Peter has explained in his post and in the comments that he has been in communication with the Independent.co.uk newspaper over a matter of copyright infringement when they used a photo that he had taken , and applied “All Rights Reserved” terms to and which they decided to ignore.
As far as I can see this has occurred, and I am basing this on the information on Peters Flickr page, which I have no problem doing because he has quite comprehensively included the email thread and correspondence between himself and the contact at the Independent newspaper and he has approached the whole situation correctly and properly in my opinion.
The newspaper however, have not. I would suggest that you have a look at the thread and comments in their entirety as it makes for very interesting reading, for me, mostly because it shows how there is a serious lack of understanding about the nature of the Flickr site and its Terms of Service, or in other words, they thought, “Lets have that, its on the internet so it must be free, oh what’s that All Rights Reserved thing, ignore it no one will notice and sod the Terms and Conditions everything on Flickr is free”.
Horrible and inexcusable conduct from a national newspaper who should know better.