(Photo
by
Sean
Gallup/Getty
Images)
Intellectual
property
expert
Mark
Lemley
is
done
working
for
Facebook.
The
Stanford
Law
professor
represented
Facebook
in
the
copyright
case
brought
on
behalf
of
creators
claiming
the
social
media
giant
infringed
their
IP
while
training
its
large
language
model,
in
a
case
that
could
have
profound
implications
for
generative
AI’s
future
prospects.
And
while
Lemley
still
hopes
Facebook
prevails
on
principle,
he’s
done
associating
himself
with
the
company’s
“descent
into
toxic
masculinity
and
Neo-Nazi
madness.”
And
he
made
this
announcement
on
Facebook.
And
by
descent
into
Neo-Nazi
madness,
we’re
talking
about
policies
like
these
leaked
to
The
Intercept:
Overall
the
restrictions
on
claims
of
ethnic
or
religious
supremacy
has
been
eased
significantly.
The
document
explains
that
Meta
now
allows
“statements
of
superiority
as
long
as
the
statements
do
not
refer
to
inferiority
of
another
[protected
characteristic]
group
(a)
on
the
basis
of
inherent
intellectual
ability
and
(b)
without
support.”
Allowable
statements
under
this
rule
include
“Latinos
are
the
best!”
and
“Black
people
are
superior
to
all
others.”
Also
now
acceptable
are
comparative
claims
such
as
“Black
people
are
more
violent
than
Whites,”
“Mexicans
are
lazier
than
Asians,”
and
“Jews
are
flat
out
greedier
than
Christians.”
Off-limits,
only
because
it
pertains
to
intellectual
ability,
is
the
example
“White
people
are
more
intelligent
than
black
people.”
There’s
a
certain
irony
in
the
fact
that
this
policy
has
cost
Facebook
its
lawyer
in
a
case
against
comedian
Sarah
Silverman,
who
famously/infamously
had
a
routine
lampooning
the
idea
that
proclaiming
love
for
an
ethnic
group
is
the
same
as
denigrating
that
group.
A
sanctimonious
segment
of
the
legal
profession
harps
on
the
idea
that
“everyone
is
entitled
an
attorney.”
Except
no
one
is
entitled
to
you
as
an
attorney.
Frankly,
no
one
is
entitled
to
anything
in
a
civil
case
and
to
the
extent
society
needs
to
extend
more
protections
to
indigent
clients
on
the
wrong
end
of
life-altering
civil
actions
—
landlord-tenant
cases
for
instance
—
there’s
definitely
no
such
entitlement
for
a
multibillion-dollar
company
in
a
copyright
dispute.
Representing
a
client
is
a
business
decision.
Some
lawyers
thrive
as
counsel
of
last
resort
and
model
their
business
around
the
willingness
to
represent
unpopular
clients.
Other
lawyers
build
their
business
on
crusading
for
good
causes.
A
whole
lot
of
lawyers
exist
somewhere
between
those
poles.
In
fact,
a
lot
of
deep-pocketed
clients
also
don’t
want
to
work
with
firms
associated
with
unpopular
causes
—
that’s
a
business
decision
too.
There’s
nothing
wrong
with
any
of
these
approaches.
Lawyers
should
feel
free
to
build
their
practice
however
they
want.
Lemley
isn’t
trying
to
be
a
Hollywood
criminal
law
fixer,
he’s
an
intellectual
property
lawyer.
He
doesn’t
need
to
build
an
artificial
firewall
between
his
moral
convictions
and
some
abstract
legal
principle.
He
can
choose
to
lend
his
skills
to
clients
that
reflect
his
values.
And
Facebook
doesn’t
at
this
point.
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.