Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How did my Google Reader logo become the "default"?

mgalligan.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 39 posts

Re: How did my Google Reader logo become the "default"?

#21

Post by indiekid »

rhplus wrote: post #10
jneal wrote: post #4

Earlier 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…

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.

Re: How did my Google Reader logo become the "default"?

#22

Post by indiekid »

notatoad wrote: post #9

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.

Re: How did my Google Reader logo become the "default"?

#25

Post by SomeCallMeTim »

laumars wrote: post #7
klez wrote: post #5

Earlier 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.

>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.

Re: How did my Google Reader logo become the "default"?

#26

Post by Zirro »

smackfu wrote: post #20
Zirro wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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...

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.

Re: How did my Google Reader logo become the "default"?

#27

Post by [deleted] »

klez wrote: post #5
slg wrote: post #2

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 orig…

[deleted]

Re: How did my Google Reader logo become the "default"?

#28

Post by lwf »

smackfu wrote: post #14

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

The deleted image consisted of a stylized "Google" logo combined with "reader" rendered in the Google product font.

Administrators on the English Wikipedia can see the deleted logo at: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&...

In any case, the permissions on the current file have been updated and the attribution corrected.

Re: How did my Google Reader logo become the "default"?

#29

Post by 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.

Re: How did my Google Reader logo become the "default"?

#30

Post by laumars »

SomeCallMeTim wrote: post #25
laumars wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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, a…

I take your point. Fair enough :)
Post reply on HN