So basically - unless you watermark your images, sayonara to your copyrights. And bye-bye to public photography because people have a right to privacy in public (wth?). I've read a LOT of copyright articles, bills, movements, charges, and lawsuits over the years. This little piece of UK law is, hands down, the most asinine and horrifying piece of copyright legislation I've ever read.
Just-a-guy does a cool thing with a corporate product, takes a photo of it, and the thing goes viral - Digg home page, the works. Then, corporation decides they want to use the image in a viral campaign of their own. Refuses to pay a $2k licensing fee to the original photographer, instead "recreates" their own for less, and then forgets about those darned Intertubes... they're so connected! Who knew they'd be found out? Classic corporate idiocy.
Why, for the love of chocolate and vodka and everything else that's wonderful in this world, would you send a business email to customers using an @donotreply.com email address? I mean, sure: firstname.lastname@example.org makes sense if you have no desire to read replies. (Why don't you want to read replies? Why is it OK for customers be contacted by you via email but not OK for them to reply? But I digress.) But seriously: internal emails, customer emails, important business crap, don't you realize someone probably owns that domain name? Well, they do.