State of journalism in 2013.
How did my Google Reader logo become the "default"?
11–20 of 39 posts
Re: How did my Google Reader logo become the "default"?
#12It'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.
Re: How did my Google Reader logo become the "default"?
#13I 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 orig…
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).
Re: How did my Google Reader logo become the "default"?
#14Is 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
Re: How did my Google Reader logo become the "default"?
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 c…
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://www.flickr.com/photos/indiekid/25…
Here's one from 4 months earlier:
http://bonte-pierre.blogspot.com/2008/02/google-reader-for-m...
Do a Google Image Search for "google reader" and use the Search Tools button to restrict the date to before June 2008.
Re: How did my Google Reader logo become the "default"?
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 orig…
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.
[deleted]
Re: How did my Google Reader logo become the "default"?
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 orig…
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.
Is it? I posit that both logos are siblings, and they are both derived from the RSS logo itself -- the design of which Google had no part of.
In fact, the original feed icon that both icons are derivative of was designed and implemented by Mozilla originally.
Re: How did my Google Reader logo become the "default"?
#18Is 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
Under "File History", User column:
Re: How did my Google Reader logo become the "default"?
#19I 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.
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.
Re: How did my Google Reader logo become the "default"?
#20Is 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
Under "File History", User column: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Adys
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?