I'm not really disagreeing with you. I believe in laws. I'm just not sure that she wasn't taken advantage of due to her language problem. The judge didn't think so, but I don't always trust their, um, judgment.
If she was assured that the pictures could only be used for one purpose, and that is admitted by all parties, I'd call it a "verbal rider" to the written contract. Don't think I'm somehow advocating an overthrow of contract law with that statement.
I'm sure that was part of the problem, but that's not really an excuse. She's 20 years old, right? That's old enough that she should know what she is signing and should know that written contracts rule. Most even explicitly state that they contain the entire agreement and there are no verbal or side agreements.
If she isn't smart enough to know these things, someone in her employ should be.
(Personally, I think GQ should never use someone like this, if this is how he handles their assignments.)
SD
I assume it was not admitted by the defendant (photographer). And the problem is that anyone can sign a contract and later claim that they had some oral side-deal. If such claims were admissible, no written contract could ever be enforced without a full "he-said-she-said" jury trial. In order to promote commerce, the courts have held that a written contract is enforceable even when one party claims their was an oral side-deal that was different. (There are a few exceptions to the rule, but not many.) This sometimes let unscrupulous people get away with things they shouldn't, but the alternative is worse.