Curious it anyone else has ever dealt with this. I have a potential client that wants to work on a project with me. Everything was going smoothly until I received a contract from them that included an assignment of copyright to the client. This is a non-starter for me and is usually pretty easy to negotiate. But in this case, the project involves photographs of children and the client is (justifiably) concerned with liability from the misuse of photos. They feel that they need to own the copyright in order to manage this liability. My position is that copyright is the wrong tool for this for the following reasons: 1. Because of a fair use it doesn't actually prevent all use of images and their liability still exists. 2. Should the worst happen, their remedy would be a federal infringement suit, and since they probably won't register the images, they will likely spend more than they make on the suit. It seems like better tools are well-written releases and a decent indemnity clause. My question is: is there anything I'm missing? Is there a legitimate argument for using copyright in this way? Are there better arguments against using copyright in this way?