7 ms·

Apparently many of her sites used that specific photo. Hell, her business page on Facebook still uses it as its cover photo. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Schw

• deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
• pdonis 14y ago
  > Apparently many of her sites used that specific photo. Ah, didn't catch that.
  • peetahb 14y ago
    A lot of people fail to understand what's legally protected by fair use.
    • pdonis 14y ago
      Are you implying that the use in question was fair use (i.e., that the OP should not have sent the DMCA takedown notice for this use)?
      • sbronstein 14y ago
        No, she claims she is covered under fair use because she doesn't make any money from it, blah blah blah.
        • peetahb 14y ago
          No, she claims she is covered under fair use because she doesn't make any money from it, blah blah blah. Plus, her claim of being a lawyer makes the whole matter quite baffling.
        • Natsu 14y ago
          Actually, there have been fair use decisions when an entire work was used non-commercially: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/06/fair-use-defense/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/06/fair-use-defense/ I'm not saying that's the case here, but whether the use was commercial or not is one of the four factors considered when deciding fair use.
          • pdonis 14y ago
            I don't think "commercial" requires you to "make money" from the use. I think using the photo as an illustration on your business website qualifies as "commercial" even if you can't show that it brought you any business. (Of course, IANAL.)
            • Natsu 14y ago
              There are different degrees "commercial." It's not a binary distinction.