bigVinnie wrote in post #18082270
As a photographer you have to decide if you are providing a professional finished product or doing work for hire.
I can understand not making it standard business practice, but if the client is willing to pay extra, I don't see these two things as being mutually exclusive. Wedding photographs of non-celebrities are personal, and generally not of much interest or value to anyone besides the families. If they are willing to pay extra, I don't see how this is anything but extra cash in the pocket of the photographer. They're not likely to do anything but store the files "just in case", and in the event they do use them for something, it will likely be personal use only. Handing over RAW format files of course does not change anything about the ownership of the rights to reproduce the files for any non-personal use; a request for a copyright buyout would be a different issue.
If the concern is that they would reprocess the photos poorly and associate them with your business... they can do that with JPEG too, and many clients will. I've even had models use their iphones to take photos of my photos displayed on their computer, to share them on Instagram (where they naturally look blurry and awful), and then tag me. I've given models unedited photos as proofs, and seen those end up on social media too. But none of this bothers me, as my own feeds and website have only finished images I'm happy with. People understand nowadays that clients take certain liberties with photos, and are often unaware of copyright status in general, some believing that they own copyright on any photos of themselves, and others believing that they own the rights because they paid me to take the photos. Casual misuse isn't normally an issue, and if someone truly rips you off by selling your work, there is legal recourse and it often works out in favor of the photographer (ones with proper contract paperwork anyways).