Kjos Photography wrote:
That doesn't look standard to me.

The model can't assign copyright to you, it's already yours as photographer.

And, the part about imaginary person is confusing.

In my opinion, Your best action is to talk to a lawyer and get a contract that is valid in your state.

+1, that's not a standard model release at all.  The ASMP has one that you can use, it's on their website.

dbphotonc wrote:
Thanks!  Is this the standard form you're talking about?

Model Release Form
PHOTOGRAPHER: _____________________________________________________________________
MODEL:               _____________________________________________________________________
MODEL’S EMAIL ADDRESS:   ____________________________________________________________
MODEL’S MAILING ADDRESS: ___________________________________________________________
IN CONSIDERATION OF HAVING RECEIVED (i.e. Photos/Compensation/etc)  _______________________
IN RETURN FOR POSING FOR PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN ON (date):  ________________________________
AT (location):                     _____________________________________________________________

I hereby assign full copyright of these photographs to the above-mentioned photographer (and the related representatives and assigns) together with the right of reproduction either wholly or in part.
I grant to the Photographer or licensees or assignees the permission to can the above-mentioned photographs either separately or together, either wholly or in part, the perpetual and  irrevocable and unrestricted right to use and publish video and/or photographs of me, or where I may be included for editorial trade, product advertising and such other fashion /business purpose in any manner and medium.
The Photographer and licensees or assignees may have unrestricted use of these for whatever purpose, including advertising, with any retouching or alteration without restriction.
I agree that the above mentioned photographs and any reproductions shall be deemed to represent an imaginary person, and further agree that the Photographer or any person authorized by or acting on his or her behalf may use the above mentioned photographs or any reproductions of them for any advertising purposes or for the purpose of illustrating any wording, and agree that no such wording shall be considered to be attributed to me personally unless my name is used.
Provided my name is not mentioned in connection with any other statement or wording which may be attributed to me personally, I undertake not to Prosecute or to institute proceedings, claims or demands against either the Photographer or his or her agents in respect of any usage of the above mentioned photographs. I hereby release the photographer named above from all claims and liability relating to images, video or photographs taken of me.
I have read this model release form carefully and fully understand its meanings and implications.

signed: _______________________________    date: __________

Important:  If the Model is under 18 year of age, a parent or legal guardian must also sign
parent/guardian: _______________________    date: __________

I prefer a release that allows me to retouch the images.

Suppose a model has a mole that she is proud of, but that I would like to remove from the image.  The above release may not allow me to remove the mole, as lack of the mole "paints the model in a false light."   Similarly, any changes to the image that the model may not like, may be a problem. 

I prefer to be the clear copyright owner of my images.  The above muddies that.  By providing the invluded "copyright clause" to the model, you are implying that her contributions to the image rose to the level of making her a "co-author" with an interest in the copyright.  The document then proceeds to assign copyright to anybody who makes authorized use of the image.  Thus if the photographer licenses the image to a magazine, that magazine becomes a co-owner of the copyright.   This certainly muddies any negotiations for additional licensing fees for subsequent usage.



It also worries me that the release is limited to "photographs".  I prefer to retain the option of editing the image in such a way that it is no longer a photograph.  For instance, I may wish to change the background, or apply artistic filters.  If the editing is enough to change the image from a "photograph" to a piece of digital art, then portions of this release would no longer apply.


I strongly recommend that photographers not try to craft their own legal documents.  A badly crafted legal document can sometimes be worse than no document at all.  Legal documents should be written by attorneys.

As to a TFP 'contract', I prefer using separate documents for the release and contract.  If I want to license an image to a third party, I want to provide them with a copy of a simple release document.  I don't want to provide them with a long contract where they have to wade through the entire thing to make sure they are allowed to use the image.  I also don't want to put them in a position where they need to verify that all terms of the contract have been met.

I would suggest joining a professional photographers association (like the PPA).  These organizations have attorney prepared forms they provide to members.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney.  Do not rely on anything I say.  For reliable legal advice consult an attorney.

dbphotonc wrote:
Thanks!  Is this the standard form you're talking about?

