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).
> 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.
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...
> 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.
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?
Their right should be determined in court, if it gets to that point. Not by apple using its monopoly on the Apple Store to decide and judge whether something breaks copyright laws.
> So this article contains no information besides “update was held up” which must happen all the time.
The thing is, Apple is infamous for holding up or rejecting application updates without providing clear transparency on why (e.g. "needs further review because we noticed something and need to clear that internally", "we're under backlog", "we suspect you violate rule XYZ") and no reasonable way to appeal to an external authority (=a legitimate court) in the case of a dispute, particularly if you are outside of teh US.
It would be very silly indeed if the anticompetitive bundling of memoji (apple's competing high res emoji for messaging) is the hill they chose to die on, after finally letting Netflix link to their own subscription payments on the web.
Yes, in the current enforcement environment refusing to let a chat client render :) the same way across platforms, because you want to lock users into your integrated hardware/software ecosystem. Let's hold a Congressional hearing about it.
Regarding a), I seem to remember that Yahoo Messenger had animated stickers _with audio_. I recall they had a pack with Madonna's (the artist) voice/songs. I just don't recall when exactly that was, but I think it was ~2005.
oh I wasn't commented on whether the idea was new or not, but about how non-revolutionary it is.. In the sense that it won't change communication in a fundamental way, won't change how I express myself online, etc.
Not sure why they'd take issue with Telegram doing this, when Slack and Discord and probably others have been supporting animated emoji for years.
But that kinda is Apple's modus operandi. The left app store gatekeeper doesn't know what the right one approved or disapproved of last week, so you get smacked down seemingly randomly.
Doesn't seem like its animated emoji thats the issue, its that they animated the default emoji design. Other apps like MS teams have their own designs which are animated rather than using the default set.
Nothing new here. If you've ever published apps on AppStore you would know how random Apple is with app reviews. It's like there's no consistent guideline handed out to the reviewers and they just nitpick on whatever they feel like.
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.
> 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.
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.
I guess a solution for Telegram could be to design their own, standard, emoji set.
So far they were using the apple one across platforms, just to avoid "emoji misunderstandings" (when the emoji design is different, also the meaning can be interpreted differently - that's why is better for a common chat to use the same set).
Given the quality of Telegram UI and designers, I am sure they will do a very very good job.
It was always really nice that the Telegram emojis were consistent but since they added the animated emojis I always find myself sending one and having the animation depict a whole other emotion because whoever made it lives under a rock.
They looked so happy and energetic before apple murdered them all. And we thought apple was so big and powerful but now that we see how frightened they are by these insignificant animations....
That article seems to be offering legal advice, but from a technical perspective is awful: it throws multiple types of IP law into a blender and then discusses IP like it's one thing, incorrectly. Of the types mentioned, only trademark must be enforced to preserve one's rights. Both patents and copyright have no such requirement, and Apple's claim here would be copyright-based.
In any case, Apple is within their rights to assert that telemoji are an unlicensed derivative work of Apple's emoji, but they aren't compelled to enforce that to keep their copyright.
Quite simply, Apple Color Emoji isn’t licensed. They could have chosen one of the free emoji fonts like Noto Emoji, or if they don’t like any of the existing free ones, commission their own. Instead they chose to adapt an unlicensed proprietary font.
> This is a puzzling move on Apple’s behalf…
Hardly puzzling. What’s puzzling is their developers and designers seem to have never heard of licenses on artwork. And no, “your emojis are boring and we’re making them awesome” is not a valid copyright infringement defense.
Technically it may not be a copyright infringement - whether emojis can be copyrighted is quite complicated.
However, this is irrelevant as App Store Review guidelines say the following.
> Apps may use Unicode characters that render as Apple emoji in their app and app metadata. Apple emoji may not be used on other platforms or embedded directly in your app binary.
The problem here is that generally this is decide by courts, not by apple.
This is basically yet another piece of evidence of a monopoly. Apple acting as the judge, jury, and executioner regarding what it thinks is “it’s rights”
> “This is a puzzling move on Apple’s behalf, because Telemoji would have brought an entire new dimension to its static low-resolution emoji and would have significantly enriched their ecosystem.”
