As a counter point feels dirty to abuse photographers not catching NC for you to profit.
It's like arguing that punitive fines for minor infractions, like jaywalking or speeding, would be justified because "you broke the law".
The outrageous maximum penalties ($100k/infringement), the nuance of fair use and copyright law, and the resulting cost of defending yourself means that the only solution if you don't have excellent in-house counsel is you have to settle for what they ask. It's legal extortion.
I thought we were talking about companies. Why should the owner of the work care about whether your writer was on too tight of a timeline to properly check whether they were allowed to use the photographer's work for free? Yes, a company stealing people's work is abusive, and I am not sure why we should be sympathetic when some small % of them happen to have aggressive representation.
I think we're in agreement that the current copyright system is a joke. It's too complicated and there's too many loopholes that can be exploited.