By Jo Best, 24 April 2006 16:20
NEWS
A Google tribute to the Spanish artist Joan Miró backfired on the search engine when the painter's family objected to the accolade.
In typical Google style, the search engine decided to revamp its logo for one day last week to mark the birthday of the surrealist artist, responsible for masterpieces including Harlequin's Carnival.
The honour, however, did not go down well with the artist's family and the Artists Rights Society (ARS), which accused Google of breach of copyright and asked that the Miró-themed logo be taken down from the site.
According to reports, ARS objected to the logo on the grounds it allegedly incorporates graphic elements found in a number of Miró's works and also violates the artist's moral rights.
Google denied that it had breached copyright but removed the so-called doodle from the site.
A spokeswoman for the search engine said: "Joan Miró made an extraordinary contribution to the world with his art and we want to pay tribute to that. [The] logo was inspired by his work but does not copy any of it. A representative of Joan Miró's estate requested that we take down the logo honouring him. While we are disappointed, we respect their request."
According to Simon Briskman, partner at law firm Field Fisher Waterhouse, simply creating a pastiche of an artist's style is far less likely to open a company up to breach of copyright charges than using elements of existing paintings in that pastiche, as ARS assert happened with Google.
Briskman said: "If you are going to handle any content you need to do your homework. The point for most companies is to find out who [third party content] belongs to and seek clearance up front."
The Miró incident is not the first time the search behemoth has fallen foul of the Artists Rights Society.
In 2002, Google had a similar dispute with the organisation over a logo that aped the style of popular surrealist artist Salvador Dali. Once contacted by the society, Google agreed to remove the image.
Comments
There are 10 comments. Join the discussion
1. Russ C
talk about not seeing the wood for the trees...
i'd never heard of Joan Miro, saw the logo, clicked it, had a look at a few sites about him and liked his work. not saying I'd buy one of his paintings or a book about him, but at least it essentailly made em awarew of his work at absolutely no cost to the family.
then they get their a*** in the air and demand it be taken down. no more free publicity, no more access to new converts....
seems a bit shortsighted really. I think most people would be delighted the world's biggest search engine gave them free publicity.
2. Mr Bad Memory for Names...
such a shame this story - some one pays a fitting tribute but gets shot down trying - I'd never heard of this painter, er, whats-his-name, before now...
Its not like Google were going to make any money from it, and now this chap, er, what-his-name is now known to many millions like me who still cant remember his name
3. Allan Smith
This just goes to show how pretentious, short-sighted and stupid some of these people are.
Not having much of an art and literary background I had never heard of Joan Miro. I didn't even know if they were a he or a she. I saw the banner on Google and actually clicked on it and learned that a) it was a he and b) I looked around at some of his works. If Google didn't put these banners up then no one would be educated, or is that what they want… no one to share their Art. B****s to them!
4. Andy Neale
..isn't this all a bit sad and trivial.
I would have thought the ARS and Joan Miro's estate would have lapped up the extra publicity. The fact that it may have introduced (new) people to his work seems to have been lost.......I question whether the ARS really have the artists interests at heart
5. Don Tregartha
The Dead Surrealists - now they were a great band...
6. anonymous
While I understand the point of view of the family and the ARS I can't help but think jeez...relax a bit!
7. anonymous
Once again, relatives demonstrate the challenge they face in trying to demonstrate just a small iota of the intellectual capacity or breadth of mind of their genius forebears!
8. nick_horslen
Its a shame for google, as im sure they meant well, i loved the logo and enjoy all their themes, the exposure for the artist must have been significant, i didnt really know of him before i saw the google tribute.
However its also a shame for google as it also shows the honeymoon is well over, they are now just part of the institution, institutionalised like so many and just seen as a fat 80pound gorilla, so often this happens once innovative company get mega successful, microsoft had the same problem with the press and the law, wonder if google can shake it off before it really sticks.
I know the web2.0 challengers will keep the innovation going, we need the new entrants but we need these big significant movers and shakers that got us here. Good luck to all success and innovation!
9. anonymous
Bunch of ARS
10. anonymous
Unfortunately, these days legal action (or the threat of it) is even better at generating publicity - and there's no such thing as bad publicity. Witness the recent court case about the Da Vinci Code that has boosted sales for two books of "loose stool water" to quote Stephen Fry.