That's _exactly_ the misunderstanding that gets so many people in trouble.
Whether you like it or not, there _are_ "rules", they're called "copyright". They say that attribution or not, the creator of a photograph has exclusive rights to say what can and can't be done with their work. Nothing about whether you're nice or not, nothing about whether you attribute them or not. If they haven't said you can use it - you _can't_ use it (Yeah yeah, except in some very edge-case calle "fair use", but reproducing an entire photo on your website is _never_ "fair use" - if you are ever tempted to claim fair use, make sure you know exactly what it means first…)
TL;DR, Crazy woman is crazy and wrong. Photographer guy is using the tools society provides to assert rights society says he has. Wishing the laws were different does nothing to change them. Behaving as if the laws are the way you wish them to be has a good chance of making you very unhappy.
Actually, I use the WTFPL[1] for a lot of code I produce, so yes, you could do that, though it wouldn't be nice to do that.
My opinion is that copyright should not exist. While I can't demand copies from anyone, I don't think anyone has a right to stop me from sharing anything that I have access to, either. Putting things on the internet counts as giving me access. I simply reject the notion that people should be able to control the distribution of digital data. It's both illogical to assert ownership of something abstract and harmful to society at large.
On the other hand, I think people should be credited for their work (if they want). But that's a social issue and not one that can be solved by laws. Look at the scientific community: plagiarism is highly frowned upon and proper attribution is required. And that's mostly by social pressure, not by laws.
So in short, my believe is "Give credit where credit is due, but don't try to tell others what they can or can't do.".
And in general, I don't think it's an unreasonable world-view to dislike something, but be against regulating it. For example, I'm vehemently against right-wing ideology and fascism, but I still would not want laws restricting nazis to voice their misguided opinions, because everybody is entitled to free speech. That's not being unreasonable, that's being consistent.
When you take a photo and put it one your web site, this doesn't mean that anyone can grab it and use it.
The problem here is that people think that they can do what they want on the web and if you just send them a mail they will do nothing. DMCA is globally a bad thing but but its at this time the only way to make people respect copyright. It should go away but for a better law.
You can transpose this to software easily. If you put some of your code on your blog, you expect people to respect the law and so your copyright. If your code is under GPL for example, you don't want other peoples to take it and include it in their commercial product without respecting the GPL.
Look at all the work done by GPL violation and how its hard to make people correct their behavior when your are a now know organization. This men is alone trying to protect its right and the only thing that he can do which is effective is to fill a DMCA.
And remember that the copyright law is what make GPL possible...
It's funny you say that, because RMS has cited the creation of a post-scarcity society has one of the explicit goals of free software. In such a society, copyright would not exist, because everything would be free (as in both speech and beer). The GPL is but a means to an end, not an end unto itself, and it just so happens to use the current system of copyright to progress towards that end.
So yes, without copyright, there would be no GPL. But without copyright, we would not have most of the problems the GPL is trying to solve.
The main problem GPL is trying to solve is to keep code free and this problem wasn't created by copyright. In a society without copyright it would be even more difficult to keep code free.
Copyright just allow you to claim some right over the code you produce. In a society without copyright you would not be able to make this claim so, if you publish your code it will be free, but : - nothing force you to publish your code, you can keep it for yourself and just distribute binary ; - nothing force other people to distribute there modifications of some free code.
Copyright is what allow you to say "this code should be and remain free", the only alternative in the view of the GPL and FSF should be a law who say "all code should be free and remain free" or something like this.
(just to be clear, I'm not a partisan of the GPL but this is my understanding of it)
Essentially, don't be a dick and lift someones picture because it's on the internet.
But taking something, making money of it and not even attributing where it's from? That's just the lowest of lows.
And she had a simple remedy if he made a false claim; she could have filed a counter notice.