It means that the business now owns the images and can decide however they're used. Legally, it's basically like the business took the photos themselves.
The alternative is licensing the images, where the photographer retains ownership, but provides an agreement that allows the client to use the images. Licensing agreements can contain a lot of different restrictions, including:
-
Duration - how long the client can continue to use the images
-
Use types - how exactly the client can use the images (for example on a billboard, but not selling merchandise with the image)
-
Markets - where the client can use the images.
Additionally, when the photographer retains copyright, they can typically use the photos however they want, such as on their website.
Personally, one of my largest clients has it in our contract that they get copyright of the images that I shoot for them, but I have a perpetual license to use them for promotion of my business after they've already used the images. For me, that's all that I'd ever want to use those images for, so it was an easy thing to agree to.
Huh, it's weird that State Farm will only insure for purchase price. I have a personal articles policy through them for my camera gear, and everything is insured at a replacement value that we agree to at the time I add things. They don't even ask for receipts for items under a certain threshold (I think $2k).
I have a lens that I bought for used for just over $4k, but have insured at the $6k MSRP, since it only appears on used markets infrequently. They didn't question that decision at all.
Others have listed a lot of great alternatives here, but if for whatever reason you would like to go with State Farm, I'd recommend talking to a different agent.