You have a point, however the problem is that something like a book or magazine could see a photograph (something professionally shot in a studio, staged, compo

You have a point, however the problem is that something like a book or magazine could see a photograph (something professionally shot in a studio, staged, composed, cast with paid models, costumes and makeup, etc) that they like and want to use, decide they don't want to pay the photographer's price, and hire a cheap photographer to reproduce the original photograph's composition. (A friend of mine used to work at a small artist rep company in Chicago (http://www.friendandjohnson.com/ http://www.friendandjohnson.com/), that handled photographers and illustrators. This sort of thing actually happened once in a while.) I think if a photographer can prove something like this happened - if they have documentation of the magazine inquiring about a photograph, then publishing a knockoff without paying, then they have a case, because it's clear that the magazine wanted the original photographer's creative output, they just didn't want to pay for it.