To explain my problem, I must give a lemma:

Let $X$, $Y$, $Z$ be curves over $k$ (of characteristic 0) such that the genus of $Z$ is greater than 2, and $\pi : X \to Y$, $\phi : X \to Z$ two non-constant morphisms. If $\phi^\star(H^0(Z,\Omega))\subseteq\pi^\star(H^0(Y,\Omega))$, where $\Omega$ denotes the sheaf of regular 1-forms in each case, then there exists a non-constant morphism $u: Y \to Z$ such that $\phi = u \circ \pi$.

Now, in a proof, I saw the use of this lemma, except that the hypothesis was the inclusion $\mathrm{Image}(\mathrm{Jac}(Z) \to \mathrm{Jac}(X)) \subseteq \mathrm{Image}(\mathrm{Jac}(Y) \to \mathrm{Jac}(X))$, instead of $\phi^\star(H^0(Z,\Omega))\subseteq\pi^\star(H^0(Y,\Omega))$. I can guess it is equivalent, but why? Is it related to Grothendieck's duality? Did I miss something obvious?