I actually almost spat out my coffee. Even more barefaced than outright theft is first stealing and then saying “Yep! Whatcha gonna do about it, roundeye losers?”
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Xiaomi Clones Apple's Memoji With New 'Mimoji' Avatars [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Damn they are really embarrassing. I had their phones and its decent in fact its good for the price but they really dont shy away from copying apple to the t. they have no shame bones....
Its like copying homeworks down to every punctuations and not denying it to the teacher...
Its like copying homeworks down to every punctuations and not denying it to the teacher...
Their official response is akin to saying, we didn’t copy because we said so.
If we are looking at the similarities to pronounce Memoji and Mimoji relating to trademark definition it is not going to hold up in court.
Trying to prove copyright of the avatars is going to be challenging as well, it may resemble but prove financial loss. It is a weak case and burning money on a lawsuit that there is little to no possibility of winning is asinine.
A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol, and/or design that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others.
A copyright protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture.
Source: https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics/trademark-patent-or-copyright
You are missing my point. I know the difference between copyright and trademark. Once again, for copyright you don’t necessarily have to prove financial loss. I showed you the copyright damages statute. You can get statutory damages, even if you have no financial loss.
(Laughs)
They undermined their trustworthiness in a single tweet? Don't people generally have to work to achieve that kind of precision?
They undermined their trustworthiness in a single tweet? Don't people generally have to work to achieve that kind of precision?
The shamelessness of Xiaomi’s copying of Apple never ceases to amaze me. They don’t even do their own original take on these emoji. They have zero pride.
Venturebeats has some additional info which might be interesting in the context of the discussion here.
For one, Apple didn't come up with the name "Memoji". There has been an older app of that name, although that worked differently.
Secondly, Xiaomi has been using the "Mimoji" moniker (provably) at least internally before Apple announced their "Memojis".
For one, Apple didn't come up with the name "Memoji". There has been an older app of that name, although that worked differently.
Secondly, Xiaomi has been using the "Mimoji" moniker (provably) at least internally before Apple announced their "Memojis".
Xiaomi copies Apple's design language. That's what they do. Except they also do it across a plethora of product lines Apple will never even imagine producing. And they do it pretty well.
Apple don't dare that in China. In China, Apple's situation is like a mouse when cats are roaming around.
If you are considering the avatars themselves, even if they look similar it is not a complete copy. Smart phone app icons look similar between the various OSes does that mean a lawsuit needs to be filed for damages. One could simply claim inspiration and there is nothing wrong with that. I get the ethical and moral argument, I completely agree however I don’t think Apple is going to go after them for something minor when it is going to be hard to even prove it was intentional.
The company product line is called “Mi” and adding that to “emoji” is not a stretch that worked in they favour even though we can agree why it was done. Prove intent.
No, that's the name on the company that makes the machines they use to avoid the cost of having an actual R n' D department.
But yeah... This is why we still make fun of the Chinese for being incapable of making products that don't amount of anything beyond crude knockoffs of western products.
Like I said, i never claimed a copyright suit had merit, but i did claim your argument about financial damages is wrong.
As for the merits of a copyright suit, copyrights can be infringed even if “not a complete copy.”
17 USC 106:
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(A) copies or phonorecords;
(B) derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
As for your second paragraph, that’s back to trademark law again. And you don’t need to prove “intent” for trademark infringement - you need to prove that consumers would likely be confused as to the source of a product. If my name is Joe Coke, I can’t sell soda named “Coke” just because it is my name.
That seems to be a common theme these days. Odious and corrupt actions that previously had a facade of denial are now proudly displayed.
Well, they did hire Hugo Barra, a former Google executive, so they learned from the best.
I am unable to find where your claim that Apple’s design of copyright of the customizable avatars are unique to Apple. When Apple unveiled these customizable avatars it was noted how similar to Disney characters it resembles. There is nothing new per se, one could argue that Apple drew inspiration from Disney and Xiaomi drew inspiration from Disney as well. Facial features cannot be copyrighted if that was the case the legal system would be flooded with frivolous lawsuits as if there are and were not enough of those to begin with (rounded corners).
If your name was Joe Coke and sold your brand as “Joe Coke” it is a self proclaimed trademark insofar as the logo does not look like a 100% copy of Coke. If you preferred to brand your product as “Koke” it may look similar or even be pronounced the same, even though it is clever and questionable in nature trademark was registered as “Koke” vice “Coke”. There maybe additional claim if “Coke” the company registered the trademark after you technically were given the name at birth prior to trademark registration.
[doublepost=1562169531][/doublepost]
Even Apple’s Memoji base design template resembles Disney design language. When characters are fashioned after anime do people start pointing the finger. Do I believe that Xiaomi can be a little more creative and unique, yes. However as it stands why do we not compare those avatars to Disney rather than Apple. Disney has been in the 2D and 3D modeling space along with Pixar for a whole lot longer. Remember that Disney owns Pixar not Apple even though I am aware of Jobs history with the company. Unfortunately Jobs has pass years before Memoji was revealed.
[doublepost=1562169678][/doublepost]
I thought Apple’s branding was Privacy
What does avatars to do with anything
Didn't they all copy from The Sims?
Or animated entertainment such as Disney/Pixar or Anime styles. People here have some short term memory issues, Apple releases a gold AW or iPhone, boom everyone is copying Apple when there have been other handsets to offer it prior to Apple. Some people here believe Apple = Innovation
That Chinese company is already threatening legal action over being called a clone.
https://venturebeat.com/2019/07/02/...-over-mimoji-apps-overlap-with-apples-memoji/
https://venturebeat.com/2019/07/02/...-over-mimoji-apps-overlap-with-apples-memoji/
I thought Apple’s branding was Privacy
What does avatars to do with anything
Do you understand what a trademark is?
1) “I am unable to find where your claim that...”
Where did I make any such claim? You are making a straw man argument.
2) “facial features cannot be copyrighted”
Yes they can. Please show me the law that says they cannot? I can show you plenty of cases where they have been copyrighted.
3) “Coke” stuff
Not sure what you are trying to say, but I assure you that regardless of your name, or how you pronounce it, if you try to sell Koke, Koch, Joe Coke, or anything in the neighborhood of “coke” you will be sued for trademark infringement and unfair competition, and you will lose. See also Lanham Act section 43(c).
[doublepost=1562171200][/doublepost]
No, he does not.
