

How did my Google Reader logo become the "default"? - indiekid
http://mgalligan.com/post/45919481419/my-google-reader-logo

======
slg
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.

~~~
klez
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.

~~~
laumars
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._

It's still derivative work though.

~~~
SomeCallMeTim
>It's still derivative work though.

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.

~~~
laumars
I take your point. Fair enough :)

------
joenathan
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.

~~~
jneal
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.

~~~
rhplus
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?

[http://googlereader.blogspot.com/2009/05/google-reader-on-
yo...](http://googlereader.blogspot.com/2009/05/google-reader-on-your-google-
desktop.html)

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/indiekid/2551308352/>

~~~
indiekid
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.

------
rm999
From wikipedia:

>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.

~~~
indiekid
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.

~~~
klez
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

~~~
reeses
YANAL. It was copyrighted the moment it came into existence as his work.

~~~
klez
YDNR (you did not read :P) I say he put a license and this implies he
_claimed_ copyright.

~~~
reeses
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."

~~~
rm999
Look at my original comment that started this subthread. If it's a derivative
work (which it seems to be) Google owns the copyright to OP's image.

------
bbx
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.

------
smackfu
Is there any way to see who actually uploaded the logo to Wikipedia?

I can't figure out a way to proper history on this page. It has an edit saying
the actual logo was uploaded in Feb 2012, but the page dates to 2010.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Google_Reader_logo.png>

~~~
Zirro
Under "File History", User column:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Adys>

~~~
smackfu
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?

~~~
Zirro
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.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Google_Reader...](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Google_Reader_logo.png&oldid=502005511)

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.

------
notatoad
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.

~~~
indiekid
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.

------
salman89
Are there any services that keep track of republishing without attribution of
artists' work (images, videos, writings, etc)?

------
webjunkie
I thought you cannot just change an already given Creative Commons license
just when you want?

------
shyn3
State of journalism in 2013.

