First, the original photographer is OOB over 6 years? What is the problem?
Most Copyright laws pertain to the use of not necessary the ownership. It sounds like the photography studio does not know what the laws really are. They should note that being as you are said owner of the negatives (unless stolen these were given to you because you are the owner) and have absolutely no issues whatsoever in re producing them for you. Again the word here is reproducing, coming from the negatives that are yours by possession. To designate anybody other then the actual photographer as the "artist" and publicize or use for your own profit, there is absolutely nothing indicating you do not have the right to reproduce them for the original intent - which was what the photographer was hired for in the first place. Now that they are OOB, you have no other choice then to look elsewhere. A $50 retainer and phone call from an Attorney would clear this right up, but shouldn't be necessary.
The fact they are no longer in business would vindicate any course of action from the original studio, for their services are no longer able to provide you with any dups themselves.
Now I am no longer married to an Attorney, yet I am fairly certain this falls under possession, and you posses the originals. My family owns pictures of my grandfather hanging off Mt. Rushmore, we OWN them because the Negatives were given to us and we can make copies as much as we like as long as there is no sale of the reproductions, use for our financial profit or we falsely identify ourselves as the photographer.
Lastly, if this is the "only game in town" ...If it is not, go somewhere that the studio knows what to do. The reproducer would not be held responsible if you have identified yourself as the owner - someone in you family payed for these correct? With a contract / bill of sale? And particularly due to the fact they are no longer in business... I mean they are wedding pictures for goodness sake, and not of JFK...so I don't get it. From experience with reproducing photography in brochures to the ones of Mt. Rushmore....I don't see how that is an issue. Maybe they had one weird experience, they should - even though it is a given and no necessary - accept the fact you have the negatives and a signed statement saying you are the owners of said property not violating any potion of the original contract made with the studio you hired.
Look at
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html for further clarification. My brain hasn't been working to fantastically lately and I may not be that clear. But I am fairly sure based on what you have told me, there should not be an issue at all.