[herniatedeel]

SCOTUS denied the petition for writ of certiorari, thereby leaving the 2nd Circuit's ruling in Google's favor intact.

However, the 2nd Circuit's ruling is not binding on any other federal circuits.

Also, as Enginerrd stated, the holding is not nearly as broad as the article makes it out to be.

The holding was:

1. Google’s unauthorized digitizing of copyright-protected works, creation of a search functionality, and display of snippets from those works are non-infringing fair uses. The purpose of the copying is highly transformative, the public display of text is limited, and the revelations do not provide a significant market substitute for the protected aspects of the originals. Google’s commercial nature and profit motivation do not justify denial of fair use.

2. Google’s provision of digitized copies to the libraries that supplied the books, on the understanding that the libraries will use the copies in a manner consistent with the copyright law, also does not constitute infringement.

Based on the above holding, I think the article's conclusion is a stretch for general training algorithms using copyrighted data because: (1) there would not be a library supplying the information to the training algorithm, (2) there would be no similar display of snippets, and (3) we do not know if a training algorithm would provide a market substitute for the copyrighted data.

[bluGill]

While the decision is only binding in the 2nd circuit, the precedent is admissible in other courts. If this goes to trial in a different circuit you can bring the finding to the judge who will consider it - it won't be binding, but he will consider it. If it goes to appeal in a different circuit the next circuit will reference this in their decision - if they decide the 2nd is wrong they will be very clear why the they think the 2nd circuit is wrong when they make ruling (and this can in turn be re-submitted to the 2nd circuit who might change their mind if the reasoning is good enough). If this goes to the supreme court in the future they will read this decision and it will influence them - again they can decide either way.

[herniatedeel]

Yes, the 2nd Circuit's decision is persuasive authority for other circuits. However, that's not what the article claims. The article claims that SCOTUS ruled when it, in fact, did not.

[dragonwriter]

SCOTUS ruled on the cert petition; what people may not understand is that while that is a ruling, it is (and there is explicit precedent on this point) not one which has precedential weight (even as persuasive authority) as regards the merits of the issues addressed in the lower court ruling.

[angry_octet]

Isn't it unlikely that a case will be granted cert if appeals courts in different circuits are in agreement? I.e. not a circuit split? So while not legally binding, it might be in practice indicative.

I wonder, does this mean I can scrape Instagram/Facebook for photos and use them for face recognition? Is that 'fair use'? Is an Instagram post a publication?

[dragonwriter]

> Isn't it unlikely that a case will be granted cert if appeals courts in different circuits are in agreement?

As I understand, it's generally viewed to be th case that a circuit split makes cert. more likely, sure.

> So while not legally binding, it might be in practice indicative.

I guess that it's indicative that, barring change in membership of th court, cert. would likely be denied in a future case raising the same issue from the same or a different circuit with the same result.

It definitely should not be seen as indicative of anything on the merits other than that the members of the court don't see it as obviously and urgently wrong.

[daveFNbuck]

It's not hard to see why people are not understanding this correctly.

The HN link text:

> Training algorithms on copyrighted data not illegal: US Supreme Court

The sub-heading for the article:

> Training algorithms on copyrighted data is not illegal, according to the United States Supreme Court.

[kevin_thibedeau]

I'm going to take a picture of an Anish Kapoor sculpture tomorrow. Will that be an infringing transformative work?