I would tend to agree but one piece of information is still missing. Was the policy of TC relative to "compensations" made very clear to Daniel when he started ? If it was, then Daniel has no excuse since he transgressed clearly stated rules. If the rules were only implicit and assumed to be known and followed by authors then Daniel may be excused by his age since his education is not yet complete and he still needs time to mature.

The knowledge of good and bad builds up and refines itself with age through experiences. Note that a lot of adults are still confused about this limit in some domains like for instance exchanging and using unpayed copies of films and musics.

The integrity and reputation of TC is in play here so the prompt and radical reaction was legitimate. The communication was also a good move to make clear that such behavior is not in line with TC ethics. Whether the collaboration with Daniel should have been terminated or not depends on his responsibility.

Turning public about this incident is a clear error of Daniel which may be another demonstration of his inexperience or bad advice given to him. This new error would have remained unnoticed if TC didn't advertise it.

My impression is that TC behaves with Daniel as if he was an adult, which he clearly isn't. This makes it much more difficult for Daniel to learn from his errors because the back burn is quite devastating and probably excessive.

I hope Daniel manage to learn the lessons, and I hope TC used this opportunity to learn some lessons too.

So in conclusion it is still not clear if Daniel is the only one to blame here. However the aim shouldn't be to know who to blame, but to make sure that everyone managed to learn what has to be learned and correct his behavior in consequence.