Model Release Form
PHOTOGRAPHER: _____________________________________________________________________
MODEL:               _____________________________________________________________________
MODEL’S EMAIL ADDRESS:   ____________________________________________________________
MODEL’S MAILING ADDRESS: ___________________________________________________________
IN CONSIDERATION OF HAVING RECEIVED (i.e. Photos/Compensation/etc)  _______________________
IN RETURN FOR POSING FOR PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN ON (date):  ________________________________
AT (location):                     _____________________________________________________________

I hereby assign full copyright of these photographs to the above-mentioned photographer (and the related representatives and assigns) together with the right of reproduction either wholly or in part.
I grant to the Photographer or licensees or assignees the permission to can the above-mentioned photographs either separately or together, either wholly or in part, the perpetual and  irrevocable and unrestricted right to use and publish video and/or photographs of me, or where I may be included for editorial trade, product advertising and such other fashion /business purpose in any manner and medium.
The Photographer and licensees or assignees may have unrestricted use of these for whatever purpose, including advertising, with any retouching or alteration without restriction.
I agree that the above mentioned photographs and any reproductions shall be deemed to represent an imaginary person, and further agree that the Photographer or any person authorized by or acting on his or her behalf may use the above mentioned photographs or any reproductions of them for any advertising purposes or for the purpose of illustrating any wording, and agree that no such wording shall be considered to be attributed to me personally unless my name is used.
Provided my name is not mentioned in connection with any other statement or wording which may be attributed to me personally, I undertake not to Prosecute or to institute proceedings, claims or demands against either the Photographer or his or her agents in respect of any usage of the above mentioned photographs. I hereby release the photographer named above from all claims and liability relating to images, video or photographs taken of me.
I have read this model release form carefully and fully understand its meanings and implications.

signed: _______________________________    date: __________

Important:  If the Model is under 18 year of age, a parent or legal guardian must also sign
parent/guardian: _______________________    date: __________

No. First, the model cannot and doesn't have to assign copyright. At least not in the US. US copyright law already does that - and the model cannot give away or assign something she doesn't own.

Try this one. While they have been updated from time to time, he ASMP model release forms (one for adults, another for minors) have been industry standard releases for publication dating back to at least the 1950's.

https://asmp.org/tutorials/adults-model … 2OUxoFdUrU

Just use your name in place of Joe Photographer, change his/her (referring to the photographer) to his, and delete  the paragraph in red, which is there only to demonstrate where and how to add special conditions.

However, the more you try to do with a model release (other than its intended purpose), the more complicated it becomes - and the more potential holes there are for someone to poke in it.

How 'bout you just make certain that the terms and details are spelled out and agreed to in emails, and you save your emails?

Newcomb Photography wrote:
While I have no doubt that a slew of MM models (and some agency models) will sign a full commercial release on a TFP deal, I question the ethics of giving a model a full release for a TFP deal or at least giving the model an option, unless you clearly state that your retaining the right to do just about anything with the images in exchange for her time and some images.

Any agency that approves a full release for a TFP deal are idiots and any model signing a full release for a TFP deal likely has not read the thing.

As others have pointed out, the ASMP provides form releases.  Here is what I believe to be a "fair" TFP "portfolio" release, slightly modified from the ASMP model form to grant reciprocal rights to the model:

For valuable consideration received, I grant to Joe Photographer ("Photographer") and his/her legal representatives and assigns, the irrevocable right to use and publish photographs, still or moving, of me or in which I may be included, for the restricted purposes of self-promotion, including advertising the Photographer’s business, in any manner and medium; and to alter and composite the same without restriction and without my inspection or approval. I hereby release Photographer and his/her legal representatives and assigns from all claims and liability relating to said photographs.  I further understand that Photographer grants a license to me, for the restricted purposes of self-promotion, including advertising my modeling services, in any manner and medium.  I will not alter or remove any watermark attached to such photographs by Photographer.

I question your reasoning for saying such a thing.

