The DMCA notice claims the copyrighted work is the YouTube video, and the single image of her face is infringing on that copyright. But you can't copyright your own face, that falls under
personality rights. The "fixed work" would be her performing for the camera, and the performance is copyrighted, not her likeness. While she holds copyright over the video, an image is not a video; it's a different format, in a different medium. That might be transformative, which leads to the question of fair use.
Even if it
wasn't posted for comment etc, it could still be allowed because fair use is actually based on a
4 part test:
- Purpose: The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature, or is for nonprofit education purposes.
- Nature: The nature of the copyrighted work.
- Amount: The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.
- Effect: The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work.
Emphasis added.
Money does come into play for that factor, because monetizing it becomes commercial activity that is given less preference in the test.
Neither Null nor the user made money off the avatar picture. A basic run-through of the other 3 factors suggests it's non-infringing of her copyright, so yes, the money
could be the swing factor in the analysis, which is why I mentioned it.
Which is fine, and I don't care that Null nuked it.
But since you got me in the argumentative asshole mood... by the same token, that pic still falls under
de minimis use. It's unimportant enough for the
courts not to care either, and if Null asserted this defense to a sane lawyer, they'd probably go away.
Internet shitposters assuming that it has to be comment or critique or parody to be fair use are self-limiting. There's case law going back to
Betamax tapes giving you more freedom than you realize, no matter how scared that FBI warning made you.