If someone posted a photo with an individual with crocodiles, who happened to be wearing Crocs™, and it was hashtagged &quot;#crocs&quot;, it&#x27;s possible they did not intend to consent to be used for Crocs™ advertising material, but your proposal would assume they are.  It may be contrived, but I don&#x27;t think it&#x27;s so contrived as to be automatically dismissed as a problem with your position.  It goes to the general problem of ambiguity in hashtags.[0]<p>IANAL, but AFAIK having a trademark (in what jurisdiction?) does not confer the ability to appropriate others&#x27; IP even if they used your trademark.  At best Crocs, Inc. can probably censor uses of the #crocs hashtag.<p>If she had snail-mailed Crocs, Inc. her photo with nothing else but the caption she wrote on Instagram, it would not give them a license to copy it!  I feel like a broken record at this point...  I agree it would be bizarre, and some people&#x27;s social media behavior like this case is bizarre, but it would not justify them reproducing it without her permission.<p>They reproduced it on their own website, which is different than retweeting or whatever analog Instagram might have.  Honestly I&#x27;m not sure exactly where I draw the line, especially given I don&#x27;t know all the nuances of social media&#x27;s features and etiquette, but rehosting crosses the line.<p>(I don&#x27;t typically defend IP law as it exists today, but as long as it remains the law, I will when rich corporations try to trample lowly individuals&#x27; IP rights.)<p>[0] Edit: In the spirit of IP attribution, I will note I did read another commenter&#x27;s post here about crocodiles and have probably derived this scenario from it. :)