Its actually alot more subtle than the sensationalist headline makes out, a good summary can be found at this comment from boingboing
here
A small segment for example
Quote:
|
but to summarise, the defendants agreed to licence the claimant's bus image, but this agreement fell apart and the defendants said that they would 'source the image elsewhere'. Subsequently they arranged for the new picture to be taken and edited to resemble the original. It really wasn't in dispute that there had been deliberate copying; the question was whether this was infringing copying.
|
Not that the ruling isnt a very... potentially problematic.