I agree with the photographer, he might be an odd person, but he is the one who went out there, paid for all that equipment, and got the picture taken. As far as I'm concerned he's entitled to it.
That principle aside, there is the practicality of enforcing something like this now that it's leaked into the public domain. Even if the guy gets returns from the sources first responsible for the leak, it's not like you can fairly go after all the people who downloaded or shared the photo when they thought it was free.
What surprises me is that this is even an issue given how the laws are so heavily in favor of photographers, which is one of the reasons the Paparazzi can run around and be such a terror. Not to mention "life as art" photographers who run around taking snaps of homeless people being pathetic in ghettos (oftentimes at their worst and/or most nasty and pathetic) and then charge $100 or more a pop per ticket to see their collection. When that's been fought before (guys making tons of money off the plight of the homeless, which they pocket, despite claiming they are trying to help the issue through attention) the photographers have pretty much always won, for the same basic reasons they can terrorize celebrities on public property and the celebs can't claim the rights to the pictures usually (or even stop the sale/display, even when they aren't flattering).
Ah well, hopefully it gets sorted out and the photographer gets something out of this. Whether he's a good guy or not, he still put in a lot of work/resources just getting there and that should be rewarded.
