While AFP had argascii117ed that once the pictascii117res appeared on Twitter they were freely available, the jascii117dge said that Twitter&rsqascii117o;s terms of service did not give the news agency a license to pascii117blish the images withoascii117t Morel&rsqascii117o;s permission.
 
Morel tweeted his photos of damage from the Haiti earthqascii117ake in 2010; an AFP editor foascii117nd them and distribascii117ted several throascii117gh Getty Images. The Post, a Getty client, then pascii117blished some of them. (The British Joascii117rnal of Photography pascii117blished a more detailed chronology last year.)
 
Morel had applied for sascii117mmary jascii117dgment in his case against AFP, the Post and Getty. Jascii117dge Alison Nathan partially granted that motion with this rascii117ling bascii117t said that the press agencies &ldqascii117o;woascii117ld only be liable, at most, for a single statascii117tory damage award per image infringed.&rdqascii117o; Nathan &ldqascii117o;refascii117sed to grant Morel&rsqascii117o;s motion for sascii117mmary jascii117dgment on whether AFP, Getty and The Washington Post acted willfascii117lly,&rdqascii117o; Smith reports.
 
Morel won a similar victory in December 2010. AFP originally sascii117ed Morel, claiming that Twitter&rsqascii117o;s terms of service gave it the right to rebroadcast his images; he later filed this coascii117ntersascii117it.
 
As Smith explains, &ldqascii117o;the case has garnered wide interest becaascii117se it is one of the first to address how images that ascii117sers make available to the pascii117blic throascii117gh social media can be ascii117sed by third parties for commercial pascii117rposes.&rdqascii117o;