We could But p68 proves the point of the contradiction. It allows say a image of a routemaster crossing the bridge taken by another photographer and I presum give the same post image treatment but not it being created in a the computer or maybe via collage. Routemasters still exist and you can hire them. Therefore you could have one drive over Westminister bridge then be shot and have the popping treatment or is the judge going to restrict what model of bus you can or cannot use on Westminister bridge? Come on that is illogical. In fact P68 give that very hole because he states "London bus, Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament. Whatever image was produced could then have been used on the tins of tea. Such an image would not infringe." But like you say MickLL we disagree, these might be the areas the appeal court will pick apart or consider. It will come down to how bad the damages the claimant is getting. If they very painful for the defendant they might consider trying to mounting a appeal. Logically the company will probably revise the image on the next production run on the basis that said image is now tainted. Also they are not going to want to pay anymore money to the claimant in the long run. Plus they have P68.