The issue tends to be that in many cases . the original material is on a web site where copyright info is not obvious , nor does the poster of the picture repond to any request. IN the past , the originator of the material could then request removal of a link or the status of that link was unclear.
what that judgement says is that a link is not a copy and therefore no copyright is infringed and the material can only be removed if the original linked to material is itself removed . its protects both the website with the link and the poster that posted the link.
Its not a catch all , but its helps clarify a situation where links where claimed as copyright infringements, It also supports the view that material posted on the Internet is placed in the public domain, which is good thing for net freedom
IN regards to any other situation thats entirely different, the ruling is not a carte blanche to infringe copy protection
However I do usually find that people think copyright offers complete protection from uncontrolled use of the material , this is of course not the case , there is the concept of fair use etc
anyway, my post was merely to bring attention to posters that might feel , unacknowledged linking was a breach of copyright law. the ECJ essentially says a link is not a copy