>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 infringe my copyright?
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?
Linkedin lost a case questionably decided by a the single most reversed circuit which is binding in only that circuit, which is liable to be decided differently in another, which will provide impetus for the supreme court to take it up. That decision is in fact in the middle of being ripped up. It is the opposite of decided law.
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.
Seems like the logical thing would be for some attorney to do the leg work for a class action lawsuit and ask for essentially all of their money given the number of acts of infringement.
“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 infringe my copyright?