Newcomb Photography wrote:
While I have no doubt that a slew of MM models (and some agency models) will sign a full commercial release on a TFP deal, I question the ethics of giving a model a full release for a TFP deal or at least giving the model an option, unless you clearly state that your retaining the right to do just about anything with the images in exchange for her time and some images.

Any agency that approves a full release for a TFP deal are idiots and any model signing a full release for a TFP deal likely has not read the thing.

As others have pointed out, the ASMP provides form releases.  Here is what I believe to be a "fair" TFP "portfolio" release, slightly modified from the ASMP model form to grant reciprocal rights to the model:

For valuable consideration received, I grant to Joe Photographer ("Photographer") and his/her legal representatives and assigns, the irrevocable right to use and publish photographs, still or moving, of me or in which I may be included, for the restricted purposes of self-promotion, including advertising the Photographer’s business, in any manner and medium; and to alter and composite the same without restriction and without my inspection or approval. I hereby release Photographer and his/her legal representatives and assigns from all claims and liability relating to said photographs.  I further understand that Photographer grants a license to me, for the restricted purposes of self-promotion, including advertising my modeling services, in any manner and medium.  I will not alter or remove any watermark attached to such photographs by Photographer.

Didn't read the whole thing, but I'm amazed at how many models are talked into signing releases like its been normal from the start of time. Plus, how many give full releases to really terrible photographers.

Anyway, there are promotional releases out there and I would suggest using one of those. If you really need more of a contract (for example to make sure talent shows up) then I would suggest either putting up with flakes or paying models. Nothing really says "hobby" and/or "not worth it" when someone throws up a huge contract for a model to sign for a simple test or free shoot.

Again, its too bad a lot of "models" will sign anything or put up with anything as its about time some of these "photographers" are weeded out.




Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

dbphotonc wrote:
Thanks!  Is this the standard form you're talking about?

Model Release Form
PHOTOGRAPHER: _____________________________________________________________________
MODEL:               _____________________________________________________________________
MODEL’S EMAIL ADDRESS:   ____________________________________________________________
MODEL’S MAILING ADDRESS: ___________________________________________________________
IN CONSIDERATION OF HAVING RECEIVED (i.e. Photos/Compensation/etc)  _______________________
IN RETURN FOR POSING FOR PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN ON (date):  ________________________________
AT (location):                     _____________________________________________________________

I hereby assign full copyright of these photographs to the above-mentioned photographer (and the related representatives and assigns) together with the right of reproduction either wholly or in part.
I grant to the Photographer or licensees or assignees the permission to can the above-mentioned photographs either separately or together, either wholly or in part, the perpetual and  irrevocable and unrestricted right to use and publish video and/or photographs of me, or where I may be included for editorial trade, product advertising and such other fashion /business purpose in any manner and medium.
The Photographer and licensees or assignees may have unrestricted use of these for whatever purpose, including advertising, with any retouching or alteration without restriction.
I agree that the above mentioned photographs and any reproductions shall be deemed to represent an imaginary person, and further agree that the Photographer or any person authorized by or acting on his or her behalf may use the above mentioned photographs or any reproductions of them for any advertising purposes or for the purpose of illustrating any wording, and agree that no such wording shall be considered to be attributed to me personally unless my name is used.
Provided my name is not mentioned in connection with any other statement or wording which may be attributed to me personally, I undertake not to Prosecute or to institute proceedings, claims or demands against either the Photographer or his or her agents in respect of any usage of the above mentioned photographs. I hereby release the photographer named above from all claims and liability relating to images, video or photographs taken of me.
I have read this model release form carefully and fully understand its meanings and implications.

signed: _______________________________    date: __________

Important:  If the Model is under 18 year of age, a parent or legal guardian must also sign
parent/guardian: _______________________    date: __________

This is the most bogus release ever. It would never hold up in a court of law.

For starters a contract is an agreement for exchange of goods and services.
Most legit release will start with the words "For valuable consideration".
Now this can mean money, prints or anything else that is agreed  upon.
This contract has nothing to imply any consideration is given.

