Generally, I think it depends on where you are. If the laws of the country you're in require a model release, the answer is yes, even if it's really only for CYA. I'm not familiar with Italian law on this issue.....

If I may, the need for a release is the fact a person has rights to an image of themselves that in this country are established on a federal level. If the right is transgressed by being used in a publication for commercial benefit (other than a photograph of a news event in which the person appears and published for a news purpose) without permission, the subject has the right to sue for damages where the publication took place (anywhere the publication is sold).

But like copyright it is up to the person whose image it is that has been used without permission to initiate action for redress in the courts. Model releases are not required except to protect the photographer if the photographer uses the images in some way for profitable benefit to the photographer and did not obtain written permission to do so. So the release must be valid in what the courts will recognize where the photo is actually published or exhibited.

Someone from another country can at least theoretically come to the US and file suit for damages if no release was signed by the subject. Most assume that is not a very likely occurrence, so they don't bother with getting a release when in another country assuming they will be lucky and the person would never see a published photo of themselves.

Crowd shots are not an exception. Any individual in a crowd shot that can be recognized can legitimately claim damages if written permission to use the photo was not obtained if it is published for profit to the photographer.

I remember reading a paper on this recently that touched on the legal aspects of photography from model releases to the false perceptions of changes in the law due to 9/11. In that paper it cited a federal court opinion that a model release would only be required if the photograph was to be used in a commercial, i.e. advertising or promotional, publication. Use for the photographer to produce and sell photos in an artistic pursuit was protected and allowed and did not require model releases. However, as this is a court ruling interpretation of statute, it could change under another ruling. And of course since this was in the U.S., it would only apply here.

First, no matter what you do, realize that any one can sue anyone else for any reason - or no reason. A release is as good as the lawyer defending it or the lawyer challenging it. In court, a half-page release in simple language may be every bit as good as a 12-page release written in the densest legalize. Suits of this sort are settled on circumstances more than on the wording of the document. A release truly depends upon the good will of the photographer, model and client.

On an advertising shoot, model releases are routinely signed. A picture shot for journalistic purposes and published as journalism has always been exempt.

However, if the journalistic shot was misleading and demeaning, the subject could sue - possibly successfully - under slander and libel precedents. Same would be true of a fashion or advertising shoot, if the written copy, layout or context that went with the picture, personally demeaned the model. A release would be of no value at all as protection.

Paparazzi sneaking onto someones property to shoot pictures through the windows of the house may also find themselves in trouble, because one has an expectation of privacy in ones home, or on ones property. Some courts have ruled to indicate that with celebrity comes a reduced expectation of privacy, so on the street it is pretty much fair game.

Common sense should prevail. If the picture is likely to go into an ad, then a model release is necessary. This also includes property shots. Folks owning the great San Francisco gingerbread got tired of supplying the material for every promo shot of the city, sued and won. However, if someone lists their house for sale and you are shooting for their realtor, a release would be silly. Common sense again.

Anyone shooting stock photographs should always get one, since stock frequently is used in advertising. Journalistic shots are exempt, unless they too are used in an ad. In this case, the company using the shot would be more likely to be the defendant in the suit - possibly by both the subject and the photographer. If I sell one-time rights to a news shot, I don't expect to see it plastered over the magazine's promotional materials.

Luckily, it takes a bit of effort to sue, so the number of lawsuits compared to the number of pictures shot are few. Even if you have done everything by the book, you still can be sued, even if the other party has zero chance of winning, is mean, and just wants to make trouble for you. That's life.

That 9/11 had any affect on the application of the law I would doubt. If you really want to obtain a better understanding you can review the cases in New York and Los Angeles where most of the litigation has taken place for obvious reasons. The ASMP offices in New York may also have definitive information on how the laws are currently being applied. What is protected in individual rights is to a very large extent defined by the courts precedents over time. Personally I have not seen any news that the precedents have changed, not that any homeland security regulations affect individual rights applied to photographs of themselves.

Ok, so in this case the lady (not a pro) who just wanted to summit her image to Shutter Bug in the section called Creativity Community Talking pictures. PG 14 April issue Knowing that it's not going to be used in a ad, was ok with not getting a release sign?. although you should always try to get a release.

I remember a while back reading about a model who sued because her Image ended up in a porn ad! She had signed a release, and still won!!

I'm glad 99% of my images are either wildlife or weather. When the time comes I have to get a release from a Lion I'm done with photography

If you simply submit a photo to a gallery on the web which is not paying you for the picture and you don't sell prints from it, or try to commercialize in any way from the display, even if the subject should sue, it is unlikely because no commercial use was made of the picture that a suit would win anything.

But other and even for just one's own personal use, it is a respect and courtesy to the subject to have an understanding and an agreement in writing (model release) if a photo of the subject will be exhibited in public.

Whether it is the person, their pet dog or horse, their house or their custom hot rod, a person and their possessions are protected from being used in a photo for an kind of monetary gain by anyone unless specific permission is granted, and which should be in writing, signed and witnessed.