The way this is written is clearly biased. Everyone has made up their minds based on this paragraph when we don't have enough details. It could easily be written with a slightly different tone and I bet people wouldn't be so quick to judge.

They say "Heard's terms", but we don't know what those were. If the lawyer had a specific clause that was in violation, it would be quoted for sure!

The article also used the word secretly repeatedly, to make this seem like a cover up. But is it really that hard to imagine a scenario in which Heard didn't know and but it also wasn't a secret?

Finally, that last sentence:

body double footage was designed and intended to leave anyone who saw the images with the distinct impression that it was Heard

Makes it sound like the director is trying to trick you... but every shoot with a double (body or stunt) is meant to make you think it's the same character!

Now, since I've gotten so much backlash, let me reassure you that if this is in violation of the contract and indeed everything was made secret, then screw the director. But we simply don't know enough in this case and the way the article is written is just too biased to take seriously imo.