I find it a little ironic that the author is complaining (or at least unapprovingly noting) that most of the image's use violates the original license considering the image so closely resembles the official one. You shouldn't create a remix of an image and then bemoan the remix culture when people use your image.
The logo he created is not a remix of the original one (if you look in the post they are different), but it's just similar. The problem, as I see it, is that the use of his logo is subject to a license that, in the cases he presents, is not respected. This has less to do with the remix culture and more with the fact that some journalists blindly take images from google image search without verifying licenses and original authors.
I'd wager that those journalists just pulled the file from Wikipedia (as so many journalists seem to these days). So the real question is why did Wikipedia add the wrong logo?
> The logo he created is not a remix of the original one (if you look in the post they are different), but it's just similar.
Are you a lawyer? Seems like quite a definitive statement when, from what I can see, it's not at all clear that it's a derivative work in the copyright sense. It may simply be a derivative work of the standard RSS logo, color-shifted to be similar to the Google RSS logo.
As far as TRADEMARK law is concerned, it's absolutely related to the Google logo. But we're talking COPYRIGHT, and just making something look like something else doesn't violate a copyright. But IANAL either.
I agree with your second point, but the first is debatable. Is there some legal definition of remix that this doesn't fit? Either way, it would be near impossible to argue that the author's logo was not based off the Google logo (assuming the Google one was created first).
Technically a "remix" would be defined as taking an original image, and making changes to that specific image.
In this case, I saw their favicon (16x16) and created a derivative work that was high resolution. I'm not complaining per se by any means...I really could care less. My statements on the license were to show that these derivations and uses might happen without permission, which they did in this case.
Ironic maybe, but I don't think it's inappropriate. He created a version of the logo that fit his needs because a version that fit his needs didn't exist. It's not much different than the custom icons people make for desktop re-skinning (GIS for "desktop skin custom icons"). The point he's making is that his custom icon is now being reused by many different organizations rather than the official logo, and not only that but his custom icon is being attributed to Google (contrary to his license). AFAIK, re-imagining a Google logo is not against Google's license.
I don't fully understand, the official Google Reader logo looks exactly like the "unofficial" logo, so did Google copy the "unofficial" logo or was it a copy of Google's? This isn't addressed in the blog post.
The official logo came first and is the more "blocky" or "3D" of the two. The author created his version later, which somehow got picked up as the "official" logo according to Wikipedia. Thus news sites started using this "official" logo believing Wikipedia albeit incorrect.
I'm not a lawyer, but the author's image is in fact a derivative work of the original, and as such I'm not sure there's much he can do in this case. If it were an entirely unique creation that was being used without permission you'd have more options.
Did the Google version definitely come first? Looking through Google Reader blog, all I'm seeing is the textual "Google Reader Labs" logo with the chemistry beaker, until the 3D one appears in a desktop widget in May 2009. The OP's Flicker page is date June 2008. Anyone have earlier examples of the Google version?
My version was based on Google's 16x16 favicon. It was basically a scaled up version of that. Their "blocky" version did exist before, but mine was specifically a take on their favicon.
>For copyright protection to attach to a later, allegedly derivative work, it must display some originality of its own. It cannot be a rote, uncreative variation on the earlier, underlying work. The latter work must contain sufficient new expression, over and above that embodied in the earlier work for the latter work to satisfy copyright law’s requirement of originality.
It seems to me that he created a rote variation; if so his work isn't protected by copyright, the license he attached to his image is irrelevant, and google owns the image. IANAL and could be wrong, any correction/clarification from someone who is familiar with American copyright law would be great.
edit: to be clear, my point is I don't think OP had the right to attach any sort of license on the image, even a creative commons one, because google owns the copyright. Likewise, I don't think he owns the right to attribution.
It should be noted that I actually never claimed a copyright, nor copyright protection on this. Creative Commons isn't a copyright. I'm also not mad about the uses of this image. I moreso just wanted to call out the fact that there was no attribution happening, as requested through the CC license.
IANAL but I think the moment you put a license on it you claimed copyright. IIRC you don't have rights to license someone else's creation without consent
That's the thing. You don't 'claim' copyright. It is a right established by the Berne Convention. You would file a claim if your copyright were violated, but other than that, you control distribution of your original work as long as Sonny Bono says. :-)
Points for coining a new abbrev. YDNR is going into my "snarky, not explained" responses in emails. :-) "What does that mean?" "Oh, I often hit some keys for a macro on my home computer that don't expand on this machine."
It's always good practice for a company/product to provide easy access to its logo, in different formats (EPS and PNG at least) along with some guidelines, through a dedicated page so that Google can index it easily so it eventually becomes the first search result (both in Web and Image search).
It's also good practice for designers who need a logo to make a Web search and not an Image search, or directly visit the company/product website and bypass Google to find it.
When searching for "google reader logo", the first result is the product itself, and the second one is the Wikipedia page logo. The official blog doesn't provide the logo either.
Right, but they uploaded the file in 2012, and the history for that page goes back to 2010. So did the page for the logo file exist before the logo file? I think not. Maybe Wikipedia deletes copyrighted images or something?
I see. You are correct, I found this template: "The previous version(s) of this file are non-free. These older revisions are no longer being used in articles, and therefore fail the Wikipedia non-free content criteria. The current version will not be deleted, only its previous revisions." in the version version of the page that existed before the current one.
I actually find it a bit surprising that they delete the information (username, date, dimensions) related to the previous revisions, and not just the file itself in such situations.
That's not your google reader logo. You made a high-res version of the google reader logo, which was only ever officially available in low-res sizes. People who wanted a high-res version of the reader logo used your high-res version, because it existed.
Sure. The "low res" version was 16x16, as it was the favicon. But what my post is referring to is that it was my scaled up version of the 16x16 icon that got picked up by the press, and not the official logo.
