I think that NG's usual wording as posted by porterd should be enough to protect both parties. I bet the lawyers got into the act and worded it to absolutely strip the original owner of any right whatsoever to the image to protect the larger and most likely well legally represented company from the poor individual, low income, overtaxed and brow-beaten lowly photographer
Burn down their stone and steel company fortresses, I say. Pitch 'em an ass.
Things are getting a little too jabberwonky these days.