The author might not have had to tell us everything that was in the ruling, but the way the article was written, especially the first paragraph (the one most people read and maybe skip the rest), does feel very misleading without this piece of extra information. If you read the first paragraphy now, anyone will think they can just grab anything off the web and use it for whatever online (public) purpose they want and nowhere does it say that credit is needed. That's what bugs me about this article.
Mentioning the source is a big part. It's a huge deal actually and the most important one from any artist/writer's point of view. Them hardly mentioning that part is quite a discredit towards artists/writers, because people steal online content enough as it is.
I know my Taylor Swift example wasn't well explained and it's quite hard to think of anyone not knowing it's Taylor Swift. With my example, I meant that if you post it as if you made that song, sang it, were the girl in the video, etc. (yes, unbelievable, but just imagine it for a sec) and then you earn from it, that could get you into trouble. You need to make clear that it's not your video for things to be okay.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure we're on the same page, I just found the article you linked to be very misleading to anyone skimming over it, whether they had to share something or not.