Yiangou highlights the diverse venues available in Akamas, from luxurious hotel resorts and scenic beaches like Agios Georgios in Peyia to unique locations such as the Shipwreck area and private villas. The enduring interest from Polish and Israeli couples underscores Akamas’s growing standing as a wedding hotspot.
Follow THE FUTURE on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X and Telegram
AI companies train models on enormous amounts of published material, including books, articles and academic research. Whether using that content without authors’ permission violates copyright law remains unresolved.
Much of the debate centres on fair use, which allows copyrighted material to be used without permission in certain circumstances. Courts consider factors such as the purpose of the use, how much material was involved and its impact on the original market.
Follow THE FUTURE on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X and Telegram
A major case involving Anthropic and a group of authors provided one of the clearest rulings so far. Judge William Alsup found that using copyrighted books to train AI models was lawful, comparing the process to people reading and studying literature before creating something new.
Anthropic was nevertheless ordered to pay $1.5 billion in a settlement. The penalty concerned books the company had obtained from illegal online libraries rather than the AI training itself.
For AI companies, that distinction could prove significant because it separates studying copyrighted material from directly copying it.
A case involving Thomson Reuters and Ross Intelligence offers a different perspective. A court ruled that Ross could not claim fair use after using Reuters’ copyrighted material to develop a competing AI-powered legal research platform.
The decision suggests courts may be less willing to consider AI training fair use when copyrighted content is used to build a product that directly competes with the original.
For authors, an unresolved question is whether AI-generated content should be considered competition for the works used to train these models.
US copyright law predates generative AI by decades, leaving courts to apply old principles to new technology. Questions also remain over copyright protection for AI-generated works. In Thaler v. Perlmutter, a court ruled that material created entirely by AI cannot receive copyright protection.
Major AI companies remain involved in copyright litigation, and different courts could reach different conclusions. For now, there is no universal rule: the legality of AI training will depend on the circumstances of each case and how courts ultimately interpret copyright and fair use.
