Read carefully.
Goldman v. Breitbart isn't the decision to compare this to. Another one is.
courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
That probably isn't within the scope of the sublicense, but the court didn't need to discuss it.
It might be, if not for the license, copyright infringement.
That case held that embedding a photograph can violate the copyright holder's display right.
License wasn't an issue.
eff.org/files/2018/02/…
Under this week's decision, you can still argue that the embed is copyright infringement, absent a license.
AFP v. Morel v. Getty.
Defendants argued they had a third-party license to use the photo because it was posted on Twitter.
scribd.com/document/12050…
But this is the decision to compare Sinclair v. Ziff Davis.
This decision is about the scope of the Instagram license.