[fc-uk-discuss] Google and Miro vs. copyright idiots

[Crosbie Fitch]

> From: Rob Myers
> If he was alive he might have had a good moral rights argument.

Truth persists beyond death. Privacy does not.

Anyway, it doesn't appear Google has published any private material or
otherwise had unauthorised access to it.

The only question is, has Google failed to accurately attribute authorship
of the Miro pastiche Google logo?

It indicated that the pastiche was a tribute to Miro, so there is some
credit to the artist.

Did Google fail to clarify that the logo was a pastiche and did not involve
Miro, wholly or partly? Did Google imply that Miro endorsed Google?

As long as Google was clear on all these aspects they're ain't much of an
argument against Google's pastiche on a moral rights basis.

Pastiche is a valid artform. The artist simply has to be careful that people
don't misapprehend its provenance. Such clarification may distract from the
presentation, but if its absence is ambiguous, that's the price of doing the
right thing.

It may be in this case, that 99.99% realised that a) Miro is dead and had no
involvement, b) It is obviously a tribute/pastiche entirely of Google's
making (the artists comprising it).

It's certainly not a sacrosanct, religious icon.