I think the grey area is that it is not clear that there was a reason to "debunk" anything. Other people, not the photographer (as far as the evidence shows), misrepresented the photographs.
If the photographer misrepresented them then yes it probably if fair use. However it's probably more grey than that, although may still be fair use. It's complicated.
However, if we take her statement at face value, I can completely see why someone who is now (potentially) the victim of an internet pile-on and death threats would want to use any means necessary to make that stop.
The photographer only added the disclaimers after the criticisms. So she definitely misrepresented them.
Also for the criticism fair use exception to copyright to apply, the criticism actually doesn’t have to be correct. Rather it just has to be criticism.
The DMCA also isn’t meant to be used to stop a pile on or protect people from criticism that is leading to death threats. It has a narrow use and all of this drama around it doesn’t affect whether or not this is fair use or not.
Also given that we know the photographer misrepresents things are we sure there are real death threats? Basically she is now the victim and blaming the accuser while also trying to silence the accuser. It is all so drama filled.
You're being down voted but not many have commented to discuss with you.
As another commented has said, the correctness of the pursuit doesn't really matter; it may be that the debunking actually finds here correct and "innocent", as I say; you can't discuss a subject without referring to it.
As for other people misrepresenting the photographs; I don't have a strong opinion about the whole thing; but, her statements, very clearly, in my opinion avoid or skirt around the truth; it very, very clearly omits detail.
There also some sugar coating of terminology; I'm not photographer, or artist, but I consider the statement "this is / is not edited" to mean something very different to "this is / is not a composite".
As someone who likes to provide detail, and not leave ambiguity when I describe my work, I find it quite jarring to read her descriptions; the wording is chosen carefully to avoid saying what is much easier to say, were it not done in a roundabout way.
"I found a pile of cash behind the living room wall" is much more to the point and clear than "I was redecorating my living room last week, and I found what I'd always been looking for".
There is never a situation that I think it's reasonable or fair for pile-ons death threats or any other kind of aggression to occur over something like this, it's unacceptable; however, regards misrepresenting her work, I firmly believe that position to be true given the evidence presented.
That said, this is just my opinion, and I make no comment on whether "misrepresenting" in itself is or is not an issue, just that I believe it _is_ misrepresented (intentionally).
Its not really grey at all actually. You are allowed to use copyrighted material in criticism (so long as its only what's needed for criticism, you cant just play a full movie as a loophole). How good or correct the criticism is, is totally irrelavent. This feels like an open and shut example where using the work would be ok.
If you think someone is lying, or ruining your reputation, that is what libel laws are for, not copyright.
If the photographer misrepresented them then yes it probably if fair use. However it's probably more grey than that, although may still be fair use. It's complicated.
However, if we take her statement at face value, I can completely see why someone who is now (potentially) the victim of an internet pile-on and death threats would want to use any means necessary to make that stop.