More on Google and Miro

Theory Now's Mark Cameron Boyd, in response to Cindy Engquist's previous points on the subject:

Your "understanding" of the issue is absolutely correct, in that "for visual arts, an image was protected but not an idea or concept... so no one can copy Dali's melting watches, but anyone can paint a melting watch of their own." This is one of the risks that artists take, in addition to the "risk" of even making "art," that their work is no longer "their own" once it enters the "public arena."

In addition to the "meaning" of their work being misinterpreted, misunderstood or misrepresented, artists have to realize that it can be appropriated and even "misused" for other purposes than their own. However, Ms. Engquist is correct in her assumption that Google does not have "the right to exploit any artist’s work for its own marketing purposes," but they are already more than questionable in their "marketing" procedures, as the information about possible Chinese "dissidents" that Google has reportedly released to the Chinese government approaches nothing less than criminal negligence.

Ms. Engquist states: "Even if misuse of an idea of an image or concept is not legally enforceable, the damage to the artist and the impact on the artist’s future income can be significant." True, but only those who have the time and money to engage in extensive litigation over the "misuse" of their images, or the supposed misuse of an "idea," will be able to determine these "intellectual property issues" for the rest of us.