I save all of my RAW files. If I publicly post photos to social media sites, they're tagged. If someone wishes to remove my tag, and make *commercial* use of a photo, then I will gladly go to court for redress and damages.
The cost of archiving the original RAW files is trifling. Once a few negligent/dishonest ad agencies have had their nuts dragged across a cheesegrater in court, the benefits of due diligence may well become apparent.
This botched legislation is a piss poor attempt to distort "fair usage" into a legal right to steal copyright. The only way to fight such legislation is to publicly inflict some serious financial damage on a high profile IP abuser in corporate clothing.
The copyright lawyers will be rubbing their hands in anticipation of some expensive lunches. Exemplary damages tend to concentrate minds. Ignorance/incompetence/negligence is not the best legal defence in civil proceedings.
The likely result, after a few hefty hits on corporate and public sector wallets, will be some Cabinet Office "best practice" bumph, to prevent civil servants throwing taxpayers money to the wolves by doing stupid things with other people's IP.
Meanwhile, in the real world, printable quality photos will continue to be used and credited by reputable agencies, because badly optimised Instagram phonepix look dated within a few minutes, especially on the web. If a client is paying top dollar for their campaign, they're not expecting a copyright shitstorm to erupt around their brand.
The quality of photos on socmedia platforms is limited by b/w constraints. A 35meg RAW image, squished down to a 100-200kb jpeg is not going to be quite the same thing. So for anyone getting a rage on about "the man" dredging digital landfill for nefarious purposes, the more likely IP infringers are going to be the knockoff merchants who plague online sales sites like Ebay and Etsy. Takedown notices on Ebay seem to be taken quite seriously when original EXIF data is shown to exist. A phonecall and a supporting email, and woof!, culprit no longer has an account.
My designer friends routinely search for copies of their work, using Tineye quite effectively to find copyrighted photos from original collection shoots. They also keep a list of knockoff merchants, which is available through the specialist boards where these things are a hot topic.
Sensible search terms are useful on Google image searches, so the guff posted about the obscurity of the Vulture logo in the first few replies is a bit of a straw man. An image search for "the register logo" isn't rocket science. Trebles all round!