Blatent Copyright infringement!

Yaryman wrote in post #16008747
Did you bother to read the case sited by the OP?? The case took place in England. The judgement took place in England.

banquetbear wrote in post #16009870
...are you a lawyer? Are you an expert in British IP law? Your taking a layman's view of the case based on your reading of another case: that doesn't make you an expert.
When you've read the details of the other hundreds of IP cases and when you've spent several years studying British IP law then maybe your opinion would count for something. "Logic and reason" don't add up to legal advice.
What you think is logical would likely quickly be set aside with the flourish of the judges hand. He did what was right for the photographic community: he got paid.

It was a pretty simple question. Did you bother to read the case sited by the OP before you explained to me why I was wrong?

And to answer your question, no I'm not a lawyer, no I haven't read the details of hundreds of UK IP cases.

My logic and reason were based on the UK IP case that the OP presented.

Based on your considerable knowledge of IP law and the UK, what do you think a judge would do with the presented evidence?

Yaryman wrote in post #16010276
It was a pretty simple question. Did you bother to read the case sited by the OP before you explained to me why I was wrong?

...yep. Was that answer simple enough?

And you are wrong because you are simply guessing based on a laymens understanding of the legal issues involved. You might by some twist of fate be right: but a stopped clock is also right twice a day, so that wouldn't mean anything.

I wouldn't have a clue. And neither do you. But the OP, who got actual legal advice, is in a much better place to judge than either you or I, don't you think? I would advise anyone in the business of photography forums to seek legal advice on issues like this and not listen to people who use "logic and reason" because courtrooms rely on the law, and not the opinions of random voices on the internet. I know that you are upset that the OP didn't get a million dollar pay day and didn't strike a victory for all photographers out there: but it isn't his duty to be you're moral voice.