## Facts

- A Texas photographer took a photograph of a Texas minor and uploaded it to Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license permitting broad reuse with attribution.
- An Australian mobile phone company obtained the photo from Flickr and used it in an Australian advertising campaign.
- The advertisement allegedly contained text plaintiffs claimed was libelous and invasive of privacy and misappropriated the minor’s image and the photographer’s rights.
- The advertisement was not used in the United States and the defendant did not post the photo on its website.
- Plaintiffs sued in Texas state court asserting invasion of privacy, libel, breach of contract (based on the Creative Commons license), and copyright infringement; the case was removed to federal court on diversity grounds.
- Other defendants were voluntarily dismissed, leaving the Australian company as the sole defendant.
- The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient service; the court decided the motion without an evidentiary hearing.

## Issues

1. Whether Texas could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over an Australian defendant that used a Flickr-hosted photograph solely in Australia, where the photo’s subject and photographer resided in Texas and claimed injury there.
2. Whether downloading the photo from Flickr (including alleged access to servers in Texas) or accepting a Creative Commons license from a Texas resident constituted purposeful availment of Texas.
3. Whether alleged intentional torts satisfied the *Calder* “effects” test where the alleged harm was felt in Texas but the advertising was directed to Australia.

## Decision

- The court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed the action without prejudice.
- Plaintiffs failed to make a prima facie showing that the defendant had Texas minimum contacts related to the claims.
- Downloading content from a globally accessible website, without proof the specific content was hosted on a Texas server, did not establish purposeful direction at Texas.
- Any Creative Commons license relationship did not require performance in Texas and did not show forum-directed activity.
- The *Calder* effects test was not met because the advertising campaign was aimed at Australia, not intentionally directed into Texas or the United States.
- Because minimum contacts were absent, the court did not reach the service-of-process argument.

## Legal Principles

- In diversity cases, a federal court applies the forum state’s long-arm statute and due process; where the long-arm statute reaches due process limits, the analysis turns on constitutional minimum contacts.
- Specific jurisdiction requires purposeful availment: contacts must result from the defendant’s deliberate forum-directed conduct, making it reasonably foreseeable to be sued there.
- Internet-related contacts must connect the defendant’s conduct to the forum in a non-attenuated way; mere interaction with a global platform is insufficient without forum-targeted activity.
- Under *Calder* for intentional torts, effects in the forum alone do not establish jurisdiction absent intentional direction of the challenged conduct at the forum.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed for lack of specific personal jurisdiction because the defendant’s challenged conduct—using a Flickr photo in an Australia-only campaign—was not purposefully directed at Texas, and alleged in-forum effects did not substitute for forum-targeted contacts.


Chang v. Virgin Mobile USA, L.L.C., No. 3:07-CV-1767-D, 2009 WL 111570 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 16, 2009)