How did my Google Reader logo become the "default"?
mgalligan.com
How did my Google Reader logo become the "default"?
1–10 of 39 posts
Re: How did my Google Reader logo become the "default"?
#2I 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.
Re: How did my Google Reader logo become the "default"?
#3I 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.
Re: How did my Google Reader logo become the "default"?
#4I 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.
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.
Re: How did my Google Reader logo become the "default"?
#5I 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 original authors.
Re: How did my Google Reader logo become the "default"?
#6I 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.
Ironic maybe, but I don't think it's inappropriate. He created a version of the logo that fit his needs because a version that fit his needs didn't exist. It's not much different than the custom icons people make for desktop re-skinning (GIS for "desktop skin custom icons"). The point he's making is that his custom icon is now being reused by many different organizations rather than the official logo, and not only that but his custom icon is being attributed to Google (contrary to his license). AFAIK, re-imagining a Google logo is not against Google's license.
Re: How did my Google Reader logo become the "default"?
#7I 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'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.
Re: How did my Google Reader logo become the "default"?
#8I 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".
Re: How did my Google Reader logo become the "default"?
#9That'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.
Re: How did my Google Reader logo become the "default"?
#10I 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.
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...