Dan Marchant wrote in post #14179444
All the people posting above are doing so without sufficient information, because you haven't told us exactly what way the image is being used.
If these are framed prints, hung on the office wall as decoration, then the photographer is well within their rights. It is perfectly legal to sell prints to someone for them to hang on their wall, even if they happen to look at lady bits for a living.
If, on the other hand, the image has been used in the creation of an advert for these businesses, or is displayed in such a way that it could be reasonably assumed that the person depicted is a satisfied customer/client of the service, then a model release would be needed. Having said that it would be the business using the image that needs the release and not the photographer.
Ding, ding, ding! Right answer.
The photographer does not need a model release to sell an image of a person to another person, nor does either person need a model release to display the image purely as a work of art.
A model release is needed in every state of the US to use a work commercially. There is no state in which "commercial use" includes the sale of the photograph itself.
However, use subsequent to the sale by the purchaser might be deemed "commercial," and that can be a gray situation as far as display in a business is concerned...and the onus is on the user, not the photographer. The photographer is not "using" the image.
There might be some other issues in this case that have nothing to do with "model release" per se. For instance, is there some way it can be construed in court that an enforceable distribution agreement was made as part of the original portrait agreement? If so, that would be a violation of contract. I've had to do that with a good number of my high-end sales...many of those clients don't mind my using their images on display in hardcopy, but don't want them on the Internet.