I think there's a few reasons why you don't hear about such judgements too often. First, in the "web modeling" world, I don't think too many photographers register their images with the copyright office, so they know they don't have many teeth going into a demand to remove the images. Second, the people who infringe such photos on the web, don't have much in the way of resources, and the photographer opts for the pragmatic approach, and simply settles for removal, knowing that to actually go to federal court is a BIG process, and only worthwhile if the inifringer has some kind of assets. Also, I think most of the bigger would-be infringers don't infringe anymore, because they've gotten aware enough (and lawyers who warn them) not to infringe.
And, there are probably more out-of-court settelments that you don't hear about than actual judgements. Publications like Photo District News would be more likely to feature such stories, since they're of interest to the mainstream photo industry. Also, remember who is infringing our type of images and why. Generally, you won't see a large general interest company like McDonald's rip-off a shot of a hot babe in a bikini - that's not the type of shot they use. But a small "babe" website - again with no assets to speak of - needs that kind of content, but may not have the resources to pay for it (again if they do, I think by now they're being more mindful of the law and paying for their content). No one is making a living off of copyright judgements - except maybe the lawyers - but you're not likely to hear too many stories of actual experience on this site.
Regards,
Andy Pearlman
Andy Pearlman Studio