It's possible to draw up any agreement you like, but all rights traditionally are held by the photographer. If you are taking photographs for editorial purposes, you don't need releases, period. If photographing for artistic purposes, you generally don't need a release either (at least in the US) There was recently a test case in New York that upheld this premise, regarding some "street" type photography. The plaintiff alleged that because the prints were for sale at a gallery, it constituted "commercial" photography. The court decided otherwise. If you are paying a model, it's best to have a release, as part of the arrangement. Make sure you pay them something, if only a gesture, as it binds the release a bit firmer.
I would consult a professional photographer close to home, to find out what dog hunts in your neck of the woods. There is no point in giving up rights you don't need to give up. Personally I would advise against such a "softened" release as you intend. The reason releases are so all encompassing is to remove as much ambiguity as possible. If you actually need a release, then you want it as strong as possible. You may wind up in an unhappy situation with a release that doesn't clearly give you all rights.