Yes, the 2nd Circuit's decision is persuasive authority for other circuits. However, that's not what the article claims. The article claims that SCOTUS ruled when it, in fact, did not.
The HN link text:
> Training algorithms on copyrighted data not illegal: US Supreme Court
The sub-heading for the article:
> Training algorithms on copyrighted data is not illegal, according to the United States Supreme Court.
I wonder, does this mean I can scrape Instagram/Facebook for photos and use them for face recognition? Is that 'fair use'? Is an Instagram post a publication?
As I understand, it's generally viewed to be th case that a circuit split makes cert. more likely, sure.
> So while not legally binding, it might be in practice indicative.
I guess that it's indicative that, barring change in membership of th court, cert. would likely be denied in a future case raising the same issue from the same or a different circuit with the same result.
It definitely should not be seen as indicative of anything on the merits other than that the members of the court don't see it as obviously and urgently wrong.