Posted On 04/23/06
Contributed by Frances

Many of you may have even missed it, but this past Thursday (April 20), Google worked the art of Spanish surrealist Joan Miro into their logo. We're used to seeing Google do funny stuff with their logo, adding a theme to it around the time of a specific holiday or special day, but in this case, the family of the late artist didn't appreciate Google's move and the enhanced logo was taken down earlier than planned.

A group called the Artists Rights Society (reportedly acting on behalf of the Miro family) was responsible for contacting Google and asking that the piece be taken off the Internet.

This isn't the first time that Google has tangled with the Artists Rights Society and frankly, considering that they have already gone down this road with Salvador Dali's art in 2002 with the Society, you have to wonder why Google would do the same thing that caused a flap four years ago when they did much the same thing with some of Dali's art?

Google's defense - they like Miro's art and wanted to honor that on the anniversary of his birth. But surely they should have anticipated that the Artists Rights Society would again raise the issue and therefore contacted them prior to releasing the logo and ask for permission, a request for which would have been passed along to the family. Google has had enough grief with copyright I would have thought already to make them extra careful, but I'm not going to go there.

Then again, a lot of people I've spoken with or seen comments from, had never heard of the artist and, as a result of seeing the Google homepage, have started to investigate his body of work to find out more.

OK, there was also some speculation by some people who should know better that somehow Google was sending a political message about whether or not a certain substance should be legal (don't even ask me for links to those theories). But that wasn't Google's fault.

The fact remains that Google inadvertently has increased the visibility of Miro's artwork to a new audience who may dally (pardon the equally inadvertent pun LOL) in art, but didn't know of this particular artist and the contribution he made to the field of surreal art.

I don't know if I'd be complaining too much, even if the logo only employed parts of my art and not necessarily with an eye for perfection of placement and form. I would anticipate that Miro's "stock" has gone up since Thursday in the popularity, if not the value, of his paintings.

So the question lies here - if reproducing someone's copyright material (without claiming it as your own - Google was clear to name the artist) results in a gain for them, whether or not it brings YOU more fame or fortune, is it all bad?

Of course, we all know it's illegal and wrong to do so without permission, but is harm being done in a case like this? I think we need to consider the shades of gray in some situations, lest we always emphasize the letter of the law in favor of its intent.

That's not to say that I agree with the actions of Google (my personal opinion is immaterial) - just that, as with many things in life, each situation is unique and needs to be considered as such. Google's Earth Day logo made a quiet appearance two days later, but then again the now-worldwide event called "Earth Day" doesn't appear to be protected by copyright.