I stand corrected. For a more accurate interpretation of the ruling, please see DragonWriter's reply. I was too hasty in my wording, and I think "grounds" was an inappropriate word choice. However, it does seem that criteria is what the rest of the bench was using when denying to hear the case. Alito was dissenting, but I think his later comment that "The Court has decided not to grant review at this time, but if a conflict in the Circuits develops in the future, the question presented, in my judgment, is important enough to warrant review." implies that he feels that going forward, he does hope that the court will decide to hear the case using possibly any criteria, but specifically of dissent in the circuit courts (since that is what they used to reject this case).

Not quite. That's precisely why Alito says they SHOULD hear the case. The reason why they're not hearing the case is because there is no dissent among the lower courts, so really they have no grounds to hear it. He hopes to eventually hear this case when the lower courts do disagree, as written in the summary, he thinks that the law is outdated. He also acknowledges what you're saying - that she did not have access to the copyright notice.

If memory serves correctly, ask.com has had this feature for ages. http://sp.askkids.com/en/docs/about/binoculars.shtml