No need to address the rest of it's nonsense.

Michael Lohr  wrote:
This is the most bogus release ever. It would never hold up in a court of law.

For starters a contract is an agreement for exchange of goods and services.
Most legit release will start with the words "For valuable consideration".
Now this can mean money, prints or anything else that is agreed  upon.
This contract has nothing to imply any consideration is given.

No need to address the rest of it's nonsense.

Michael, actually the form provided has a blank to be filled in for what the "consideration" is, so its in there and more well defined that most TFP releases.

dbphotonc wrote:
I know it's just a matter of time before I get a difficult client, and I know a TFP contract protects us both by clearly communicating what it is we're working toward.

Well, good for you for wishing to document your agreements.

But bad for you for coming to an Internet forum for legal documents & advice.

The statement above is a tad confusing to me -- who is this "client"?  Are you using TF* images for placements with a paying client?  If so, boo to you -- if you are getting paid, everyone should be getting paid (IMHO).  If that "client" is the model, then please speak more clearly.

Many folks say a "standard" model release should cover you.  Please allow me to make a couple of comments:

...  There is no such thing as a "standard" document -- there are documents
     that are well accepted & widely used, but there is no "standard".

...  Many model release fail to document that usage rights the model can have to
     the images she/he receives as compensation.  Can she sell prints?  Can she
     edit the images?  Can she submit them to contests & magazines & web
     sites?  Etc.

...  Are there restrictions on how you can use the images? 

So, good for you, bad for you, boo on you.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
The ASMP release is one many here have advocated.

For Stock, I use Yuri Arcurs release which is accepted by most Stock Companies.

Personally, I don't get why some people keep trying to tie issues of release to issues of compensation.  The need for a release is for the most part not determined by the type or amount of compensation the model receives, it's driven more by things like rights or privacy and right of publicity, rights which don't magically go away just because the form or amount of compensation changes.

If in doubt seek legal advice.

Yes, to the ASMP. 

No to the balance.  A release is a contract, plain and simple.  The elements to a contract are also simple (1) offer; (2) acceptance and (3) consideration.  Consideration is an exchange of legal detriment.   Restated "consideration" is an exchange of something of value by the parties.  In the photography context, its could be an exchange of services for money, an exchange of rights (copyright assignment for money) or right to publicity.

Now, let me be clear, the bold part of your statement is incorrect "The need for a release is for the most part not determined by the type or amount of compensation the model receives, it's driven more by things like rights or privacy and right of publicity, rights which don't magically go away just because the form or amount of compensation changes."

Whether the "consideration" is adequate is not relevant under the eyes of the law.  The law recognizes that people are free to made a bad bargain.  Thus, if a model agrees to TFP and signs a full commercial release then that model has given the photographer all of her/his rights to exploit that models image for a few prints.  Its a perfectly legal and valid transaction, no magic involved, but alas, her rights to privacy and publicity were assigned pursuant to the release.

---
Michael W. Newcomb, Esq.
Newcomb Law Group
Business, Intellectual Property & Beverage Law
http://www.newcomblawgroup.com (my day job)
http://www.wineryattorney.com
http://www.newcombphotography.com (my creative outlet)

P.S. - I have suggested above what I believe to be a fair TFP release that clearly grants both parties portfolio rights, its essentially the ASMP portfolio release with a reciprocal right given to the model.  Use it at your own risk.

Michael Lohr  wrote:
... I would never waste time on a release for a simple TFP.

If you have any concerns, then a simple email exchange on what you expect and what you will provide should be sufficient.

If it is more than a "simple" TFP. For example, you are using it more than just your portfolio. (art prints, internet usage, potential commercial usage and such) The you should do you due diligence and at the very minimum use proper model releases.  Contracts should as be considered if any clarity issues may arise in the future as to your specific use. For example, if you shoot nudes and then want to sell them to a porn site.

+1

If they trust you, I do not think most TFP models, entertainers, actors, etc. will insist or need a contract. As a result of employment restrictions, I have been asked by two models to remove images from the internet. On both occasions I immediately complied with their request.

