71–76 of 76 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You misunderstand. They copied the literal image from facebooks computers to their own to train with.
And that may be permitted under fair use. It is not yet settled law in the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And that may be permitted under fair use. It is not yet settled law in the US.
Under what theory would they be granted fair use for commercial use of images illegally acquired from a third party and ultimately jacked from people who they have no business relationship with?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If this site is going to rely on archiving sites to allow people to read articles, perhaps you should just post the archive link to begin with.
the archive website didnt write that article nor do they fund it. Their business model might be ridiculous, but they pay their reporters using that.
Find another source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Privacy doesn't matter and GDPR is not a solution.
Your privacy may not matter to you . For most of us here, though, our privacy matters to us. So "privacy doesn't matter" seems like a rather incorrect generalization.
to anybody but a fringe minority.
>One reason that Clearview is catching on is that its service is unique. That’s because Facebook and other social media sites prohibit people from scraping users’ images — Clearview is violating the sites’ terms of service. “A lot of people are doing it,” Mr. Ton-That shrugged. “Facebook knows.” So I own the copyright to the image I uploaded to facebook I licensed it to Facebook they stole it from Facebook. Did they…
LinkedIn lost a lawsuit over that subject, which effectively nullifies those terms.
https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/LinkedIn-Wins-Latest-C...
It's going to be ultimately decided that violating the TOS to scrape after being told not to is legally questionable and furthermore questionable acquisition further any already ridiculous claim to fair use.