The first blank is filled with a work for hire. There is no question about that.
The second blank is far more complicated. It is governed in America by an statute passed in the 1990s that is called VARA. It is the final word on who owns the rights to what. Some of its contents don't conform to common sense of a buyer's rights and a sellers rights. You might be tempted to say they have joint rights, but they really don't. The photographer has the rights to the original pictures of the shoot, but it was originally with the clear understanding that these pictures would have to be reproduced. There is the gray area. Can the photographer force the buyer not to use the pictures for their intended use?
Apparently he sometimes can. It is why most "shoots" like this one hire lawyers to protect them.
I think you are intended to say that the rights are joint, but I wouldn't be the least surprised if that turned out to be incorrect.