Sensitive images i.e. nudity and for professional clients are separate issues and will need a contract and release. It is not unusual for PR firms and agencies to try and restrict usage.

Newcomb Photography wrote:
Yes, to the ASMP. 

No to the balance.  A release is a contract, plain and simple.  The elements to a contract are also simple (1) offer; (2) acceptance and (3) consideration.  Consideration is an exchange of legal detriment.   Restated "consideration" is an exchange of something of value by the parties.  In the photography context, its could be an exchange of services for money, an exchange of rights (copyright assignment for money) or right to publicity.

Now, let me be clear, the bold part of your statement is incorrect "The need for a release is for the most part not determined by the type or amount of compensation the model receives, it's driven more by things like rights or privacy and right of publicity, rights which don't magically go away just because the form or amount of compensation changes."

You claim I'm wrong in saying rights don't magically go away depending on the amount or type of compensation offered, but then go on to say a release is a contract plain and simple.

I don't see how what you say, refutes what I've said.

Please explain how rights such as a right or publicity or right or privacy magically go away depending on the amount or type of compensation, since you claim I'm wrong in say they don't magically go away.

Please explain specifically how the type or amount of compensation received would change the need for a release or change what a release must cover or not cover.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
Please explain how rights such as a right or publicity or right or privacy magically go away depending on the amount or type of compensation, since you claim I'm wrong in say they don't magically go away.

I'll explain, the statement you made that I said was incorrect was this:

Abbitt Photography wrote:
"The need for a release is for the most part not determined by the type or amount of compensation the model receives, it's driven more by things like rights or privacy and right of publicity, rights which don't magically go away just because the form or amount of compensation changes."

When I read your statement I interpreted you as saying the model somehow retains residual rights to publicity or right to privacy, regardless of form or amount of compensation.  The phrase you used "... right which don't magically go away just because ..." I believe supports this interpretation.

My point and what I felt compelled to correct was that "rights to publicity and rights to privacy" do indeed "magically go away" when a model signs a release, regardless of the compensation paid.

The reason they go away when a model signs a standard form commercial release is because that model has contractually assigned her right to privacy and publicity in the photos covered by the release.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
The ASMP release is one many here have advocated.

For Stock, I use Yuri Arcurs release which is accepted by most Stock Companies.

Personally, I don't get why some people keep trying to tie issues of release to issues of compensation.  The need for a release is for the most part not determined by the type or amount of compensation the model receives, it's driven more by things like rights or privacy and right of publicity, rights which don't magically go away just because the form or amount of compensation changes.

If in doubt seek legal advice.
Yes, to the ASMP. 

No to the balance.  A release is a contract, plain and simple.

Just a quick correction:
A RELEASE IS NOT A CONTRACT!
NO COMPENSATION NEED BE GIVEN IN RETURN FOR A RELEASE!
If you want to put it in a "release" and complicate things, fine. But make no mistake, a release in NOT a contract (but it could be if you jam it up with unnecessary crap).

Newcomb Photography wrote:

Abbitt Photography wrote:
Please explain how rights such as a right or publicity or right or privacy magically go away depending on the amount or type of compensation, since you claim I'm wrong in say they don't magically go away.

I'll explain, the statement you made that I said was incorrect was this:


When I read your statement I interpreted you as saying the model somehow retains residual rights to publicity or right to privacy, regardless of form or amount of compensation.  The phrase you used "... right which don't magically go away just because ..." I believe supports this interpretation.

My point and what I felt compelled to correct was that "rights to publicity and rights to privacy" do indeed "magically go away" when a model signs a release, regardless of the compensation paid.

The reason they go away when a model signs a standard form commercial release is because that model has contractually assigned her right to privacy and publicity in the photos covered by the release.

I'm not disagreeing with you.  My point was the rights don't change based on the pay.   I realize how they relate to a release.

I think perhaps we are just missing each others point.

