[pdonis]

I've seen other indications that GoDaddy is a bit heavy-handed, to put it mildly, in responding to DMCA takedown notices. This confirms it. Assuming that the notice was worded properly, they should only have taken down the one specific site that infringed, not all the sites belonging to the same person.

[peetahb]

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/Schwager-Consulting-Marketing...

[pdonis]

> Apparently many of her sites used that specific photo.

Ah, didn't catch that.

[peetahb]

A lot of people fail to understand what's legally protected by fair use.

[pdonis]

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]

No, she claims she is covered under fair use because she doesn't make any money from it, blah blah blah.

[peetahb]

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]

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/

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.