The article says these were images sent by the organisers. So it's plausible that the organisers did get a license that allows this. It's also plausible that

The article says these were images sent by the organisers. So it's plausible that the organisers did get a license that allows this. It's also plausible that they thought they were getting a license that allowed this. Ultimately though, it seems the photographer had been paid at least once. Further, in this case, it seems to me the onus should be on the organiser sending out the images intended to be used to promote the event, to make sure they have a license to do that, not on the individual websites. How are they supposed to confirm the copyright of an image, other than what they are told by the supplier of that image?