Actually, he'd be nuts to send them to *anyone* who offered to engage in a flagrant and willful violation of copyright law in an international forum :) The plaintiff's case against both would be trivial to make.
Just to clear things up:
The photographer owns the copyright; it's that simple. I've litigated one of these, on behalf of the photographer, against a chain that reproduced prints.
It came to light when the client was so distressed by the quality of the duplicates that she went to the photorapher.
I don't know the final outcome, as I closed down for grad school fairly early, but the law is clear.
The photographer was angry about the illegal copying, but even angrier at the low quality prints attached to his reputation . . .
While I'm at it, I'll briefly touch on the economics involved.
It is unlikely that a photographer would accept a basic fee that didn't cover the *marginal* costs of the shoot--his time and out of pockets. However, if the norm is that many family members buy copies, it is entirely possible, even likely, that he would accept a fee that didn't cover the *average* costs of production, which would include the studio rent, equipment, etc.
hawk, lawyer & economist