WIP wrote:
Who is the model release protecting ?

In most cases the model release protects any future client of the photographer.  Not, necessarily, the photographer that snapped the shot and certainly not the model.

GPS Studio Services wrote:
It is interesting, I can understand the concerns of models. The needs of the model are different than the needs of the photographer.  More importantly, when dealing with agencies, it would be rare that they would ever permit a client to sign the kind of blanket releases that we use here.

Pro models usually sign a very blanket release when shooting for advertising campaigns. Therefore they get paid...
At least the customer requires a very blanket release because no reasonable company would pay for a model without having the option to re-run parts of a campaign 2 or 5 or 10 years later, for instance as a kind of "nostalgia campaign". Or adopt or change or expand succesful campaigns.

Procter & Gamble for instance a few years ago exhumed a famous and iconic "Ariel" washing powder campaing (tv, magazines) in Germany that had been run between 1968 and 1984 featuring a fake female "washing machine technician" named "Klementine". The marketing and avertising people would have got very upset if their predecessors had negotiated limited model releases and created awkward obstacles for a re-run that way.

On the other hand, the Internet isn't the mainstream.  Most here will rarely use an image for things other than their portfolio.  More importantly, they have little idea if an image will be used or what it will be used for.  The need for a blanket release makes sense because, should the opportunity come up, you will want to use the image if you can.

That is the quandary.  For a model, she is reluctant to sign away her likeness for things that she can't anticipate.  For some photographers, absent that ability, shooting becomes less valuable to them.

To me, I think a model wanting to pose through the Internet simply has to understand that dichotomy.  Either they can live with the basic ground rules, or not.  If they aren't comfortable signing a release, that is their prerogative.  They also have to accept that they may lose bookings as a result.

As photographers, we have to respect their wishes and choose who we do, or do not want to work with.  The lack of a release is a valid reason to not book a model.  What we shouldn't do is to berate them for their choice.  In this business we won't be able to work with everyone that we want to.  My philosophy is to work with the ones we want to who want to work with us.  If the terms don't work out, just move onto the next one.

Shot By Adam wrote:
Better to get one signed when I don't need it than to need to get one signed when I do. To me, getting a model release signed is the first part of the shoot and I let every model know at the time I book him or her that they will be signing a model release and will be receiving a usage license agreement. If they want to see any of the documentation, that's fine, and I send it to them in advance. If they have any issues or don't want to sign the release, that's no problem at all. Finding quality talent is never difficult for me.

That said, in all my years of shooting hundreds and hundreds of models, I don't recall one instance where I had an issue with anyone signing a release. Not one.

On a side note, Google has no record of any profiles that say the exact quote of, "I no longer work with photographers who require me to sign a model release form"

That exact quote came from a MM female model's profile page. I saw it, "copied" it, and promptly left her profile page to start this Forum question. I don't remember her name, as I was dumbfounded by the quote and wanted to see what everyone thought.

Maybe she read this Forum and changed her profile page?