The decision specifically and repeatedly states that
aspect is irrelevant, as such a database "typically has a not
insignificant commercial value" – whether the images in this
particular case are or can be used commercially or not. See paragraphs
21 and 23.
Note that "not insignificant" = significant. The decision points exactly
that the commercial aspect is relevant, and the artists should have
participation on it.
"The court finds that the artists are entitled to that value", this is
what the decision says, at least according to The Guardian. I couldn't
understand the original decision, even if i have had access to it.
What is found in these paragraphs you've mentioned?