Here is an interesting case: Is embedding a photographer’s IG post on your website copyright infringement? Celebrities have been sued for posting a photographer’s Instagram post (of another celebrity taken paparazzi-style) in their Story (yes, if someone can sue, they will), but here it is extended to a website posting a feed. Now the courts have previously decided that Meta/Instagram isn’t liable for someone else embedding content from IG, even though they make it possible (Section 230 protection), but a website using someone else’s IG account posts in their own posts could be interesting, but at the same time, when you post to Social Media, there is a level of giving away your art that should be assumed — if you don’t want people using the platform how it can be used, don’t post to the platform, is the argument.
However, there is the other side of the argument that if you are using a copyrighted content for commercial purposes, which you would have normally had to pay for, and you are trying to use a loophole or workaround to avoid paying for the content, that is a specific abuse that is infringement and is something the commercial company is liable for.
Section 230 is a much debated law that gives platforms liability protection from the hate or horrible stuff that can be posted on their site without them having to police it. Some say it helps free speech while others argue it allows for rampant misinformation, hate speech, and copyright abuse. The AI companies that “scrape publicly available images” take a lot from social media, claiming they don’t owe a cent.
PS Gen AI image “Embedded IG Posts” brought to you by “ChatGPT’s art is now just simple clip art”. Blah.
