David Clarkson suggests articles on the ACLU website:
These two should be somewhat reliable sources:
American Society of Media Photographers:
A prominent local expert in the field feels…
This issue of model releases has always been so murky and troublesome. But my long understanding (which may not hold up in a strict court of law!) is that pictures of people are fair game as fine art and don’t necessarily need a model release. Think of Diane Arbus or Gary Winogrand’s numerous (and usually very unflattering!) subjects on the street for example…
But the minute you use somebody’s image to clearly sell a commercial product— the beautiful woman’s hair as a way to sell shampoo, you are in the land of model releases. I don’t feel that using a person’s image to promote fine art photography is a commercial usage. The fine art photographs are not commercial commodities— in my opinion! If you look at the history of photography and it’s myriad portraits of people without their consent, you’ll see that the courts have traditionally given us photographers a very long and lenient leash!