No, sorry, that’s bollocks. There’s more to copyright than copying — here’s the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988:
16 The acts restricted by copyright in a work
(1)
16
The owner of the copyright in a work has, in accordance with the
following provisions of this Chapter, the exclusive right to do the following
acts in the United Kingdom
(a) to copy the work (see section 17);
(b) to issue copies of the work to the public (see section 18);
(ba) to rent or lend the work to the public (see section 18A);
(c) to perform, show or play the work in public (see section 19);
(d) to communicate the work to the public (see section 20);
(e) to make an adaptation of the work or do any of the above in relation
to an adaptation (see section 21);
and those acts are referred to in this Part as the “acts restricted by the
copyright”.
The “work” is the picture. The “owner of the copyright” is the photographer. Teva may not have technically copied the picture, but they’ve shown it to the public, communicated it to the public and (arguably) made an adaptation of it.
That’s ignoring the fact that the photographer has specifically stated that the image is not to be used for commercial purposes.
