A LOT DOES depend on the initial motivation: News remains "news". One can "publish "news" current or old, and the character of the work does not change; it is still "news". Whether or not money can be made from its use is not relevant - the sales of millions of additional newspapers can be attributed to the use of one single "news" photograph.

I am guilty for confusing "Copyright Law' with "Civil Law". The use of an image of anyone my be tested under laws governing libel, slander or invasion of privacy.

Let me see what I can do here:

Invasion of Privacy: Stick a camera into a toilet, where someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy and photograph them - That is Invasion of Privacy.

Libel: Take a photograph of a politician checking the air in his tires, and publish it with the caption, "AB Lets the Air Out of His Opponents Tires" - a LIE. That is Libel.

Slander: Take a truthful photograph of a prominent politician with his fly open, and publish it without comment. True - it did happen, but the photograph shows him in an unreasonably "bad light" - bad enough to damage his reputation. That is Slander.

No reputable publication, nor an editor with an IQ exceeding his/her hat size - or a photographer with the same qualification - will welcome a law suit based on any of these... so to REDUCE the risk, we have Model Releases.

Now, I am NOT an Attorney! My only qualification is having been close to some of the affected activity, while keeping my eyes open.
I will welcome comments from ALL of those in the Legal profession.

As far as monetary compensation to the model ... It must pass the test of "reasonable". It is doubtful that one Polaroid "test shot" given to a Model for the use of her image use in a National Advertising Campaign would be considered "reasonable compensation".
What is? There we must search the precedents established in prior cases. That is the "bull work" performed by Junior Partners, Paralegals ... and if the truth be known ... Legal Secretaries.