3 ms·

Wait. Why "can't" Clearview comply with the order? Don't they know the identities of the people whose photos they're scraping and storing? Thus, don't they k

Wait. Why "can't" Clearview comply with the order? Don't they know the identities of the people whose photos they're scraping and storing? Thus, don't they know if those people are Canadian or not? Or is Clearview just lazily scraping photos from the web etc. and storing whatever random username or pseudonym is attached to it, giving _that_ in search results? In which case, they should 1000% expect to be taken to task by jurisdictions all around the world for their gross overreach. Wait, plus, isn't the very premise of their business just 99.99% pure IP infringement? They don't even have the legal right to use images posted online just because they're accessible. They are protected by copyright unless CC or public-domain licensed...

d110af5ccf 5y ago
> They don't even have the legal right to use images posted online just because they're accessible. They are protected by copyright unless CC or public-domain licensed... I'm not sure what the legal situation is exactly but it seems to be more complicated than that. The LinkedIn case appears to have determined that scraping public content is legal. I don't think you can redistribute it after that but I guess you can freely analyze it? As to distributing (possibly even selling) the result of that analysis, see the GitHub Copilot controversy. There are large OCR datasets of public domain books and old governmental records that come with a "no commercial use" clause. I'm not sure what the legality of feeding those in to an ML algorithm that gets used commercially is.