My point is: I've seen many here claim (not just in this thread), that one doesn't ever need a release for TF shoots, insinuating, that the need for a release is somehow dependent on the compensation tendered, rather than how the usage may or may not violate a model's right or privacy, right of publicity, etc.

While the images resulting from a TF shoot may be less likely to be used for reasons requiring a release, one shouldn't make the blanket statement that TF shoots do not require a release.   That kind of advice could land a photographer in trouble should he/she use unreleased images for purposes requiring a release, based on the incorrect advice that because it was a TF shoot images do not need to be released under any circumstances.

Compensating a model with images instead of pay, doesn't mean the resulting images are somehow exempt from issues relating to release.  If a photographer will be using images needing a release, that photographer should obtain a release regardless of the type or amount of compensation provided to the model.

That's the point I'm trying to make. Would you agree with that?

Newcomb Photography wrote:

Michael, actually the form provided has a blank to be filled in for what the "consideration" is, so its in there and more well defined that most TFP releases.

You are correct. But if you go to a standard model release you will usually see these words on the first line. The is essence spells out the agreement. A contract should never "imply" anything.
The rest of the contract was so over the top bad, such as assigning copyright.
(the photographer already owns the copyright)

No release or contract often is better than a poorly drafted one.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
The ASMP release is one many here have advocated.

For Stock, I use Yuri Arcurs release which is accepted by most Stock Companies.

Personally, I don't get why some people keep trying to tie issues of release to issues of compensation.  The need for a release is for the most part not determined by the type or amount of compensation the model receives, it's driven more by things like rights or privacy and right of publicity, rights which don't magically go away just because the form or amount of compensation changes.

If in doubt seek legal advice.

What many people do not realize, if there isn't some form of compensation, then in certain circumstances a release may not protect the photographer.
For example this is in the APA release.

"For valuable consideration, the adequacy and receipt of which is hereby acknowledged"

Now if the model signs the release, and payment is never made then the release becomes null and void.

Michael Lohr  wrote:
What many people do not realize, if there isn't some form of compensation, then in certain circumstances a release may not protect the photographer.
For example this is in the APA release.

"For valuable consideration, the adequacy and receipt of which is hereby acknowledged"

Now if the model signs the release, and payment is never made then the release becomes null and void.

I agree that if a release states it is dependent on some compensation being given, then there needs to be compensation.   Sorry if I came across as implying otherwise.

My point was that while many releases may require some consideration to be given, the fact that compensation comes in the form of images, does not mean a model release is not required for any and all purposes and should not be obtained.

I've seen many here state categorically that releases are not needed if a shoot is TF, and I think that's the kind of advice that can get photographers into serious trouble.

This is similar to models believing (possibly being told) copyright doesn't apply and feeling they can use images for anything they want just because the shoot was TF.

TF defines the compensation given.  It does not define issues of copyright, usage and release.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
I've seen many here state categorically that releases are not needed if a shoot is TF, and I think that's the kind of advice that can get photographers into serious trouble.

What kind of trouble?

Vito wrote:
Just a quick correction:
A RELEASE IS NOT A CONTRACT!
NO COMPENSATION NEED BE GIVEN IN RETURN FOR A RELEASE!
If you want to put it in a "release" and complicate things, fine. But make no mistake, a release in NOT a contract (but it could be if you jam it up with unnecessary crap).

There are model releases which are structured as contracts, and model releases which are not.

There are advantages and disadvantages to each.

Structuring as a contract may make it more difficult for the model to revoke the release.

On the other hand a release signed by a 17 year old in Florida, may be valid if it is not a contract, but may not binding if it is a contract (the Florida law about minors signing contract is specific to contracts, not other documents).

Talk to an attorney for information on whether your releases should be structured as a contract.

JC Strick wrote:

What kind of trouble?

Some states require written permission in order to use someone's likeness to promote goods and/or services.  If you charge for photography services, then you may require written permission to use a model's likeness to promote your photography business (i.e. use the image as a sample of your work on a web site).

If you don't have the release, you may have liability should the model decide to complain about your use of her likeness.


