TIME INC. TARGETS BANGKOK WEBSITE

Global media company Time Inc. has targeted a Bangkok-based website for reproducing a magazine cover to illustrate a story.
The ThaiIndian website, operated by Sajal Kayan, published a story featuring People magazine's story about Jaycee Dugard. The story included an image of the front cover of this week's edition of the magazine.
Within hours Sajal, along with other websites around the world, were receiving DMCA takedown notices. Sajal tells The Bangkok Bugle: "What I really want to know is whether Time's legal department is getting paid per DMCA notice, or whether the publisher seriously wants to charge publishers for the privilege of promoting their next issue."
Sajal has since removed the image and has instructed his writers not to feature stories from ever mentioning People magazine in the future. He added: "They're probably upset that, for many searches my site shows up before theirs."
-----
I can see both sides of this debate in my professional role in publishing and as a blogger. On the one side you have the issue of fair use, but when use of any content has the potential to take revenues or clicks away from the publisher problems will likely arise.
Strictly speaking what Sajal did contravenes Time's terms of service which state: "Any commercial or promotional distribution, publishing or exploitation of the website, or any content, code, data or materials on the website, is strictly prohibited unless you have received the express prior written permission from authorized personnel of Time Inc. or the otherwise applicable rights holder."
This story was a People exclusive was probably licensed and syndicated around the world to other publishers, so commercial damage from unauthorised reproduction is also an issue to take into account.
As a blogger who makes regular use of magazine covers to illustrate stories I really do sympathise with Sajal's story. I can only see positive benefits for a publication in writing about it, however magazine covers are subject to copyright so technically speaking I am probably infringing copyright as well.
In the future I can only see publishers getting more aggressive in protecting their content, especially when that content comes from behind the much-touted pay walls and is reproduced on free-to-access websites - again depriving them of revenue.

Have your say. What's your opinion about this issue? Has Sajal done anything wrong? Is Time Inc. right to want to protect its copyright? Leave a comment and join the debate.