This is a pretty ridiculous story...it's not like Google created full-scale works of art that copied the style. And what's with the article linking this with Google Print and those unrelated copyright issues?

give me a friggin break.

What a stupid thing... Google has just created this logo to celebrate miro, it's not a copyright violation!

To be honest, I would've thought the logo for Da Vinci's birthday was breaching copyright more (if it's possible to have varying degrees of copyright breach, that is):

http://www.google.com/logos/da_vinci.gif

Wait... isn't all of Da Vinci's work in the public domain because it's so old?

I don't know, I think some day all shapes, tunes and ideas will be patented, copyrighted, and trademarked. Then people realize we can't express ourselves anymore because everything's taken. And *then* people realize we need to start all over, and all copyrights will be declared void...
Hey, let that day be now! :)

Good point. Doesn't copyright cease to be an issue 50 years after someone's death or something? I dunno...

They just want money...

That's right, philipp. Let that day be now! I would have never guessed that logo to be copyrighted. And besides its a celebration!! Whatever..

They should be grateful of the publicity! Did anyone even know who Joan Miro was before today? (Or maybe the Miro estimate are thinking this will get them even more publicity... and there's no such thing as bad publicity!)

I couldn't tell from the article. What I really wanted to know is if the artist's family was actually complaining, or if it was just an organization claiming to represent the artist's family.

"And what's with the article linking this with Google Print and those unrelated copyright issues?"

Agreed. I did not understand why the article linked this to Google Print.

I wish copyright holders would take into account the good-will intent of others as opposed to stealing someone else's work.

Yes, 50 years after the artist's death or older than 1923, from what I can tell. I once asked a question on Google Answers and got a pretty good answer related to this issue:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=186712

Thanks Philipp for clearing this up...

grrrrrrrr...... who the heck was Joan Miro? if it wasn't for Google's artwork i wouldn't have a clue.

unbelievable...

It's down now on the front page – still on for my personalized homepage, but that just might be my browser refusing to stop caching.

Valleymag is ironic about this story :-P
http://www.valleywag.com/tech/google/google-doodle-watch-whered-mira-go-168661.php

This is rediculous. When will these people realize that these supposed "copyright violations" actually help them. I mean, it's not like anyone is no longer going to buy Miro's artwork because they have the google logo instead. And it was created because they consider him a notable person and admire him, so I don't see why they claim this is disrespectful to him either

Valleywag's point is? I would take it down too. A one-day tribute to an artist many have never heard of is not worth a fight in court

or: I agree. They are right to take it down. You want to do a tribute. "They" (some organisation/company or the family it is unclear) don't want you too. You run one of the most popular webpages on the Internet (probably top 3 ish). But it appears they don't want it up. Their loss. You take it down.

They are getting more publicity (like us here talking about it) BECAUSE it was taken down (or because they asked for it to be). I had never heard of this artist before and now I will always think, "ahh, Miro. That is the one who was foolish enough to ask for their Google Doodle to be removed".

elyk: LOL @ "I mean, it's not like anyone is no longer going to buy Miro's artwork because they have the google logo instead."

Also: Check Wikipedia – It has been added.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Mir%C3%B3

It is still on the personal site
http://www.google.com/ig

They could've just said thank you. Oh man this was a tribute for your own relative and now you want to sue someone for giving that tribute!

<sarcasm>Finally someone stands up for there rights. If Google ever makes any sort of reference to me on their homepage I am sueing their pants off. Seriously Google wakeup, why on earth would someone want free advertising on the world's most popular search engine's homepage?! Stupidhead.</sarcasm>

Its true, everyone wants a piece of Google's golden pot.

I agree with most on this forum post that they should be grateful for the free publicity and to stop whining.

Although, i'm curious... i would like to know how many people clicked on Google's custom "Miro" logo during the time it was live on the homepage. It would be interesting to see how much attention they gain during that period versus past search clicks from Google's SERPS.

The Miro Family ought to be ashamed of themselves! Google put up a fair use imitation of his work in the form of a Google logo only as a temporary invitation for people to learn about the artist (I didn't know much about him until checking the link) but the family is so hasty to get angry that they've sullied a tribute to a great man.

Google makes more than enough money that they should've ignored the request and let the Miro family sue. They would have won, I'm sure.

I had never heard of Joan Miro before. The family should be grateful for the free publicity and for bringing the name to the attention of people who were hereforeto unfamiliar with the painter and his workds. Just goes to show how shortsighted some people and organizations are, and it seems all they care about is money and protecting their flow of income.

Everyone should have the right to sue for anything, but in a sane legal environment such attacks would simply be ignored, or if they'd ever make it to court, crushed. However in today's legal environment, with the distorted world of copyright enforcement successfully punishing formerly free forms of creativity... such legal threats are more likely to work. Let's face it, as time goes by, we have less and less freedom in copying. In the 80s we could make a mixed tape for our friends. Today, we can't do the same for songs bought on iTunes. In the 80s we could record shows on VHS to view them for an infinite time or pass the VHS tape on to friends. Today, many videos come with DRM that prohibits us to pass on the video to a friend. Of course, as long as people push the borders and share more freely than the law would deem legal – on services like YouTube or Google Video – there's still freedom. They can't sue the majority, can they?

If any of the Googlers were from Mallorca (Spain), where I live and where Miro(tm) lived for many years, most probably this had not happened.

Everyone here knows how easy is to be sued by the Miró(tm) family! There are no "tributes" to Miró if there is no money involved.