Family of Joan Miro upset over Google logo

Matt Forsythe | April 21st, 2006

Google Miro Elise Ackerman, from the Mercury News, writes:

After angering authors last fall with a wide-ranging book-copying project, Google may now be alienating some visual artists as well by allegedly reproducing famous works in drawings on the search giant’s home page.

Today, the family of Joan Miro was upset to discover elements of several works by the Spanish surrealist incorporated into Google’s logo. Google has since taken the logo off its site.

Google had altered their logo in celebration of Joan Miro’s birthday, which was April 20.

Update: The Wikipedians have already covered this story in detail:

The Artists Rights Society, a group that represents the Miro family and more than 40,000 visual artists and their estates, asked Google to remove the image early Thursday morning.

“There are underlying copyrights to the works of Miró, and they are putting it up without having the rights,” said Theodore Feder, president of Artists Rights Society.

In a written statement to the Mercury News, Google said that it would honor the request but that it did not believe its logo was a copyright violation.

[Link]

Tags: , , , , ,
  • I love seeing the self-parodied Google logos because it makes me forget, if just for a moment, how just AWFUL Google's logo is to begin with.
  • My sympathies are more with Google than with the Miro family in this particular case. I thought that the Miro-ized logo was attractive, funny, and a fitting tribute to the artist on his birthday.
  • hcduvall
    I really liked the logo myself, but if they didn't get permission, or frankly, think to get permission, well, I'm going to go with the family.
  • schmenkee
    What permission did they need? It's done in a Miro-esque style. Not an actual image taken from his work.
  • Geoff
    It's a sad day when you can't do an homage to great works. It's not even like Google was capitilising on Miro's work - it was a tribute for goodness sake.
  • to
    I guess Google will need to get permission from the Dali family to use drooping letters and permission from the Warhol family for anything that looks silkscreened
  • amanaplan
    More posthumous greed by those who did nothing but want to profit. I mean the family, not Google.
  • How DARE Google pay tribute to Joan Miro on his birthday!
  • p did
    Am I the only one who sees something Ren and Stimpyish in that logo when looked at quickly? It was bugging me all day.
  • You can't copyright style. Or parody. Weird story. If he was ridiculed, I could understand the family being upset. But he was celebrated!
  • Omandi
    Didn't Charles Caleb Colton say that imitation is the greatest form of flattery (and achievement in this case)?
  • The ARS didn't create the works of Miro, though they control thir use for profit and hopefully also to honor his memory. Google was recognizing Miro's work on a planetary scale with a unique work in the style of the artist - it was clearly not meant to be passed as a counterfeit. Google earns money from ads every time you click, of course, so if the logo encouraged exploration of Miro through Google, it generated some income for the company, but also, I think we can assume, for the ARS and the Miro family. This C&D not only makes the ARS and the Miro family look arrogant, but they are also passing up an annual opportunity to renew interest in Joan Miro.

    Hmm, I wonder if Trish & I can't come up with a DesignKitten logo in the style of Miro...
  • That's kinda sad although I guess there are valid reasons on either side. Personally I like it when they change the logo, it gives a hint that something special's going on and sometimes I learn something new. Oh well.
  • Cynthia
    wow... I was just watching HBO's Classical Baby animations with my 2yo, and thrilled with the fact that several great painters' style were celebrated in that feature. There is a pretty sequence all inspired in Miro's shapes.
    Wonder how that went with the family.
    And again I side with the majority in here. It was a celebration, it was inspiredt by the artist's style, but not an actual piece of his work.
    We have enough trouble regulating copyrights in cases when the actual work is stolen, specially in this digital media driven world.
    If artists (or their families and states) are gonna start going after others for using famous artwork as reference, things will get pretty crazy.
    We either will start a witch hunt, or worst, the boundaries that regulate copyright laws will blurr and vanish, to the detriment of those who depend on it to make an honest living.
  • dave
    "Family of Joan Miro Needs to Get a Life"
  • tj
    I recently had a silkscreener tell me that its ok to use images that are "found" and not worry about copyright. I tried to argue but feel short of words. He is is smart guy so I was kinda of shocked. It seems that the lines are already blurred and there will be a big showdown again soon in the courts.
  • Avika
    There's no clear indication in the article that actual Miro family members were upset. I take it to mean that the ARS is getting upset preemptively on their behalf. Or, more likely, they are taking this stand to protect the commercial value of all artworks they represent.
  • Keith
    Thanks to the ARS and other vultures, there will come a day when it will be too much of a hassle for Google and others to present anything of value. I would have been happier if Google did not fold so easily. Collective corporate cowardice
    (or did I say that already?)
  • Wilder
    This is just sad, they are acctually angry that he was getting some love from google? That just doesn't make sense. Google isn't profiting from it, the cnuts who are mad about it aren't making money from having it taken down, if money isn't what inspired this protest then who getting the sweet end of this deal? It seems like any press for an artist, is good press and having the logo taken off however only makes me resent the artist and the fools who acctually coplained. If you wanna fix stuff go talk to the MET, I'm sure somethings wrong there. Oh yeah, fuck off!
  • When exactly did google take down the logo? Miro's birthdya was yesterday, so I don't see how Google "folded" by having the logo back to normal today. I believe Google changes its logo for "minor days" (as opposed to "major holidays/band holidays") only on the actual day.
  • Tom
    How anal can you be? It's not like Google went and cut up the originals to fashion the logo.

