36 ms·

At what point does it become telegrams IP? The smiley face predates Apple by decades

by jjcon 4y ago

agsnu 4y ago
At the point that they design their emoji from scratch? Emojipedia shows you what they look like on a variety of platforms, the blog post shows they look a lot like they started with Apple's (although in fairness WhatsApp's look very similar as well).
threeseed 4y ago
> The smiley face predates Apple by decades And a circle, line and dot predates everything by centuries. So I guess all copyright is pointless. Or maybe that's not the system works at all and it's based on infringing a specific design.
- mschuster91 4y ago
  > Or maybe that's not the system works at all and it's based on infringing a specific design. There are also jurisdictions which have a concept of "it must have a good enough quality to be worth of protection", in Germany we call it "Schöpfungshöhe" [1]. However, even a work (e.g. a logo) that doesn't fall under copyright protection due to that floor still may fall under trademark protection... but that's definitely not applicable for Unicode-standardized emoji. [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6pfungsh%C3%B6he https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6pfungsh%C3%B6he
  - hnfong 4y ago
    If it's good enough that Telegram wants to make unlicensed copies of specifically a set of emojis among other comparable designs, it would be hard for Telegram to argue that it's not original enough...
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    Unicode-standardized emojis are not what Apple ships. Apple (and Microsoft, and Android, and Samsung, and...) ship designs based on standardized Unicode descriptions of emojis. There's a reason Emojipedia lists multiple designs for each emoji. See e.g. https://emojipedia.org/grinning-face/ https://emojipedia.org/grinning-face/ Edit: Gun is a better example, https://emojipedia.org/pistol/ https://emojipedia.org/pistol/
- jjcon 4y ago
  Can you show precedent that emojis are even copyrightable? Maybe you have no idea what you’re talking about
  - threeseed 4y ago
    > House styles represent standard design choices implemented across an emoji set, such as the Google blob shape or a uniform non-yellow color for face emojis. A house style could provide the basis of compilation copyrights in emoji sets, and applying the style to individual emojis might help make those emojis copyrightable (or qualify as a derivative work, if they are a variation of the Unicode standard). House styles also could be part of a platform’s trade dress. https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2018/03/article_0006.html https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2018/03/article_0006.h...
    - jjcon 4y ago
      So you couldn’t find any precedent I take it. That article proves exactly my point: > emojis can raise potentially complex and serious legal issues, including novel and complicated questions about intellectual property > copyright might protect individual emojis So the question is far more open ended and complicated than your snide “So I guess all copyright is pointless” remark would make it seem. The complexity of the law is exactly what I was getting at. How much change is required to make it no longer Apple IP since the underlying emoji determinations are not even made by Apple, just adopted by them?

At what point does it become telegrams IP? The smiley face predates Apple by decades

by jjcon 4y ago

At what point does it become telegrams IP? The smiley face predates Apple by decades

At the point that they design their emoji from scratch? Emojipedia shows you what they look like on a variety of platforms, the blog post shows they look a lot like they started with Apple's (although in fairness WhatsApp's look very similar as well).

threeseed 4y ago

> The smiley face predates Apple by decades And a circle, line and dot predates everything by centuries. So I guess all copyright is pointless. Or maybe that's not the system works at all and it's based on infringing a specific design.

mschuster91 4y ago
> Or maybe that's not the system works at all and it's based on infringing a specific design. There are also jurisdictions which have a concept of "it must have a good enough quality to be worth of protection", in Germany we call it "Schöpfungshöhe" [1]. However, even a work (e.g. a logo) that doesn't fall under copyright protection due to that floor still may fall under trademark protection... but that's definitely not applicable for Unicode-standardized emoji. [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6pfungsh%C3%B6he https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6pfungsh%C3%B6he
- hnfong 4y ago
  If it's good enough that Telegram wants to make unlicensed copies of specifically a set of emojis among other comparable designs, it would be hard for Telegram to argue that it's not original enough...
- dmitriid 4y ago
  Unicode-standardized emojis are not what Apple ships. Apple (and Microsoft, and Android, and Samsung, and...) ship designs based on standardized Unicode descriptions of emojis. There's a reason Emojipedia lists multiple designs for each emoji. See e.g. https://emojipedia.org/grinning-face/ https://emojipedia.org/grinning-face/ Edit: Gun is a better example, https://emojipedia.org/pistol/ https://emojipedia.org/pistol/
jjcon 4y ago
Can you show precedent that emojis are even copyrightable? Maybe you have no idea what you’re talking about
- threeseed 4y ago
  > House styles represent standard design choices implemented across an emoji set, such as the Google blob shape or a uniform non-yellow color for face emojis. A house style could provide the basis of compilation copyrights in emoji sets, and applying the style to individual emojis might help make those emojis copyrightable (or qualify as a derivative work, if they are a variation of the Unicode standard). House styles also could be part of a platform’s trade dress. https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2018/03/article_0006.html https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2018/03/article_0006.h...
  - jjcon 4y ago
    So you couldn’t find any precedent I take it. That article proves exactly my point: > emojis can raise potentially complex and serious legal issues, including novel and complicated questions about intellectual property > copyright might protect individual emojis So the question is far more open ended and complicated than your snide “So I guess all copyright is pointless” remark would make it seem. The complexity of the law is exactly what I was getting at. How much change is required to make it no longer Apple IP since the underlying emoji determinations are not even made by Apple, just adopted by them?