Dan Howell wrote:
Outside of web modeling and stock modeling, there is little use for a 'standard' release.

That may be true for your particular situation, but I [MM# 2532377] do not shoot any paid model without the expectation that I will eventually sell the image. I have never shot a model without executing a model release. Never.

Dan Howell wrote:
Few models on commercial or fashion shoots booked thru agencies would sign or be allowed to sign a standard all-rights release. That kinda runs counter to your 'pretty much every working photographer' statement.

Models who work for agencies do not ask these silly questions about releases, and whatever agreements are to be executed are done between the business people and not by the represented talent. Many (probably most) of the models here on MM are independent agents who directly negotiate their own jobs. Agreements must be made, and it's better if they are done in writing. Photographers who don't do this can expect to have models try to school them on the fine points of copyright law, intellectual property ownership and model entitlements.

Get the release and save yourself the hassle.

PaulHomsyPhotography wrote:
...
No, it is not your image in the sense of property. It is a common work of everyone involved in the process and by default the owner of the copyright (the exclusive right) is the photographer. Without a license from the photographer you cannot use the image for whatever purpose.

Actually, you need the copyright license to reproduce or copy the image, not to use it.

If you have a legitimate print of the image you probably don't need the copyright owner's permission to put that image into your physical portfolio book, use it to attract clients, or to display it on your wall.

You would need permission to use it on a website, as web usage involves making copies.