>But the latest lawsuit alleges that Meta and Zuckerberg deliberately circumvented copyright-protection mechanisms — and had considered paying to license the works before abandoning that strategy at “Zuckerberg’s personal instruction.” The suit essentially argues that the conduct described falls outside protections afforded by fair-use provisions of the U.S. copyright code.
He made the call and there has been some case law since. CEOs often make calls in areas that aren't legally clear (see the oracle v google case regarding java for a good one if you are an engineer). The case gets decided after the fact and the law becomes clear, but it wasn't at the time the decision was made. It's how the world works.
>But the latest lawsuit alleges that Meta and Zuckerberg deliberately circumvented copyright-protection mechanisms — and had considered paying to license the works before abandoning that strategy at “Zuckerberg’s personal instruction.” The suit essentially argues that the conduct described falls outside protections afforded by fair-use provisions of the U.S. copyright code.
One can allege all manner of things.
The title is clickbait at it's worst. The situation around copyright and AI is stock standard "CEO makes a decision in an area that is clear as mud".
How are you so sure "it's not copyright infringement" if the area is "clear as mud"?
He made the call and there has been some case law since. CEOs often make calls in areas that aren't legally clear (see the oracle v google case regarding java for a good one if you are an engineer). The case gets decided after the fact and the law becomes clear, but it wasn't at the time the decision was made. It's how the world works.