everyone's picking on google
Two stories that are a little old, but suddenly coming into better focus:
Remember when Google ran this custom logo to celebrate Joan Miro's birthday? And Miro's family complained, prompting Google to take it down? I know, it all happened ages ago (Thursday). But until today I didn't realize that the takedown request had come from the Artists' Rights Society, which did something similar when Google paid tribute to Salvador Dali in 2002. I had initially thought that this was a case of a stupidly litigious family, but it now seems that the attitude may be characteristic of the Great Dead Artist establishment.
I find it all pretty unseemly. I realize that intellectual property is the only real asset an artist has. But Google didn't copy a work, they emulated a style — and a style that was formed by works more than half a century old. In any sane society that IP would already belong to the public domain.
But let's be generous and assume that the motivations of Miro's estate in this matter are non-venal — that they aren't just trying to squeeze licensing fees out of Google, and that they realize Google's tribute doesn't represent competition for Miro-related income. Let's say this is just about controlling the man's legacy. You'd still have to count me as unsympathetic. I don't think a person has the right to control how society views him or his work. I suppose an artist is welcome to take a stab at doing so, but I don't think it's unreasonable for society to expect him or her to quit bugging us when they die. Lobbying from beyond the grave is just tacky.
- I hate to unabashedly stick up for GOOG — I've got first shift on the "How Long 'Til They're Evil" watch. But on the issue of net neutrality, they've already publicly committed themselves to doing the right thing: the search engine says they won't pay protection money to ISPs when the broadband providers start making the rounds with hands outstretched. Good for them! Maybe completely surrendering every shred of privacy to a commercial venture won't be so bad after all.
As worked up as I get about intellectual property controversies, net neutrality is a much more pressing and unambiguous issue — I find it genuinely hard to see why anybody would oppose NN unless they're in the pocket of the telecom industry. If you haven't got an opinion on the matter or don't totally get what it's about, you might be interested in watching this brief video on the topic (thanks to Mike for the link).
Comments
Miro's family can fall in a well and die.
Tom -- Noree suggested I check out your comments on the Miro event. THoughtful analysis I thought.
I liked Google's rendition. I experienced it as a tribute - not a competition/ rip-off. If anything it would bring more folks into the realm of appreciating his work. My two centimes. Thanks., Ron.
Tom -- Noree suggested I check out your comments on the Miro event. THoughtful analysis I thought.
I liked Google's rendition. I experienced it as a tribute - not a competition/ rip-off. If anything it would bring more folks into the realm of appreciating his work. My two centimes. Thanks., Ron.
During a short stint working as a law temp, I worked on a trade-dilution case and read tons of crappy memos. But one interesting one was between two lawyers trying to determine whether they ought to issue a C&D to Tom Friedman for using an item manufactured by their client in one of his crappy book titles. I think with a "brand" like Miro it's probably a similar thing—they shoot first and ask questions later without much considering the cost/value.
But as for IP, the artist may be dead, but the estate isn't, and this sort of thing is often cited by people as affecting the market for an artist's work. I doubt it myself, but that's what people say.
Post A Comment