“By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).”
“You agree that this license includes the right for Twitter to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals who partner with Twitter for the syndication, broadcast, distribution or publication of such Content on other media and services, subject to our terms and conditions for such Content use.”
I’m pretty sure you can make the argument that you were submitting, posting and displaying *the link* through Twitter, since the actual content was submitted, posted and displayed through another service.
A.K.A. If I link to your Flickr from my Twitter, they don’t own your photo. Period. Twitter isn’t displaying the image, Flickr is. Also, I’m posting a link to a web page, not a photo. Are they going to try to claim copyright over the Flickr logo on said page? Especially when that page specifically says all photos on it are All Rights Reserved, permission must be explicitly granted in writing or through Getty to license the photos?
They will have quite the legal hassle. Also, they could only lay claim to the 400×600 image from the page and none of the higher (or lower!) resolution files hosted on Flickr, because those pages weren’t published in a link on Twitter. Also, the direct link to Flickr wasn’t publish, a URL shortened version was published. So they own a redirect, technically.
Enjoy! And don’t publish images directly to Twitter! I’d love to see what Photofocus and his lawyer think of my thoughts, but commenting is closed on the site so I couldn’t leave a direct comment. Maybe they’ll notice the pingback?