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

31–39 of 39 posts

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

#31

Post by indiekid »

rm999 wrote: post #29

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 create…

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.

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

#32

Post by rm999 »

indiekid wrote: post #31
rm999 wrote: post #29

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 create…

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.

Don't you need a copyright to license it?

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

#33

Post by klez »

indiekid wrote: post #31
rm999 wrote: post #29

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 create…

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.

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

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

#35

Post by joenathan »

fredsted wrote: post #8
joenathan wrote: post #3

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.

You have a weird definition of "exactly".

Looks like the same thing from a different angle.

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

#36

Post by reeses »

klez wrote: post #33
indiekid wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

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

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

#37

Post by klez »

reeses wrote: post #36
klez wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

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

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

#38

Post by reeses »

klez wrote: post #37
reeses wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

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."

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

#39

Post by rm999 »

reeses wrote: post #38
klez wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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…

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.
Post reply on HN