As a trademark infringement, sure. An image commonly associated with a popular product inspired someone to create an at-a-glance similar image designed to invok

As a trademark infringement, sure. An image commonly associated with a popular product inspired someone to create an at-a-glance similar image designed to invoke the same commercial impression but used on another product. As a copyright infringement, no way. Two discernibly different photos of the same thing are just that - different. Key comment that strikes me: "attempted to copy that photograph as closely as possible without infringing." Read those last two words again: "without infringing". The defendants were, by defined legislation, acting lawfully. Much as it may irritate some that law may be obeyed with certain consequences, such acts are STILL LEGAL. Any judicial system which responds to letter-of-the-law obedience thereto by redefining such actions as illegal just to convict a defendant cannot sustain, as those under the law don't know what the he11 they're under and at some point will revolt.