This paragraph illustrates the controversy well—judge makes it clear that photos would ‘accidentally’ infringe if judged as suggested by claimant, and it was no

This paragraph illustrates the controversy well—judge makes it clear that photos would ‘accidentally’ infringe if judged as suggested by claimant, and it was not the reason behind the judgement: > 62. Each side put its case too high. The defendants are wrong to urge that only facsimile copying will do. I also disagree with the claimant's formulation. The angles are similar but not the same and in any case I am sure there are many things satisfying the claimant's definition which would not infringe. But the next paragraph—what seems to reason judge's decision—looks a bit subjective: > 63. … they still include the key combination of what I have called the visual contrast features with the basic composition of the scene itself. It is that combination which makes Mr Fielder's image visually interesting. It is not just another photograph of clichéd London icons. That said, I think the decision is correct to make in the light of ‘Another matter’ (which was in fact ignored): > What is behind this case is that the defendants' tea tins and boxes are sold side by side with souvenirs bearing the claimant's image. IANAL though.