Hmm. If she hired him to do some scout shooting, I suspect their contract bears close scrutiny. There might have been some fine print that made him her temporary employee...thus she would own the copyright on the "for hire" basis.
Or... the contract didn't quite say that, and she merely presumed she owned the copyright because she paid him to shoot a job for her.
I've spoken to a lot of studio photographers who hire "second shooters" for weddings and think they own the copyrights because they arranged the bookings. In fact, almost all of them think they own the copyright. Au contraire!. In the US, unless there is specific language in the contract saying otherwise, a "second shooter" hired for the day will always own the copyright.
And yet, it's hard for me to imagine that she made such a presumption--I suspect she makes sure she owns the copyrights to the work she produces on commission.
Rather cheesy calendar anyway.
The news article I read said the photographer had sent the photos to her and they had been rejected. The reason for their submission wasn't mentioned. He may have been trying to drum up work, or he may have been working with her and was submitting his part? One of those stories that probably has more to it than is noted in the news articles. More notable just because it features AL and losing even more money.