> This isn't my analysis ... I'm just repeating what I learned in this guy's class: [redacted] I am also not a lawyer and I am interpreting the law as written

> This isn't my analysis ... I'm just repeating what I learned in this guy's class: [redacted] I am also not a lawyer and I am interpreting the law as written on my own, so my opinions probably differ from top law professors. I am a a little disappointed at the argument from authority, but I can't say that I wouldn't have done the same given the situation. > I'm not sure what you mean by "correct" in this domain. Thats a very good point, and I think that by correct I mean "most morally correct in the bounds of the law". Certainly, what Yahoo did was legal, but it was also unnecessary. As far as I can tell, the photo posed them no liability, nor were they legally required to remove it. > No, actually it confirms what I said and explicitly debunks your claim You are correct. I was wrong in saying that it countered your argument, and should have said that it provides a wider berth for Yahoo to retain their safe harbor status. Their actions were unnecessary in the eyes of the law (as written). > What makes you think there was no such notice? The LA Times article says that Flickr removed the image "due to copyright-infringement concerns". That doesn't prove that there was no notice, but citing "notice" sounds a lot better than citing "concerns" and I would expect them to do so. > I'm not sure why you're still arguing I'm not sure either. Partly, this thread started with the blanket statement that "'fair use' is not a right", which while correct, is a bit of a troll and got me emotionally involved. More generally, I feel that your implicit argument that Flickr did nothing wrong is pervasive but incorrect. The way in which they handled this case combined with their legal liabilities suggest that their actions were based on the popularity and political views of the photograph posted. As you mentioned, if one cares about their rights, they should host their own content. I couldn't agree more, and this is a clear public display of the disadvantages in relying on corporate services.