I've not had chance to properly read all the relevant data, but essentially this clarifies in law the basic mode of operation most picture desks have been running in for a while. Attempt to find author for a bit, give up, publish and wait, pay on prompt, however they might get to skip that last part which isn't great.

Now, if you're embedding the EXIF data you're a step up, because the image desks are aware of the EXIF data. They'll look to see if there's anything in there and away they go, however if they're being reused online most people won't bother with that so you're probably out of luck, and you've probably got little to no come back.

There's many services that try be good guys with the EXIF info, so if you're a photographer and you give a crap about your rights of ownership, use those instead. I stopped using Facebook a while back for photography as I'd noticed it stripping the EXIF data (as well as butchering the compression on a number of shots), same for Twitter. Flickr I was surprised about, but 500px seem to preserve a lot of the EXIF data on upload.

This could either be really dramatic or not very dramatic at all, it depends on how it ends up getting used in court, which will take a while to shake out.