Well a super injunction is supposed to stop people publishing information, it worked to a degree but Twitter falls into a bit of a grey area as it's more like pub gossip than a news website. This is why, even when twitter was full of his name, the main new websites still reffered to him as "that footballer" as they were still open to being done for breaching the order. It was only after the MP said his name in the commons that mainstream media felt they could publish his name without getting slapped with a summons. This highlights the issue with our laws being out of step with the way information is published in this internet age.
Photographs are interlectual property, they actually belong to some one. Just because you exhibit them on the internet on Flickr etc doesn't mean they then belong to everybody to do with what they wish. You are simply exhibiting them online instead of in a gallery. Photos get robbed of the internet all the time but as long as you can prove you took the photo and that the copyright is yours they you can ask for the photo to be removed or for the person using it to pay a reasonable sum to continue to use it. As it's very cut and dry and easy to prove they will always back down and cough up. This though only works for proper publishers, it's a bit trickier if someone is posting your pictures on a forum in a "cool cars" thread as there is no money involved, same for blogs etc. In those circumstances I always ask that they add a link to my Flickr account and credit me under the photo. Most pukka bloggers do this anyway. That way anyone who sees the photo and likes it can contact me for further info etc.
Nick
