/+31This proves the theory that ego streches even after the Artists' life. I loathe these stories of relatives that ride on the coat tails of their more well known counterparts and try to maintain the legacy by saying ***** like "He would of disapproved or Its not in the families best intrest". One names comes to mind when I hear these kind of stories. Yoko Ono *shudders*
- duke, on 10/12/2007, -4/+28What Google did showed real grace and class - both in making the tribute, and in honoring the request. You can't honor someone if you fight with their representatives. This "ARSe" group on the other hand . . . , well, let's just say that Google must have been very tempted to tell them where they could put their opinion.
- BloodJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -11/+35This is exactly like that time the 8-year-old girl wrote a letter to Apple to tell them how much she admires their work and offer ideas on how to make the iPod better and they responded by making her cry.
Google is just like an 8-year-old girl. - quadvods, on 10/12/2007, -4/+27Contact the Miro foundation directly: fjmiro@bcn.fjmiro.es
- cius, on 10/12/2007, -4/+27What the hell are an artists "moral rights"? There is no such thing. They almost make it sound like its immoral to create work inspired by another artist, but that's been said so much below, I'll leave it alone. But what exactly are these supposed "moral rights" that were being violated?
- wmbattsjr, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27http://images.google.com/images?q=joan+miro&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images
OMG, deploy teh lawyers!!!1!oneone - Akyan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25I think most people who agree it was a spectacularly bad PR move. I mean it has to be virtually impossible to get advertising to as many people around the world in any other way, even if you were to pay for it.
- Leebert, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16> Google created an association with Miro's work which could be taken to mean that the artist's estate endorses Google.
Good to know that copyright law is busy protecting the rights of a dead artist's estate. Because that's exactly what it was intended to do. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23Miro and friends just want a piece of the google cake, sweet,sweet google cake.
- runningnick, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18I wish people would just get over themselves.
- Paperghost, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16What a joke. This is exactly the kind of stupidity I tried to get away from in the arts world, and thank god I don't have to deal with it anymore. Fwiw, I sent the Feder guy this:
"It's a distortion of the original works and in that respect it violates the moral rights of the artist,'' Feder said.
Oh wow, there's a new one!
Let's look at this for a moment - that "distortion" combined a whole bunch of different works into one cohesive image.
Newsflash, that ain't ripping off, it's called a transcription.
I have an art degree myself, and one of the first things you do on an art degree is start making transcriptions (ie nice arty word for making ripped-off "inspired by" copies of OTHER PEOPLE'S ART).
Nobody cares, certainly not the artist, because it has been an accepted part of artistic development and learning the ropes since the dawn of time, and really came to the fore during the middle and late periods of the Renaissance. Miro himself would have been subject to the same artistic grounding. Unless you want to start trailing round all the art schools where similarly "derivative" works can be found. In fact, you'd best call for all the Art courses on the planet to change the way they work, or face the wrath of your legal people.
And wait a minute, shouldn't the estate of Matisse go and kick up a stink with the Miro people? How about Picabia? The Surrealists? They could all lay claim to being "ripped off" in some way by Miro, but of course they won't, because it's stupid. In art, you'll always find someone who "ripped off" somebody else. It's how it works, for God's sake. It's just that our definition of ripped off is not the same as the guys in the suits.
Quick, someone better dig up Michelangelo and tell him to burn all the work he did in his twenties!
In fact, you better go wipe out about about 95% of Picasso's work while you're at it, because it's all ripped from other sources, baby! Like the man himself said, "If there is something to steal, I steal it!"
How silly.
You do realise that many people who had never heard of Miro before yesterday were inspired to go buy some pieces of his work? Now they're happy to never bother with him again, as a result of what you did.
Miro would be ashamed. - kindrobot, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20You do NOT ASK for permission to create an homage. EVER.
It's like asking if it's ok to poop. (in private) - alspar, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18Why the hell should they ask? They payed tribute to a dead artist by drawing their logo in his style. Miro didn't own his style of drawing and neither do his family.
- zaid, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17In art classes everywhere, you're encouraged to follow a famous artist's style as exercises. Do you have to contact the ARS every time you want to do that? No. The ARS is so stupid.
- quokkapox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Yes, that's called "fair use". Bring it on, Warhol estate:
http://static.flickr.com/25/49628016_d06f43dd58_m.jpg - madjo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13@EdShroomhead:
What theft? infringement perhaps, but not theft...
There is nothing gone!
Theft is the clearly wrong word for it.
And the family is clearly delusional, or thinks they can get some cash from Google, Miro did not create a painting with the word Google on it, so there was no copyright infringement from Google's part. It was a tribute to an artist, it even linked to a search result page with the search term "Joan Miro".