This guy talks like a press release.
> The update is loaded with other new emoji improvements, though. Users who subscribe to Telegram’s recently-launched $4.99 Premium service will be able to upload and use custom emoji in chats with friends, and Telegram is offering 10 custom packs with more than 500 emoji to start.
Actually, this whole article sounds like an advert. Has The Verge stooped so low they are now doing undisclosed advertorials?
Clearly the clock that Apple put on iOS6 was copyrighted by the Swiss Railway but Apple didn't bother to check, their artist plantenly copied it. Only after later outrage they were forced to pay to license it [1]
64 comments
[ 5.2 ms ] story [ 140 ms ] threadAs is their right.
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.
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
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/
Edit: Gun is a better example, https://emojipedia.org/pistol/
https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2018/03/article_0006.h...
> 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?
On the other hand these new emojis look really cool. This almost feel like an ads.
I disagree. It feels like a painful return to early 2000s animated phpBB forum emoticons.
The thing is, Apple is infamous for holding up or rejecting application updates without providing clear transparency on why (e.g. "needs further review because we noticed something and need to clear that internally", "we're under backlog", "we suspect you violate rule XYZ") and no reasonable way to appeal to an external authority (=a legitimate court) in the case of a dispute, particularly if you are outside of teh US.
> He claims that the update is “about to revolutionize how people express themselves in messaging”
https://www.theverge.com/2022/8/11/23301864/telegram-founder...
Not so revolutionary in my opinion. Good way to spin an update delay to get some articles written about themselves though.
b) Emoji are copied from Apple emojis.
c) PR strategy is copied from the dozens of startups who also played this victim game.
Edit: I just found this: https://www.madonna.com/news/title/madonna-audibles-now-avai...
But that kinda is Apple's modus operandi. The left app store gatekeeper doesn't know what the right one approved or disapproved of last week, so you get smacked down seemingly randomly.
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.
In the US 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.
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.
So far they were using the apple one across platforms, just to avoid "emoji misunderstandings" (when the emoji design is different, also the meaning can be interpreted differently - that's why is better for a common chat to use the same set).
Given the quality of Telegram UI and designers, I am sure they will do a very very good job.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/enforce-your-intellectu...
In any case, Apple is within their rights to assert that telemoji are an unlicensed derivative work of Apple's emoji, but they aren't compelled to enforce that to keep their copyright.
> This is a puzzling move on Apple’s behalf…
Hardly puzzling. What’s puzzling is their developers and designers seem to have never heard of licenses on artwork. And no, “your emojis are boring and we’re making them awesome” is not a valid copyright infringement defense.
However, this is irrelevant as App Store Review guidelines say the following.
> Apps may use Unicode characters that render as Apple emoji in their app and app metadata. Apple emoji may not be used on other platforms or embedded directly in your app binary.
What’s at stake, IMO, more likely is that they created a derived work from Apple’s emoji, while Apple doesn’t approve of that.
(I won’t make any claim here w.r.t. whether that is or should be forbidden)
This is basically yet another piece of evidence of a monopoly. Apple acting as the judge, jury, and executioner regarding what it thinks is “it’s rights”
This guy talks like a press release.
> The update is loaded with other new emoji improvements, though. Users who subscribe to Telegram’s recently-launched $4.99 Premium service will be able to upload and use custom emoji in chats with friends, and Telegram is offering 10 custom packs with more than 500 emoji to start.
Actually, this whole article sounds like an advert. Has The Verge stooped so low they are now doing undisclosed advertorials?
DEFCON presentation
https://xn--fda.fr/defcon/DEF%20CON%2030%20-%20Hadrien%20Bar...
I get annoyed when web apps mess with emojis instead of leaving them as the OS default (e.g. Facebook Messenger).
[1] https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/time-is-money-apple-...
Under what basis can an individual or company use emoji images outside of text-based messsges?
I frequently see ads that include large scaled up copies of Apple's emoji. Is that allowed?
On TikTok I see people illustrate their videos with huge emoji stickers. What's the copyright situation there?
People seem to treat Apple emoji like clip art. Can you do that? Does Apple offer any clarity anywhere on licensing terms?