3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoSo 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?