If the model is less than fully clothed, she could claim that the images were intended to remain private.  She can claim that your publication of the images harmed her career.  If you have a proper release, then it is clear she gave permission for the images to be used.

Michael Fryd wrote:
Some states require written permission in order to use someone's likeness to promote goods and/or services.  If you charge for photography services, then you may require written permission to use a model's likeness to promote your photography business (i.e. use the image as a sample of your work on a web site).

If you don't have the release, you may have liability should the model decide to complain about your use of her likeness.


If the model is less than fully clothed, she could claim that the images were intended to remain private.  She can claim that your publication of the images harmed her career.  If you have a proper release, then it is clear she gave permission for the images to be used.

Well, that's not what I would consider "trouble", personally.
I would rather remove pictures upon request (with a release or not) instead of keeping up with a bunch a pesky papers and fight it out in court.

And let's be real here, most photographers here are not shooting anything for promotion of anything. They, IMO, have nothing to worry about and are just killing trees by getting releases signed. Although it's often argued in the forums that every hobbyist is promoting his services commercially by "publishing" pictures in his MM port, I have yet to see any case law to back this up.

Even if someone was able to produce case law of this actually happening, that would be one instance out of literally millions.

Course, this is what works for me personally and is my opinion only. And I have consulted with an attorney on the matter. YMMV. I am not here to sway anyones' opinion. I'm only relating what works for me

JC Strick wrote:
What kind of trouble?

Being sued for violating a model's right of privacy or right of publicity when images were used in violation of such rights, or finding out that images can not be used for their intended purpose, because the photographer didn't obtain a release.  (based on the bad advice that releases are not needed if the model is compensated with images instead of cash)

That kind of trouble.

When I submit images of people, they need to be released.  Those I submit them to don't care what form or how much compensation the model received.   All they care about is that the images is properly released.

To be able to use images without getting into trouble for breaking a model's rights is precisely why photographers obtain model releases.    If there was no potential trouble, then there would be no such thing as a model release.

Vito wrote:

Just a quick correction:
A RELEASE IS NOT A CONTRACT!
NO COMPENSATION NEED BE GIVEN IN RETURN FOR A RELEASE!
If you want to put it in a "release" and complicate things, fine. But make no mistake, a release in NOT a contract (but it could be if you jam it up with unnecessary crap).

PDN, APA, ASMP would strongly disagree with this statement.
There is a huge difference between a valid model release and a release that only gives usage rights. One would hold up in a court of law, and the other may or may not hold up depending on the circumstances.

Abbitt Photography wrote:

Being sued for violating a model's right of privacy or right of publicity when images were used in violation of such rights, or finding out that images can not be used for their intended purpose, because the photographer didn't obtain a release.  (based on the bad advice that releases are not needed if the model is compensated with images instead of cash)

That kind of trouble.

When I submit images of people, they need to be released.  Those I submit them to don't care what form or how much compensation the model received.   All they care about is that the images is properly released.

To be able to use images without getting into trouble for breaking a model's rights is precisely why photographers obtain model releases.    If there was no potential trouble, then there would be no such thing as a model release.

We're talking about hobbyist photographers using images of people (usually taken in a public setting) on MM or their social media. Why is a release needed for that?

I can post a picture of any random man, woman or child ("street photography")on these sites and there's nothing I will get in trouble for. Why am I suddenly asking for trouble just because the person in the image has a model account on MM?

No one gas advocated not using releases when releases are needed.

JC Strick wrote:

We're talking about hobbyist photographers using images of people (usually taken in a public setting) on MM or their social media. Why is a release needed for that?

I can post a picture of any random man, woman or child ("street photography")on these sites and there's nothing I will get in trouble for. Why am I suddenly asking for trouble just because the person in the image has a model account on MM?

No one gas advocated not using releases when releases are needed.

No, my original statement was not limited to the scenario you now define here. 

Not all TF shoots or images taken by hobbyists fall into the use you have stated.  Images from TF shoots by hobbyists can in fact be used in ways requiring a release, which is why I disagree with the universal statement that TF shoots do not need a release.  They may.