Excuse me, but Shelley WAS cautious to begin with. So Mark's point was moot. But I see his hissing got her to remove the story. Happy?
At any rate, though I'm no lawyer, it's easy to see that Shell's perfectly innocuous - but now deleted - post would have come under the "fair use" clause in U.S. Copyright Law, as quoted below:
TITLE 17 CHAPTER 1 SECTION 107 - Limitation of Exclusive Rights: Fair Use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, THE FAIR USE OF A COPYRIGHTED WORK, including such use by reproduction in copies of phoneorecords or by any other means specified by that section, FOR PURPOSES OF CRITICISM, COMMENT, NEWS REPORTING, TEACHING (including multiple copies for classroom use), SCHOLARSHIP, or RESEARCH, IS NOT AN INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT. In determining whether the use of a work in any particular case is a fair use, the factors to be considered shall include -
1) the purpose or character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes.
2) The nature of the copyrighted work
3) The amount or substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
4) The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.