That's outrageous. Why would it unscrupulous for a client to make more prints of a given photo? Surely the primary service is taking the photograph, and the client then owns the photo? I actually work as a cam op / director (obviously a different but related medium), and the idea that I would charge someone additionally, or try to prevent them from creating a copy of something I'd created expressly for them is just absurd. For example if I filmed a wedding for a couple (as many of my friends do), I'd charge for shooting or editing, and perhaps an original gift copy on some specific format (deluxe USB key or whatever). But after that point the couple would be free to distribute the film - they already paid for it. What happens if the original photographer is no longer in business, or can't be contacted or sells the rights to your wedding photos to some awful copyright troll. My head is spinning thinking about the potential for exploitation.
It depends on the business model of the photographer. Higher end photographers usually work as you describe, but some, particularly on the lower cost end or in places like malls (think Santa or Easter Bunny pictures), will take dozens of photos for free, but then offer packages of images/prints at various price points. Usually there's a digital package that will include high res versions of all images along with the full rights, but that tends to be priced relatively high. What some clients might do is to buy a lower end package (or none at all) and then try to make prints of additional pictures from the digital sample images they're given, thereby circumventing the photographer's business model. The resulting photos are of course of poor quality, due to low resolution and imperfect watermark removal, but some people really don't care if it can save them some money. You're right that it all seems unnecessarily complicated, but look at the healthcare system we have.
