you obviously know nothing about the difference between working files and finished products, Along with copyright law... did you study traffic ticket law or copyright law (in other words neither)

Bob, you're comment confirms that you are a fool who should not be allowed to do business. You can label something a "working file" all day long but if the content of that file consists of copyrightable material created at the request of another who paid for it to be created then there is a very distinct possibility that that person, not the creator, owns the copyright in that material. Petty people rely on labels. Thinking people rely on substance. You are the former.

Dan the man, a psd file, usually, contains joint work from multiple artist. That is to say that the designer is often putting fonts, stock images, textures and other items in their "raw" and reusable forms in the PSD layers. The other thing that is contained within those layers is the method to how the designer works, of which has value to the designer and their company, and is not the clients property or available for re-distribution.

There are a lot of people out there doing work who get asked "how did you do that" and other designers who would love to get there on hands on the files to find and re-use those efforts elsewhere. Handing over the layered PSD, native working files, is re-distributing all of these things in their raw formats. Fonts don't go with the PSDs automatically but 9 times out of 10 that is the next question, because how can you edit something if you don't have the font, and so that gets slipped in along with the request. Design Companies will create work flow or methods, photos for their own stock images, custom textures etc and use fonts they have paid well before the projects for a client comes up. These items quite often were created or purchased purely with the idea they could be use at some point down the road well before the client or the project was ever presented to the designer. I would agree if you took photo for a client or purchased a stock image for a client you should give them those items if you have made an agreement to do so. But, if I take a photo of say some old barn wood and I have created my own, in house, stock imagery to use in future efforts for clients and now that client asks for me turn over the layered psd file of the project I used that wood texture in so they can pass that psd file off to someone to make changes, then the answer would definitely be no. There are numerous examples of this kind of joint work scenarios that would create this same kind of situation involving the "working files". Re-distribution of these elements through a layer psd file creates copyright issues about just what you are giving to the client in that situation. The creator of that PSD file may have the rights to use the items to create the final design, but they do not have the rights to re-distribute those parts to other people to use, nor they should they be obligated to.

The real problem lies with the distinction between the amateur photoshop user and highly skilled users who create complex large files with lots of resources they have acquired over the years. The amateur user probably has very little to say they can't "re-distribute" in a psd but the fonts themselves. The highly skilled user would need to be paid for their time to properly flatten the psd file and prepare it in a way that it is editable but not completely re-makable for the person they are about to send it off to. They also are no way obligated or interested in sharing their work methods with some designer out there they don't know and who often times is charging a fraction of the price they are and just can't re-create the same look because they don't know how. This is usually the source of the request when this issue comes up not a some issue of trust or copyright. Usually it is a 3rd party who needs "help" doing something they don't know how to. This would be asking a company to give up some of their methods and skills to client because they think they are entitled to the "working file" - they are not. Unless an agreement is made that covers these items explicitly then the client is entitled only to the final work.

Having said all of that, I do believe the foundation of a good business is relationships and these kind of discussions can create strain on a relationship that is most likely more valuable than a picture of some piece of barn wood in a psd file. But this question of who owns the working files and the difference between those files and the final designs is a much more complex question when you are talking about the high end user of a program like photoshop where lots of parts are used and kept in their raw format for editing. If a client wants the working files and there is not an explicit agreement detailing out the definition of the working files then the client is not entitled them in their raw form. I say give them the PSD files in a "sanitized form" where the layers have been flattened to a point that they can still edit copy or possibly exchange or move a few elements, but the client needs to pay for the time it takes to gather and prep these files. I don't think anyone should be held hostage by a designer over files when a client has reasonable requests concerning work done. The argument that arises is usually over the fact the client needs to pay for the time of prepping the files and that then spills over into the argument of working files.

If you look at this just as a normal font issue, where a client asks for you to send them a font so they can use it for other items, we all know you are not just to suppose pass the fonts off to them. But, with a font is only referenced to in the PSD file and not embedded like photos and work methods. So a there has to be a compromise to problem. In the case of the font you simply give them the name and let them know they need to purchase the font. In the case of these other items you have to work out each item and it's possible issues as to how you can transfer those items. Either you flatten it to a point that you are no re-distributing copyrighted material contained with in or you give them the list of where they can purchase those items like the font. But either way it comes back to being paid for your time to fulfill these requests.

Dan, I agree a good intelectual lawyer would be needed to sort this out possibly, but this idea of entitlement that a client brings to the table in this type of discussion is not easily answered by "they paid for the work" and they should be entitled to those parts. Most of the time that statement comes from an uninformed individual who are making a blanket statement or comparing the situation, as another person posted, to 2 by 4s and nails.