I'm not suggesting taking legal rights away from the photographer. I already said I think the photographer is legally in the right. I don't want courts to switch things up, or legislators to change the situation.
What I am saying is that the economics of the situation exist. They can't be wished away. Outcomes tend to follow economics, even if they're illegal, as the existence of black markets, forced arbitration, legal battles based on spending and might rather than right, etc. show. And sometimes the economics are morally superior to the legality, even when the legality is nice and clear.
Part ownership of content production would be morally superior to the bright line clarity of copyright ownership. Ideally, it would reflect how much of the global culture is a part of content, how much is ideas floating in the air, and the multitudes of people who contribute to the gestalt of a moment. But the accounting is impossible. So the legality is simple, and sometimes it creates conflict. The answer is usually more law - signed agreements up front, etc.
A copyright that accounted for value added - if it were possible, calculable without continuous auctions and comparisons against alternatives, which is of course impossible generally - would accrue mostly to the band (and, recursively, to people who influenced the band), I reckon. But I think trying to implement something like that is impossible, and like I said, I don't think things should change. Instead, the band should make photographers sign something first.