In essence, and only on the facts of this case, if material is freely available already, then no new communication to the public occurs when it is published / linked to again without permission. This echoes Svensson and Bestwater.
Without a communication to the public there is not on the face of it copyright infringement. Other remedies such as trademark infringement and conspiracy to defraud still stand however.
This is not really ideal particularly when it does not seem to matter if it is obvious that the "source" material is not itself authorized. Copyright legislation really needs a bit of a re-boot.