Continuing in the copyright vein, I think a business opportunity exists for a photo studio that didn't rely on copyright to stay competitive. The commercial would look like this:

(Woman comes into a photo processing store)
Woman: I was going through my attic and I found my old wedding photos. I'd like to make copies of them.

Store clerk: Those are nice; they look professionally done.

Woman: They sure were.

Clerk: Then I can't copy them without permission from the photographer. Professional photographers have threatened to sue us if we reproduce their photos, because they own to copyright to the photos they take.

Woman: But these are photos of me and my husband.

Clerk: Copyright goes to who took the picture, not who's in the picture.

Woman: Doesn't copyright expire after a while?

Clerk: Yes, 120 years if the photographer worked for a company, or 70 years after the photographer dies if he didn't work for a company.

Woman: But that company's bankrupt; they can't sue you.

Clerk: In that case the company's assets would have been sold off to somebody. You'll need to hire a lawyer, at $200 an hour to research who got the copyrights.

Woman: A lawyer! To reprint photos?

Now, to be honest, you can't sue for copyright infringement without first registering the copyright. And I know Olan Mills, Sears, or any other photo studio isn't filing for copyright (and paying the filing fee) for the thousands of photos they take. And regular people who take photos also get the copyright to their photos. Even so, photo labs won't reproduce professional photos, but will reproduce amateur photos.

Of course the idea is that you need to go back to your photographer to get reprints. And since your photographer knows you can't legally go anywhere else without written permission, there's a chance you'll pay far more for the reprints than you ought to.

But a photographer that hands you a permission statement with your photos ("We charge competitive rates for reprints. However we grant permission for you to have somebody else reprint these photos if you want to.") would have a unique selling position. The sitting fee for the photos would pay for the photographer, and the price of reprints would pay for the reprints (that's how the photo labs stay in business after all). It's a sound business philosophy, and as people bump into copyright issues more, it may occur to somebody that it's a good business strategy. It says "I'll honestly earn my pay by letting you choose someone else if I ever let you down. See if any big studio is willing to make the same promise."