Sandra Vixen wrote:

According to various lawyers I have talked to (not me), the copyright (in California) is a joint ownership of the photographer and subject (or owner of subject if it is not a person/persons) unless a contract states otherwise.

I am not endorsing the above with 100% confidence, but to say that if you call yourself a photographer, take a picture of (say) a copyrighted subject, you do not own entire copyright of that photo.

Another related topic, if you look at youtube.com, if their scanner program or whatever detects a song in the audio of your video then they will claim that song is copyrighted by someone else (even if they get it wrong).

Lastly, a certain less than upstanding person I know hired a crooked cop to forcefully take the memory stick/drive from a camera of a photographer in Los Angeles.

These are not my opinions nor do I encourage anyone to believe/take action, but just food for thought as to who owns copyright of a photo.

In the various copyright material I've read, the photographer owns the copyright in full unless an agreement is signed allowing joint ownership between model and photographer or it is WMFH (work made for hire). In the latter, unless an alternate agreement is made and signed, a freelance photographer would still own the copyrights to those images. A photographer employed by an agency or institution would NOT own the copyright for the material shot.

ASMP has a free copyright booklet available for anyone interested. It leans heavily on the photographer's viewpoint but should offer insight to anyone: http://asmp.org/free/guide-crcf

CaliModels wrote:
Sorry this happened to you.  Speaking for myself, I like digital since proofs can be made relatively quickly, so the model has something as editing is being done.  Better luck in the future.

That idea is problematic and not many photographers would agree to that.