"News outlets improperly used photos posted to Twitter: judge"

I'm not convinced that this is as ground-breaking as the article suggests — "one of the first big tests of intellectual property law involving social media" — both because we've had an almost identical case around Flickr in Europe, and because the principle that making something available to the public is not the same as making something available as a free for all is pretty much the central notion of copyright as a property right, but here's a story confirming that putting something online does mean it is available for free commercial use.