Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera View Post
If you use a release like the one above, you are creating the perception in the mind of the model that they have co-ownership in the images you create, which is not the case. Again, the idea is to prevent legal hassles, not generate greater possibilities for them in the future. I have heard stories where someone posed for images when they were younger, then many years later regretted, and came back and sued the photographer (or the worst case, the estate of the model, in the form of their parents), and because the model release was not airtight, the photographer got hosed as a result.
The question then becomes ... was the model's conclusion a reasonable one? I've fielded this with "the other side" - models, and so far that does not seem to be the case. (note 1)

As for legal hassles, I've discussed this with my Attorneys, and even more to the point, my youngest daughter who, in a different life was a Legal Secretary in a law firm dedicated to Contract Law, and was deeply involved in Model/ Property Releases, Advertising Contracts ... etc. The stories she can tell (especially, why the release was shot down in court) could curl your hair.
Her one comment: "For the most part, the `boilerplate releases' found in the Everything You Need to Know as a Photographer books are worth much less than the paper they are printed on ... and the most common fault: Too broad. Specificity is important here."

(note 1) I'm not done, yet. I haven't asked the models directly about their perception of "co-ownership" of images. I'll grind that fine... to be more confident of my impression.

BTW ... You did kind of "throw" me here ... where the "someone who posed came back and sued the photographer (or in the worst case the estate of the .... Model...)" Model? Wouldn't the person who posed be the "model"?
They would be suing their own estate????