It's still more 'UK court says you shouldn't try to get around a judgement it's already made, because that makes us irritable' than anything actually about copyright; I think it would have been unlikely to go that way without the prior offence (they were using the original photo and were told to pay up, so they switched the photo to a similar one they took instead). Hopefully this also means it will break down if anyone tries to use it as a precedent in no-prior-offence situations, but you can never quite tell with the courts.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-29 10:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-29 11:15 am (UTC)It is about copyright, as that's the precedent that has been set.