According to this article from the Daily Report, the ruling ended a long-standing legal battle between National Geographic and a Florida-based freelance photographer. The gist of it is that the magazine repackaged earlier issues in a digital (CD) version, selling it as "The Complete National Geographic." The photographer's original work was included, but he received no additional payment for the use of the image. The court says, that's okay.
Why, you ask? The final decision concludes that as long as the product (in this case a CD) being resold is a duplication of the existing product (the magazine) - considered a "collective work," then there is no copyright infringement. It's essentially the same product. However, if a photograph (or an article) is taken from the original product and used on its own, such as on a website, or is assembled as part of a new work that differs from the original, then the freelance photographer or writer is owed additional monies for use of the copyrighted materials.
What do you think? Does the final ruling seem fair - or are freelancers getting the short end of the moneybag?