According to US Copyright law, the photographer always owns the copyright to the images they take from the moment they click the shutter button UNLESS: A, the work was a work-for-hire agreement (where the product of the photographer's work is implicitly the property of the hiring party) or B, the photographer transfers the copyright in writing to a second party. Complications to this arise if, for example, the photographer has not obtained a model or property release for the images. They still own the copyright, but it constrains their ability to use the images commercially. In the case of the dodgy models who would provide the film, legally the photographer still owns the copyright to the images, but without the negatives, it becomes very hard to prove. You'd be morally in the right but you'd never be able to win that case in court. Today, something similar happens with commercial shoots - sometimes the ad agency will come with their own memory card, hand it to the photographer, and when the shoot is done, take the card back, and if the 'tog is lucky, they'll get some tearsheets from the publication where their work is used. But the solution to that problem is in the fee the photographer charges the agency. If you're surrendering everything, you'll pull a Bruce Weber. Back in the 80s when he did that famous Calvin Klein underwear ad, Calvin Klein insisted on a complete rights buyout - they got the copyright, and even the original negatives. Bruce's name was never printed in connection with the image. His paycheck? $1,000,000. For ONE ad. For that kind of money, I'd hand over my negatives too!
