I don't think that applies here. My understanding was that in Bridgeman v. Corel, Corel wasn't using Bridgeman's images, but images taken by a different photogr

I don't think that applies here. My understanding was that in Bridgeman v. Corel, Corel wasn't using Bridgeman's images, but images taken by a different photographer of the exact same subject as the photos Bridgeman claimed copyright on. In this case we're clearly talking about the exact same photo. Had someone from Capcom taken a picture of the exact same broken window as this photographer and used that photo instead then there wouldn't be a case.