Shadow on the Door wrote in post #13375447
either way what you're saying is irrelevant, he has a model release.
No, it isn't irrelevant at all. A model release is utterly worthless if the OP doesn't own the copyright on the image. A model release form has nothing to do with copyright - it is merely the model granting permission for their likeness to be used commercially. To use the image you still need to either buy the copyright from the copyright holder or be granted a valid license by them. If the OP doesn't own the copyright then they can't sell the image or even grant a license for the image to be used.
If you pay a model to pose for you, you then own the copyright on the images. You can sell prints/postcards or publish a photo book, even without a release. However you (or anyone else) may not use the image for "commercial" purposes - which in this situation means using it to advertise a company, service or product. To use the image for commercial use the person using it requires a signed release from the model that gives permission for their likeness to be used for commercial purposes.
You now post your image in an online portfolio and a company sees it. Someone there happens to be friends with the model so, instead of coming to you, they approach her and ask if they can use "that great picture of her". She knows nothing about copyright and just agrees. She even agrees to sign a model release form because the company's legal dept say that a release is needed. Despite having a valid model release, the company still can't use the image, because they don't have any form of license from the copyright holder (you).
Just to further clarify how un-irrelevant this is, many publications will want a photographer to sign a contract when they buy/use an image. That contract will almost always include a clause which states that the photographer owns the copyright or has a valid license to sell the image. they don't in fact own the copyright then signing such an agreement would be adding the criminal offence of fraud/fraudulent misrepresentation to the civil offence of copyright infringement.
The OP has stated that the pictures was taken as part of a TF shoot. I do not know how Canadian law will interpret TF and the resulting copyright ownership. It may be that as neither party "paid" there is no client and the photographer owns the image. Equally possible, it may be that both parties are deemed to have "paid" (in the form of time and effort) and that both parties own the copyright. In the latter case the OP wouldn't be able to sell (or grant usage of) the image without the permission (separate from model release) of the model.
Given the expense and serious nature of copyright infringement cases (not to mention proceedings for possible fraud), it is in the OPs best interest to consult an IP lawyer to clarify the issue of copyright ownership in regard to TF shoots.