It's a gray area when it comes to professional photography. If he manipulated the image in anyway, such as adjusting the color balance, saturation and so on before publishing, it's his copywritten material and what she did was stealing, even if it's her.
It's never a gray area. If the photographer was employed by the model, then the pictures belong to the model. If the photographer does the work for free or employs the model, the pictures belong to the photographer. Why would having processed the images have ANYTHING to do with it?
It all depends. Unless the photographer signs a contract saying otherwise, the photographer is the sole owner of the copyright of the image. When using the image, the model must have the permission from the photographer to use said image even if the model owns the copyright to the image. On the other side, no photographer can use images of the model, even if he owns the copyright, without a signed release by the model.
I feel like if the model employed the photographer it's implied the photographer was paid, more or less making the pictures the model's? This makes it sound like the photographer did the pictures on promise of pay, but the model just removed the watermark and used it without paying
Edit: irony is beyond most people, so it seems, again