3 ms·

In your rush to blindly condemn Apple, you may have missed that in this case TG deliberately copied unlicensed Apple assets as the basis for their new emojis.

In your rush to blindly condemn Apple, you may have missed that in this case TG deliberately copied unlicensed Apple assets as the basis for their new emojis. This is unambiguously copyright infringement, it is not at all “random” for Apple to enforce it in this case but to also allow animated emojis in other apps that do not steal their IP to include those features.

m-p-3 4y ago
Technically, aren't emojis considered a glyph-based typeface? In the US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_protection_of_typefaces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_protecti... > Typefaces cannot be protected by copyright in the United States (Code of Federal Regulations, Ch 37, Sec. 202.1(e); Eltra Corp. vs. Ringer). The idea that typefaces cannot be copyrighted in the United States is black letter law since the introduction of 37 C.F.R. § 202.1(e) in 1992. Under U.S. law, typefaces and their letter forms or glyphs are considered utilitarian objects whose public utility outweighs any private interest in protecting their creative elements.
- zinekeller 4y ago
  Still not applicable worldwide. US is nearly always the weird one when it comes to copyright law. It may be legal in the US but not anywhere else.
Groxx 4y ago
While I agree this might be a reasonable reason for Apple... it isn't covered anywhere in the article. So I'll turn your accusatory rush back in your direction, if you don't mind. Do we have proof that it's due to the style similarities? So far all I've seen has been "Telegram complains X" and "Apple has not commented". I'm not familiar enough with Apple's emoji, nor does one short preview show enough detail on Telegram's, to accurately judge that... but it would certainly be contentious if they were seemingly "the same". If / when Apple animates their own, they'll certainly want to standardize across all apps, and that's something they're pretty consistent about.

m-p-3 4y ago

Technically, aren't emojis considered a glyph-based typeface? In the US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_protection_of_typefaces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_protecti... > Typefaces cannot be protected by copyright in the United States (Code of Federal Regulations, Ch 37, Sec. 202.1(e); Eltra Corp. vs. Ringer). The idea that typefaces cannot be copyrighted in the United States is black letter law since the introduction of 37 C.F.R. § 202.1(e) in 1992. Under U.S. law, typefaces and their letter forms or glyphs are considered utilitarian objects whose public utility outweighs any private interest in protecting their creative elements.

zinekeller 4y ago
Still not applicable worldwide. US is nearly always the weird one when it comes to copyright law. It may be legal in the US but not anywhere else.

Groxx 4y ago

While I agree this might be a reasonable reason for Apple... it isn't covered anywhere in the article. So I'll turn your accusatory rush back in your direction, if you don't mind. Do we have proof that it's due to the style similarities? So far all I've seen has been "Telegram complains X" and "Apple has not commented". I'm not familiar enough with Apple's emoji, nor does one short preview show enough detail on Telegram's, to accurately judge that... but it would certainly be contentious if they were seemingly "the same". If / when Apple animates their own, they'll certainly want to standardize across all apps, and that's something they're pretty consistent about.