[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.

[pdonis]

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.)