That family should get off their high horse... - jayesbee, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16Hmmmm... I went to the ARS site. One of the first images was a Warhol print of Botticeli's Venus. Did he get permission? Did Campbell's sue Warhol for his Soup Can series? Did Roy Lichtenstien get permission from the comic book artists who created the original works that inspired much of his art?
ARS comes off like a bunch of prigs with its collective head up its ass. I am going to send them an e-mail as blogmon suggests. Thanks for the link, blogmon.
Also, thanks kdehead for the link to the Apple vs little girl story. I hand't read that before. - MackBolan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9The family should feel lucky that anyone gave a crap.
- twollamalove, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Make a living?! He died almost 25 ***** years ago.
- CompACE, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12All this is doing is giving the The Artists Rights Society some bad rep - Google's been doing this for years and this is the first case i've ever heard of anyone having this much of a fit over it. It was only gonna be up for one day for pete's sake!
- sheesh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Google should just show "No Results Found" for every search for Miro from now on.
- johnie1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10seems an organization like "Artist's Rights Society" only exists to make money from suing companies who use art with the families making money over the corpse of their dead relative. i find it discusting that such an organization exists. What the ***** is ART if people don't see it ?
- konrad8ha, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Whoa, one more victory for ultra-restrictive copyright.
What happend to common sense, does is still exist somewhere? - Shibmaster75, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7It's incredible to think that our Society has become so obsessed with Ownership and possession of intangible ideas, that when one of the most forward thinking companies in America decides to pay tribute by altering its logo, the voices for the dead take offense. Google has become larger than a commodity that needs cheap adverts like McDonald's or Dell for that manner. It is a piece of the American and international landscape. "Dude, Google that and learn something", or "I googled it at work and found it...." So when they pay tribute its like how a national holiday recognizes a person or particular event. It disgusts me that they felt that this was an intrusion into his art, considering he was considered a surrealist, and to be considered to be from a particular school of art means you were influenced by others in that field...Well i guess the Lawyers of Joan feel the only way google can pay tribute is by buying a million dollar original and hanging it in their entrance way....
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@joe wall
"Google would thus get more credit from customers, at the expense of Miro"
This statement is incomplete. Google will get more credit from customers at the expense of Miro and Miro gains recognition from google's "tribute"(not advertising). The goal of all artists is to express and share their ideas. If that isn't your goal then you are not an artist. Also the artist in the family is generally the one person in a family that is not understood by the others in the family. I really doubt that any of his family actually knows how he would feel about this. I think a fellow artist is more qualified to speak to it. I doubt there are any musicians who would be get upset if google played 30 seconds of one of their songs then redirected you to a link where you could buy their music.
No art is completely original. Art is created with the tools available and the world that the artist has seen. If people like your art then small pieces of it will show up in their art. That is a beautiful thing and it shouldn't be stifled. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11@liquidizer
Art belongs to the world not the person who created it. - bloqmon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8how about all of digg sends the Artists Rights Society an email telling them how stupid we think their actions are? its what they did to google after google paid tribute to two of the artists they represent.
The President of the ARS: tfeder@arsny.com
The rest of them are on here: http://www.arsny.com/contact.html - Kuipo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9but how many are talking in their favor or against them?
- rvalles, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Joan Miró, the artist, is dead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Mir%C3%B3
And is probably banging his head on his grave. - ludwik, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8> people were simply copying it freely off of the Net
> instead of paying you for it.
Yeah, that's right - people would stop buying Miro's paintings because of Google logo! Who needs a painting when you have such a nice Google logo (for one day at least)? ;> - avantretard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I have, I went to school.
- stealthninjaman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6*Cough*
I know a certain someone who WON'T be getting a GMail invite... - boran, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Isnt there a law that allows people to use small parts of copyrighted work in their own work (quotations, parodies atc) ?
- MrCobaltBlue, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14Will somebody PLEASE think of the children!
- serra, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12Ah yeah, I saw that the other day. Didn't recognize whose name it was, actually. The family needs to take a chill pill and quit being so damn greedy with their copyright *****. Google was displaying art, which is what was intended of the art and artist in the first place.
- aura, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Don't these people have anything more important to get upset about?
- haochi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Otherwise his relatives will be like "You gotta pay for this!"
- jmichaelg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Serpentmage - you're wrong. I had never heard of Miro until Google modified its logo. I clicked on the logo and saw 3 of his paintings. At that point, I got curious about Miro and started browsing the images. After seeing more of the work, I decided it wasn't for me and moved on. However, I could just as easily have loved it and become a Miro fan. The family lost nothing and stood to gain a lot by what Google did. They gave the work exposure to a world comprised of far more people who never heard of Miro than who are Miro fans.
I just wish Google wasn't evil. It makes it harder for them to do this kind of stuff without people thinking negatively of Google. -
Show 51 - 100 of 230 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
