This is the reason...

Wow.

ajaffe wrote in post #14597802
A better example would be the photo that was taken out of the window of a commercial airliner of a shuttle launch. That photo was a one-off but since it was posted on twitter the photog didn't get anything.

That's not true. She was paid by a handful of news organizations for use of the photo. She was also asked by several other organizations for permission to use it, which she gave freely. Also, just because you post a photo on a social media site; Twitter, FB, etc., doesn't mean you lose the copyright to that photo. When you upload a photo to Twitter or FB, you aren't negating your own right to profit from the photo, you're simply giving them the right to do the same thing.

Facebook was the source from which ABC news obtained the photograph of Nicola. The photograph is obviously from a birthday celebration & was possibly taken by a family member or friend, who IMO would not be concerned with copyright under the circumstances. Also, the way the image is cropped might suggest that a watermark was removed.

The aspect ratio alone suggests the image has been cropped so the whole point is moot in this case.

SOK wrote in post #14619688
The aspect ratio alone suggests the image has been cropped so the whole point is moot in this case.

Fair enough, cropped in an unprofessional manner...I didn't see that