Beyond Code: Can Mobile App Interfaces and UX Designs Be Copyrighted?

Introduction

Mobile applications are an invaluable communication, business, education, and entertainment tool in the age of smartphones and expedited digitalization. (Mobile Apps Engineering, 2018) Their success tends not only to depend on the software code behind them but also on the graphical interface and user experience (UX), the interaction between the users and the app. (Feng & Wei, 2019) Here is a big legal issue:Can one copyright the interface or UX of a mobile application? Although the copyright law guarantees protection of original authorship works (Saunders, 2023), it has consistently drawn a line between expression and idea (Shemtov, 2017). Protection of software code is, of course, undisputed (Guo, 2017), whereas the copyrightability of a user experience or an interface is more complicated.

Scope of copyright in the protection of interfaces in apps.

The mobile applications are not only appreciated in terms of technical performance but also in terms of the aesthetic and interactive experience of the user (Liu & Wang, 2024). The identity of an app is its user interface (UI) with icons, layouts, and screen designs, and how well it is received by the user is the user experience (Sandesara et al., 2022) (UX). Copyright-wise, however, not all these designs can be copyrighted. The copyright law is based on the idea that no ideas, procedures, or methods of operation are entitled to protection, but only expression of ideas is accorded legal protection (id). Using this for mobile apps, the idea of swiping your phone to unlock the screen would be a concept and thus not copyrightable, but the actual artistic animation or the graphic representation of the swipe would be considered an original expression. Likewise, a navigation flow or functional design item cannot be under copyright, but icons, color schemes, or a unique configuration of visual elements may be considered as an artistic work. The copyright law, Indian law, in its Copyright Act, 1957, places software code and original artistic design under the category of literary works and offers copyright protection to original designs (id); however, it has not explicitly included the user interface as a separate work of art. It has been experienced by the courts in the United States, Europe, and China. To give an instance, in the case Apple v. Microsoft Business Model, the American court made it clear that copyright can not be used to monopolize the very appearance and the feel of a graphical user interface where its elements are largely mundane or even standard. The European Union is no different; they clearly do not recognize interfaces as copyrightable under the Software Directive, but note that original artistic material can also be copyrightable. Concisely, the system of the law offers piecemeal coverage: aesthetic components of UI can be covered by the copyright, whereas the functional rationality of the UX can be out of its coverage (id).

Limitations and the necessity of a multi-layered protection strategy.

One of the biggest obstacles to the protection of copyright is the functional character of the UX design (ID). The concept of user experience is essentially concerned with how a user navigates and interacts with an application, which is not an expressive art but rather a way of functioning (Fronemann & Peissner, 2014). In case copyright were to be applied to these types of features, this would have the effect of overprotecting and inhibiting innovativeness and the ability of the developer to develop intuitively designed features that the user would want as the standard of the industry. That is how such a delicate boundary has been pointed out by courts and legislatures in different jurisdictions between expression and functionality. However, the problem of piracy and cloning within the app ecosystem cannot be overlooked, as most popular apps are often copied, and copycat apps are borrowing code and interfaces alike as well (Price, 2017). In order to overcome these loopholes, the developers are advised to use a multi-layered intellectual property approach. Expressive elements of UI, such as icons and graphics, can be copyrighted, and novel interactive functionality or gestures can be patented, as Apple did originally with its slide-to-unlock functionality. The trade dress and trademarks may guard unique logos or visual branding, which indicates the app to users. (Kopp & Langenderfer, 2014) Considering IP on a broader basis than the statutory IP, agreements and non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) with designers and employees may offer more realistic business-level protection against unlicensed usage. This is a balanced layer of rights approach to the creators and healthy competition in the digital market. Finally, the copyright in itself will never offer total coverage of the app interfaces or UX, but in conjunction with the other intellectual property mechanisms, it is significant in motivating creativity and deterring blatant copying of the artistic elements.

Conclusion

The copyrightability of interfaces and user experience design of mobile applications is at the border between creativity and functionality. Though expressive elements of art like icons, graphics, and layout can be considered as part of protection, the functional UX items are not much subject to the protection of copyright. International jurisprudence ascertains that the provision of broad copyright privileges on user interfaces would form monopolies on ways of interrelating, which would hamper the innovativeness in the creation of apps. Nevertheless, there is a growing centrality of mobile apps in the digital economy that makes it critical to explain and enhance protection in the field. Global copyright with the addition of patents, trademarks, and contractual protection seems to be the most effective method. It will guarantee that the developers get their creative contributions to the full extent without stifling the overall development of digital innovation.