Not all outcries have to be entertained.

And similarly, when an outcry is worthless, it's valuable to tell the people involved that they should shut up. Outcries don't have to be entertained and they also don't have to be tolerated.

Outcries are just collective action.

If a majority of people think a thing should happen, then by definition that thing should probably usually happen.

If the structure of the moment (societal norms, laws, etc) doesn't provide for it, then the outcry is the initial stage of the conversation and process where we collectively decide whether or not the structure needs to be updated. IE, figure out some new laws or legal principles to apply existing laws such that the thing the majority has decided should happen can happen.

Everything you value for yourself and consider normal today, was only the result of some outcry at some point, and at that time there were people going "oh so dramatic the outcry just ignore it"

A lot of the royalty free images I have bought prohibit using the imagery as part of the logo for a company.

But maybe the platform where the bird graphic was sold did not say any such thing in the licensing terms. In which case, tough luck to the artist.

And on the other hand, if there were such terms agains using the graphic as your logo then the artist should have sued and gotten a sizeable payment.

Personally, when companies (or movies, or albums, or books, or games, etc.) become worth enormous amounts of money I think there should be bonus royalties for everyone involved even if they sold their labor for a flat rate.

No, I don't have a good plan for how you'd calculate the distribution. But it would make windfalls more fair to the people that made them happen. And that kind of mechanism could also help fund many open source projects.

You can just add this to your contract if you think there's a good shot at success.

You can also be a generous person, and share a few pennies from your pocket.

Apparently, in this case, the license _did_ in fact forbid this usage, which is why they changed logo in the first place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Oxley#Twitter_Bird_Logo_...

No one wants to deal with a 0.0001% or 0.00001% royalty clause in an individual contact.

Ah, come to France, maybe that explains my "sure of myself" answer in the parent comment. 0.0*01% + "à-valoir" is very common and cover the situation described here (eg you get paid a paid royalty, in advance, if the revenue ever exceed you are owed it, but if it's always under you never have to pay back).

Sort of a "I pay you 100€ but if this turns out to be a billion euro thing you get you gold ticket too".

I just want to point out that if there was an outcry it wasn't by the actual (recently deceased) artist, who, according to Wikipedia, was happy to see his creation get this kind of visibility.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Oxley#Twitter_Bird_Logo_...