Model releases have little or no relevance to copyright. There is no copyright in the human face or form, so no claim can arise. Whether this remains true after the creative work of a cosmetic surgeon or tattooist is unknown, but we would expect a photograph to be deemed a new work as a representation rather than a copy.
A model release is a binding contract that agrees to relinquish specific future claims of equity in return for a 'valuable consideration'. This is usually payment, but can be prints or some other agreeable exchange. However it cannot be nothing; without 'valuable consideration' no contract is formed.
The requirement for model releases arises only in advertising and marketing use of images, where endorsement by the subject is implied. A simple model release does not provide for defamatory use, distortion or misrepresentation of the subject, it simply says in effect 'I am not later going to demand a further fee' for the purposes to which this photograph may be put'. More complex model releases can waive extensive rights of redress for defamation, privacy, publicity rights etc.
One other important issue revolves around model releases and minors. If a model is to be paid and is under 18 they must be licensed models else an offence is committed. Licensing is a function of local authorities.


Recent comments
4 days 3 hours ago
4 days 4 hours ago
1 week 5 days ago
3 weeks 2 days ago
3 weeks 2 days ago
3 weeks 4 days ago
4 weeks 3 days ago
5 weeks 2 days ago
5 weeks 3 days ago
5 weeks 5 days ago