from what Paul has stated in
post 131, that case seems to be a simple breach of contract over usage rights... has to do with the client using the image beyond the agreed rights licensed to them by the copyright holder, and these rights may be in terms of duration of usage, media it would be used in, geographical coverage of use, size of reproduction, 3rd party usage, etc... if the infringement is clear cut, this should be an open-and-shut case, and by going through litigation, the other party (Paul's client) just wasted everyone's time and gave a bunch of lawyers some money while wasting their own money...
the agreement to keep mum on the details is probably to prevent that organisation from looking stupid in the public eye for not knowing to pay up immediately when the breach was made known and wasting money starting a no-hope litigation... the breach in agreement at most was a case of ignorance or oversight which might be understandable and easily resolved through negotiation, whereas the move to litigate shows stupidity and/or possible bloodymindedness with a possible hint of a bully's mentality...
for the TS, the most that can be said is that it's a breach of courtesy, for not informing the TS that the image will be used before it is used...
