And Zoo's actions are clearly willful infringement. I don't know if he can apply US law when going after the UK magazine, but in the US willful infringement can lead to $150,000 statutory damages per incident. They can't fall back on the "the user did it, we're not responsible" defense relied on by Facebook, Wikipedia, etc.
A friend of mine is going through this right now, a UK company ripped off his video and posted it on their site and on YouTube. They're playing hardball with some really strange reasoning. I'm sure they know they're in the wrong but if they admit it, they'll open the floodgates for more claims.
