As a commercial photographer I sell the rights to the images I've created for a client. Whether it's negs or transparencies is a request by the client and though I retain the right to use the images at my descretion they are bought and paid for by the client . I have no problem turning them over.

As a Fine Art photographer I NEVER give the negs to any one.

The distinction for me is simple, Commercial work I care about bringing the projects to the satisfaction of the client . They can do what ever they want with the images to create more sales for themselves and in turn hire me again so that I make more money on new projects. Advertising photographs have a very short life, needing to be replaced constantally.So for this I care about the money. As far as Fine art I care about the images. Even the portraiture for the entertainment world falls here. They have never even asked for the negs knowing that the negs are part of my creative process. nobody is going to create from that neg what I know about the image.

Roberts situation comes from an over controlling husband and a model who does not understand why she did what she didn in the first place. If she did she would have the strength to tell her husband to get over it.

As far as property releases are concerned, It's an imperfect system. Some situations the release is a matter of funtion. I shot a 727 for a air transport company one time on the tarmack at sunset. The release procedure what a pain in the ass. took 3 months But very necessary. I shot one of the U.S. olympic training centers last week. They gave me some rules to follow but no release required. So if in dought ask, If you can get away with it go for it! but be prepared to either pay or leave.