Now that the band has the images they can use them pretty much as they see fit.
I don't believe that's necessarily true. If no terms were established between the photographer and the band at the time that pictures were supplied, then the photographer could indeed lose out because no restrictions or terms were made explicit or agreed upon.
It seems in this case, that's exactly what happened.
If the photographer had made arrangements with the band, and the picture ends up on your desk, then the band could be using it outside of those terms. That's the difference.
The photographer may have allowed the band to use the picture for all types of reproduction, on the condition that he has full accreditation in every instance. Publishing said picture without the credit would be in breach of those terms.
So what does it mean for the enthusiast or small town music photographer? Probably jack. Does he refuse to take pics of the band again (are they that bothered)? Does he demand they don't use it again or remove it from the web (what'll he do if they don't)? Does he throw a tantrum at the media for publishing (they'll just shrug their shoulders and say sorry)? I doubt any type of legal action will be productive, effective, or resolve anything just to prove a point (like, what is the point?).
Until a photographer gets a reputation and builds up a respectable client base, it all comes down to an element of trust and respect that is binding, and puts a photographer in a difficult situation (i.e. the underdog) if it's broken. Don't you just hate that!