I think paragraph 37, where the judge quotes case law, is essential to understanding this case. The judge chooses to quote from a prior ruling and places empha

I think paragraph 37, where the judge quotes case law, is essential to understanding this case. The judge chooses to quote from a prior ruling and places emphasis this phrase: "defendants deny infringement but they do not advance a case of independent design" The judge then goes on later to note the defendant "could have simply instructed an independent photographer to go to Westminster and take a picture which includes at least a London bus, Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament" In other words, this wasn't a clean room development, actual copying of design took place even though the no direct reproduction occurred. This seems to also mirror the AFC test for copyright infringement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison_test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction-Filtration-Comparis... One you abstract out the stock materials, filter them for originality in design, and compare them, you conclude that the defendants work was indeed a copy of the essential creative elements and arrangement.