[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.