No, it is the act of pooling images into a database that is the issue. According to the court including the copyleft licensed photos in the database creates value that the creators then have a claim on.

It is however from the ruling not clear exactly how the photos and metadata create value; for instance it seems clear like just hosting all the offending images on a separate service and naming them with guid:s will be perfectly fine so long as the user has to navigate and find the image themselves.

Ruling: http://www.hogstadomstolen.se/Domstolar/hogstadomstolen/Avgo...

Actually, it is the reverse. It is the database (ie. the map) that was found to be illegal. The photos contained within are not. And if they were not assembled into a database, they would all be perfectly legal. This is even explicitly mentioned in the court decision (in swedish): http://www.hogstadomstolen.se/Mer-om-Hogsta-domstolen/Nyhete...