    They should buy the originals and burn them on his birthday. Take that, Miros!
  • ambassdor
    I've never heard of Miro, but after clicking on the interesting looking Google logo, there were the search results of "Miro". And I thought to myself, "Gee, this is nice of Google, to spread some culture and pay homage to an artist"
    The complaint sounds a bit silly. Disney would probably pay Google to have a pair of Mickey Mouse ears for the mouses' birthday.
  • Stupid. It was for celebrating his birthday. Someone likes him and wanted direct others to that fact and celebrate his art. Take a chill pill Miro family!!
  • catnapping
    oh puhLEEEEZE. Nothing was stolen. It was an HOMAGE, fer chissakes.
  • No copyright violation occurred. ARS is incorrect legally -- copyright does not give artists (or the agencies governing their work) the right to control this sort of imitation. Particularly in
    America, where there is no such thing as "moral rights" in copyright (that's a European copyright concept).

    Being in a supposedly free society, I find the idea of "asking permission" to pay homage to someone is ridiculous. Now, if Google had reprinted a Miro painting on its site, then there's a potential claim for copyright infringement (although that too may fall under Fair Use, and it's up to the ARS to fight that in Court, not a guaranteed right to censor).

    Be wary of agencies like the ARS, RIAA, ASCAP, BSA... they have their own self-interest to take care of that does not necessarily reflect the needs or wants of artists, nor the rest of us.
  • My question is why didnt Google just pay royalties? Then artists would be lining up to get the exposure??
  • as for the Miro family why didnt they just milk it for what its worth - i never heard of miro until today... :)
  • Hey Tree - According to the wiki, Google took the logo down at about 4pm (EST, I imagine).
  • Just how nasty does one family/foundation need to be to sneer at a compliment? Personally, I'd be thrilled if I was given such an honor.

    I saw the logo and thought it was extremely clever... but somehow, the print I have of a Miro in my living room doesn't hold as much charm as it used to.
  • Kinl"
    Copyright is a joke... Its all about the Benjamins, and the Benjamins are pure evil!

    As an artist if someone wants to pay me for a piece then great, but if my work was to be "stolen" and maybe even used for financal gain then so be it, I'll draw another...

    If you like drawing then do it! if you only do it for the money then do something that can't be stolen and stop whining!!!
  • The Miró family, is quite famous for their unreasonable complains. They made a company out Mirós work. It´s a shame that such a wondeful work is treated that way. I´m with ART not the parasites! Plus, it was a homage.
  • Janice
    You would think they would appreciate thier beloved Joan being remembered and celebrated. If copywrite holders keep locking down thier 'property' so tightly, no one will even be aware these things exist because they are being too well 'protected.'
  • I blogged about this here:
    http://www.matthewhollett.com/oughtful/

    Also, anyone interested in this story might also want to check out this Cabinet Magazine interview with the photographer of Walter De Maria's famous earthwork, "Lightning Field." Photography of the artwork has been extremely controlled and limited by the artist:
    http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/3/god.php
  • Erica
    Look out, Chili's Restaurants! The van Gogh and Mondrian families will be knocking at your doors soon for running a margarita-inspired art contest

    The table-top flyer, cleverly disguised as a drink menu, depicts Stargarita Night and a terrible rendition of a red, yellow, and blue with orange margarita Mondrian rip off... ugh... the diagonals are killing me!
    Teehee... this should be good...

    (and I thought copying was a form of flattery!)
  • Erica
    You can see what I mean here:

    http://chilismargaritamadness.com/home.php
  • I'd let google use my style for their logo anytime they want. Talk about some great exposure. There is nothing more irritating than crap like this.
  • Heaven forbid that a representation Miro's work would be seen by millions possibly inspiring sales of his reproductions/books/etc which would add to the family fortune. Honestly, a few whining family members is nothing to Google. I hope they keep this branding campaign going strong.
  • Steve
    I don't normally do this, but I have just sent an email to Theodore Feder from the ARS, pointing out my disappointment at their narrow mindedness. I'm sure it will make him change his mind ;)
  • Robert
    My! My! My! How childish on the part of the Miro family & ARS. How many people clicked on this representation of Miro's works & discovered something new that day,about Joan Miro, that they didn't know before. Hey you guys i.e. Miro Family & Ars, Google was honoring this great surrealist not trying to rip him off. How selfish on your part to think that. Time for you people to get a size larger set of bvd's because the one's you are wearing now are cutting off the circulation to your brains.
  • Andy M
    This is not the first time that both ARS, and the Miro family have acted like spoiled brats. Joan Miro must be turning in his grave!
  • Brian
    Huh huh... 420 DUUUUUDE!!!!

    His birthday is 4 - 20 DUUUUUUDE!!!!
  • This is just ridiculous. Paying homage, and parody are both protected for good reason. And this tribute would only help, not harm the estate. This over-litigious society should just implode already.

    By the way, I represent the Gutenberg estate. The words on this page resemble movable type on paper. That is a clear violation of copyright. Please everybody mail me $5.
  • Lucia
    If Google can't shut Booble down, they shouldn't take down this logo.
blog comments powered by Disqus