What happens to the woman on the picture displayed, though. If she survived, hopefully she deserves a share, too? Did she have to give consent to having her picture published?
EDIT: That "no" refers to whether her signed consent is necessary, not to whether or not she deserves compensation. That is between the photographer, his conscience, and any damages he receives from this suit.
In fact, in most places in the western world you don't need consent forms if the photos are taken in public, period. It gets a little trickier when it's a portrait or something. But if you go out on the sidewalk of a busy street where people have no expectation of privacy and start snapping photos, they really don't have any claim to the revenue from those photos.
From: http://www.iusmentis.com/copyright/crashcourse/limitations/#...
"Photographic works often are portraits of specific persons. They may, but need not necessarily be, commissioned by the portrayed persons. Many copyright laws contain provisions that require the author to get permission from the portrayed person when publishing the portrait.
In case the portrait was not commissioned, e.g. a photo taken on the street, the portrayed person should demonstrate some likelihood of damage that can arise from the publication. A famous person could for instance argue that he normally charges for photos, and so the unauthorized portrait robs him of this income."
So, on the street, it's OK. In your living room, not OK. Getting pulled out of your collapsed living room - probably OK.