1.  Baltimore woman takes a picture of her pug wearing a Santa outfit, and uploads it to Flickr marked "all rights reserved."
2.  Fox Sports steals the picture and incorporates it into a promotional animation during their NFL coverage.
3.  Woman discovers Fox's infringement and blogs about it.
4.  PROFIT!!!

Well, I'm projecting there for that last step.  Fox screwed the pooch (and not Truman) big-time here, and as I understand IP law, they're really over a barrel.  Gaughran-Perez had copyright to that picture the moment she pressed the shutter, and uploading it to Flickr doesn't change that a whit, nor does the fact that Fox made some alterations to the picture (despite what some of the incredibly ignorant commenters on her blog post are claiming.)  Fox used a picture from a page marked "all rights reserved", saved it despite the fact that the original poster had declined to provide a download link (so, in other words, they saved it through URL hackery or a screen grab), made changes to the images, and then used it for commercial gain without the rightsholder's knowledge or consent.  Bad idea.  Very bad idea.

Just about the only thing that Fox has going for it in this case as far as I can tell (and IANAL) is that Gaughran-Perez apparently didn't register the photo with the U.S. Copyright Office within 90 days of "first publication."  (Does posting something on Flickr constitute a "publication"?  That could be an interesting debate.)  If she had registered the photo's copyright (and really, why would an amateur photographer register the copyright for a picture of her cute dog?) then she could stand to win statutory damages from Fox, which = big money.  (One of the ironies, of course, being that Fox has a reputation for being quite litigious in going after copyright infringement.  Do as we say, evidently, not as we do.)

But, all hope is not lost for Gaughran-Perez.  I myself managed to squeeze some money out of a magazine earlier this year; they'd run a picture of mine as editorial content, ignoring the Creative Commons license that I'd applied to the content -- which requires attribution and noncommercial use , not to mention the distribution of derivative works under the same terms as my original license.  After  a little bit of back-and-forth, I got an apology, a correction in the magazine, a few free issues, and a check.  (They handled the situation reasonably well, and I'm satisfied with the outcome, so I won't be naming the magazine in question here; I didn't feel like I needed to resort to public shaming to get what I wanted.)  It wasn't quite like fighting City Hall, but I offer this episode as illustration that yes, one can go up against infringers and come out the winner.  (Similarly, Flickr user Roadsidepictures was successful in his dealings with AutoWeek, which used this picture without permission, as described by Lawrence Lessig.)

I hope that Ms. Gaughran-Perez is contacting a lawyer toot-sweet to go after King Rupert.