> 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.
In this case, I saw their favicon (16x16) and created a derivative work that was high resolution. I'm not complaining per se by any means...I really could care less. My statements on the license were to show that these derivations and uses might happen without permission, which they did in this case.
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.
http://googlereader.blogspot.com/2009/05/google-reader-on-yo...
>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.
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
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.
It's also good practice for designers who need a logo to make a Web search and not an Image search, or directly visit the company/product website and bypass Google to find it.
When searching for "google reader logo", the first result is the product itself, and the second one is the Wikipedia page logo. The official blog doesn't provide the logo either.
