Photographer signing a property release?

I volunteer at a local non-profit. From what I understand, they are presenting the following "property release" for photographers to sign this year. But it doesn't seem to make sense to me. Isn't this property release something a photographer present to a property owner to sign?
---------------
In consideration for other valuable consideration herein acknowledge as received, the undersigned, being the legal owner of, or having the right to permit the taking and use of photographs of, certain property designated as [ORGANIZATION], does grant to _______________ (photographer's name), his/her heirs, successors in interest, legal representatives, agents, and assigns the full rights to use such photographs and copyright same, in advertising, trade, or for any purpose.

I hereby waive any right that I may have to inspect or approve the finished product or products, or the advertising copy or printed matter that may be used in connection therewith, or the use to which it may be applied. The undersigned also consents to the use of any printed matter in conjunction therewith.

I hereby release, discharge, and agrees to save harmless Photographer, his/her heirs, legal representatives, and assigns, and all persons acting under his/her permission or authority, or those for whom he/she is acting, from any liability by virtue of any blurring, distortion, alteration, optical illusion, or use in composite form, whether intentional or otherwise, that may occur or be produced in the taking of said picture or in any subsequent processing thereof, as well as any publication thereof, even though it may subject me to ridicule, scandal, reproach, scorn, and indignity.

I am of full age and have every right to contract in my own name in the above regard. I have read the above authorization, release, and agreement, and I am fully familiar with the contents thereof. If the undersigned is signing as an agent or employee of a firm or corporation, the undersigned warrants that he/she is fully authorized to do so. This release shall be binding upon the undersigned and his/her/its heirs, legal representatives, successors, and assigns.
---------------

For example, this property release is almost verbatim from what the following photographer uses for his property release (see the last page):

http://www.richardsoni​mages.com …Portrait_Model_​Packet.pdf

If I'm right, then I'll correct them.

In addition, if I am to sign a contract this year, should I be granting them the copyright to the photos? I take it that if a company hires a photographer to take photos, the photographer grants the company the copyright (possibly with a provision that the photos can be used for portfolio/personal purposes). Is this correct?

This grants you full license to take the photos and use them any way you want... I'm not a lawyer, but what's the problem? I don't care if the present the release or I do, if it gives me the rights...

It's not clear what rights they maintain, but it implies, if I was to argue their side, that they own, they've just given you rights for the "valuable consideration."

Ghostman, you are right. This is a release a photographer presents to the property owner, to protect the photographer. Not the reverse. You should correct the property owner.

bwolford - From what I gathered, they are telling me (the photographer) that I have the right to use their property in photos as I please. That sounds great, except that I'm not the one who should be signing in. My signature on it is rather meaningless.

breathless - This is what I thought as well. I'll let the organization know this is probably not what they intended.

As a follow-up...

At the same time, I know what the organization is asking - they want to own the copyright on the photos, but allow the photographer to use it for personal purposes (they stated as much subsequently). Is it better to maintain the copyright and grant them an unlimited license instead? I don't mind letting them distribute/alter/adver​tise with the photos.

Does volunteering at an organization count as "work for hire" (which gives them the copyright, from what I understand)? The organization will be the ones holding the model releases since the members must sign it to join. But if I take photos of these members, who owns what?

...the undersigned, being the legal owner of, or having the right to permit the taking and use of photographs of, certain property designated as [ORGANIZATION]...

They should be the ones to sign it.

Yes, you want to retain copyright and you want to give them a license to reproduce it any way they choose in perpetuity. If you wish, you can also agree not to use or manipulate the image in any way that deliberately exposes them to ridicule and that you will not use it to promote any third party product or service.

No, "work for hire" essentially means that you are an employee, unless your contract specifically states that you are working for hire and transferring your copyright. Moreover, even if you were an employee, your job would actually have to include photography. You can get more information at www.copyright.gov. The law is written in such a way that it is on your side as the creator, not theirs.

It's entirely possible for you to own the copyright while they have the model releases. That will mean you can't use the photographs to promote your own services as a photographer unless you have the models sign releases for you.