This was posted on dpreview. I read the story and it doesn't seem as simple as it just a title suggests.
Similar, but not copied, image found to breach copyright: Digital Photography Review
Copy of court ruling:
Temple Island Collections Ltd v New English Teas Ltd & Anor [2012] EWPCC 1 (12 January 2012)
I'm a U.S. citizen and I'm going to look at this from that point of view.
The United states has three different types of intellectual property(or IP) that we protect. First are copyrights. Copyrights protect original authors of photography, music, or any kind of art or literature from being copied. More specifically, it protects the form of expression and NOT the subject material. Second, we have trademarks. Trademarks are pictures, words, or names distinguishing companies from each other. Here in the USA, trademarks have to be registered with the Patent office. Copyrights do not. The last form of IP we have are patents. Patents in the USA are the closest thing we have to "idea protection". Specifically though, one cannot just have an idea and claim it as his or her own for protecting. Patents require specific documentation on the implementation of the idea and the possible construction or prototyping of the "idea". Keep in mind that "ideas" can be patented without the need for a physical device or apparatus. For example, Apple has several patents on ways to use a device, but do not describe the actual device, just the process in which to use the device.
Now that I've gotten that out of the way, we have to look at what happend in this case. There was a previous licensing disagreement even before this case between the two parties.
NIPC Law: Copyright in Photographs: Temple Island Collections and Creation Records
The second image was created by the defendant after a deal could not be reached on the defendant using the first image for his tea company. Basically the defendant felt it would be cheaper to hire a company, take some similar shots, and process this similarly in photoshop or whatever to achieve a similar but not exact image.
In my own opinion, this is not a copyright issue. We aren't talking about exact copies of an image. Copyright laws don't protect the subject matter either. Everyone can take images of landmarks and process them how they wish. Copyright laws do protect a form of expression, which completly is subjective. The problem with civil suites in regards to copyrights and forms of expression is that it is awefully difficult to compare two similar works an say they have the same form of expression. We'd have rock bands sueing other rock bands all the time.
This to me is more of a trademark issue or patent issue, even though the courts in London see it more as a copyright issue. There are two themes in the case. The first theme is the images themselves. If we take away how they are used, and just look at them as two images and two artists, I think here in the states it might be difficult to say both have the same or similar expression, since one is not a pure copy of the other. I guess in a copyright case it could go either way. From what I've seen in the music industry, it seems dicey at best.
The other component to this case however is how they are used. Both are being used on products, though very different products. If the first image was trademarked to the souvenier company, they would have a very strong claim against the tea company. Usually whoever has the most money or who has they most widely recognized trademark usually wins in these cases, regardless if the trademark was actually filed at the patent office or not.
If we actually look at why the judge ruled in favor of the claimant, it does make some sense. To some degree the judge is protecting the body of work in the image, not the image. In some ways, this is how patents are described. If two similar processes are used to achieve two similar results, usually the first wins. I'm not suggesting that taking the images and the process of photoshoping is what is being protected or should be protected. Generally speaking though; it's about all the variables added up to make that specific image and the expression of the image. I also think that if the two images and authors were unknowing to each other, there would have been a different ruling. It was obvious in this case that the defendant specifically wanted a certain artistic expression and tried to reproduce it.