You get a pass because you're new, but old-timers here know I've written about this many times. A model release is not related to copyright ownership. Also, any agreement, written or oral, between you and the model, that lets her use the images in her portfolio or pursuit of work, is not related to either. A model release is her confirmation to you or interested parties that she has consented to you using her images in a commercial way. Copyright is granted
solely to the photographer upon creation of the image (with two possible, but extreme exceptions you're not likely to encounter in this example) - while its still in the camera. Just because she
feels she should co-own the copyright, doesn't make it so.
As the photographer, you control your creations, not the model. From a business and artistic standpoint, you have much to lose by letting un-finished images out in the world. In the days of film, the model would see everything simply because it was too difficlut to cut frames out of the roll of negatives before making a proof sheet (although I did on occaision for a client, black some of them out with a Sharpie). With color slides, I (and all photographers I know) edited out the bad ones (and shredded them) before we showed them to anybody (models or clients) and of whatever was left, still did not turn everything over to anyone. With models, I would let them come over, see my edited selection, pick a few they liked, an
borrow them to make their own prints (and they'd sign a receipt for me, acknowledging that they were my property, and that they were borrowing them and had to return them.) I did this even when I was paid by the model for the shoot. As with traditional portrait photographers, the negatives (or slides, or in this case, digital files) are merely step in the process of producing images. Bottom line, it all belongs to, and stays with, you, even when you're being paid, certainly with a trade-out. Further, as I said, you don't want unretouched, even improperly processed, images floating around with your name on them (and ironically enough,
without your name on them). What happens if someone sees them, and they don't look good, and the models says "so and so" took them? Not good for you. You generally only want stuff out there that you approved of.
So...... First, it helps if you learn to shoot such that your images need a minimal amount of post-processing. Second, don't be shy about showing the models and clients only the images you judge to be of the caliber you want to represent your work. If the model insists on seeing ALL of them, have her come to you and look at them on your computer. If that's not possible, work up a PS action or something to make them web-viewing size, and to stamp the word "proof" across them (like the portrait guys do with wedding prints) and make her a CD or put them on a private webpage (short time only). Maybe she wanted to see all of them to ensure you didn't get anything of her bare breast that she didn't know about. Maybe she wants to see where she goofed to improve herself. Both valid reasons, so find a solution that works for you.
Finally, if she thinks she's going to submit them for publication, you need a clear understanding with her that she does not have a co-ownership in the images, and before anyone can publish them, they need a written authorization or license from you. All the big publishers know the law anyway, that's why Maxim, for example, has a form for
photographers to sign (they do call it a "release" I think) giving them the right to publish forever, without any compensation or credit line to you. If you want to give her a CD of usable, retouched, print size images, that is up to you, and in a TFCD situation, that is a fair way to go, but that doesn't mean you should give it ALL away.
Regards,
Andy Pearlman
Andy Pearlman Studio