|
|
|
|
|
|
by laumars
4839 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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.