Re: Sleep well, you're fine.
Sorry it took me a bit to get back to this one :)
On the legal case question, I'll just add that if you're truly a minnow, the big fish won't bother you. If you're big enough to notice, get a proper lawyer. Start a legal defense fund with the first dollar your code makes.
Thing is... My code might make me $20,000 (although I have one project that did me much better than that for a while, but that combined software and hardware), out of which I might have to pay the bills. A large corporation might use some of that code in a way that makes or saves them considerably more, or in a way that is worth expending serious $$$ to defend.
Normally EULAs for services like Linked In provide for a Use licence grant so that the service can store user generated material, and transmit it to Web users, etc. It's a necessary protection for them, but it doesn't diminish your rights to own, sell or otherwise deal in the same material; you retain the copyright.
LI now requires JS to run and given their past exploits (including illegal email access - I must check where the class action on that got to!) I'm not willing to trust their JS.
In the past their EULA, like Google's (google+ anyway), gave them a perpetual license to use your IP in any way they saw fit including making derivitave works, selling it etc etc etc. Once you had placed your logo on their system you gave them a right to use it as they saw fit, you could not revoke that right and yes, it basically gave them ownership. You could not remove it, and they could make derivative works from and sell your IP any way they saw fit. If you posted a photo they liked then yes, they could sell it to whomever they wanted and alter it any way they wanted.
In contrast, Facebook's license was that you would allow them to use the work and alter it as necessary for displaying it where appropriate (basically if you gave them a 2400x2400 photo they could reduce the size to display on smaller screens/lessen bandwidth use etc). If you deleted the content, you understood it could remain in backup systems for a period of time till those backups were deleted (I can't remember if they gave a time frame or not, may have been "a few months"). You owned the work and could delete it, they wouldn't directly use it to make money from it (aside from of course selling your data and displaying ads at you)
We did have get some legal advice to confirm this interpretation (paid for by having a close friend in the right firm)
I have been involved in one photographic case which wasn't too hard a win but still looked very hairy at one point. We could provide evidence that the stolen picture was part of a series that made up a larger panorama, and still had the originals. At one point we were being accused of making false claims about having been at the location and at the time, but several of us were taking pictures that day (a group hike) and 3 of us had near identical pics of the scene (shifted by us standing a few feet apart/clouds moving slightly in the seconds between our shots). One of us (not me) made a small panorama that was posted online, and later it turned up in someone else's advertising material without permission.
It was a massive headache and I'd hate to go through it against a richer opponent with more at stake. In the end we got costs plus a reasonable compensation rate had the person sold the picture, but it didn't really compensate us.
Oh and the evidence from the cameras of the rest of us, including ones showing her taking the shot? (2 of us had her in frame while taking similar shots - one of my favourite pics with her on a hilltop overlooking a valley and clearly enjoying the view without a care in the world). Their lawyer fought hard to have them rejected as evidence - tried to tell the judge how easy it was (~15 years back) for us to make fake pictures using Photoshop and some 30-odd available pictures were clearly fakes. Thankfully the judge was also into photography and had some clues about the effort that would've been required to make that many convincing pics, as well as the "why would so many people go to so much effort for so little gain?" question.
Perhaps my experience has helped with some 'confirmation bias' reading similar cases (and not so similar ones), but my experience is that the person with the least cash has the least chance. And they can often more easily drag things out - you still have to pay your lawyer appearance fees and you can be ready to go time and again but they can argue one of their 40 lawyers had a slight sniffle this morning and their testimony/expertise" is absolutely critical and can they please have another postponement "thank you your honour, see you at your favourite restaurant tonight!". Same game played by prosecutors in some criminal cases, try to run you out of money by delays, last minute 'evidence' which isn't at all but takes your lawyer time to examine and realise it really was irrelevant etc.
You should try it one day. You'll soon realise in court that "absolutely incontrovertible evidence' is often anything but :(
Biting the hand that feeds IT
