I am with FD on the overall position. As for the legal argument, the given scenario is that the pilot deliberately sets out to fly a commercial photographer with a view to obtaining photos to be sold. Art 130(1)(a) focuses on the purpose for which the aircraft is flown. The argument would be that valuable consideration is given in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight. No doubt the photographer will offset his cost share against the proceeds of selling his photos. The pilot and the photographer are collaborating in a flight in which commercial gain is sought to be obtained through the very action of flying. By contrast, someone flying to a business meeting is simply using his aircraft as a means of transport.
I am sorry if I have appeared patronising in the other thread. I confess to being a bit testy with the endless "what if" scenarios, some of which appear of little real value. Previous threads have raised my suspicions that there exists a tiny minority of PPLs who seek to bend the rules and get paid for flying. They deserve to be sentenced to something really terrible, such as becoming helicopter pilots.
PS: Perhaps Bronx will again suggest that I'm a CAA stooge for saying this, but I don't think that collecting AOC fees would be the sole motivation for prosecuting in a case such as this. As well as the public safety element, there's the element of unfair competition by PPLs with people who have taken the time and spent the money to obtain commercial flying qualifications. I add that I can claim no insight into the CAA's prosecution policies, because I have no contact with that bit of the CAA.