Now onto the discussion proper:
------------------------------------------
There is no law which states that a company has to sign a contract when they make deals. However, there are laws which allows a company to take action against another for breach of any contract that is signed. That is why companies do it; not because there is a law stipulating that they must, but because there are laws providing them with remedies should there be a breach of contract by the other party.
Yes, contracts are enforceable - this has nothing to do with industry practice for businesses. And yes, model releases are contracts, and contracts are enforceable because there are laws recognising a cause of action founded on breach of contract.
You have confused the issue of contract against the issue of a cause of action that can be taken when model releases are not signed. If a model release (or any contract for that matter) is signed, either party may take action if there is a breach of the terms therein.
However, it is my view that if there is NO model release, the subject does not have any cause of action to take against the photographer should the photographer decide to use the photograph in any way he choose, whether for commercial gain or otherwise. As long as the photographer did not agree to anything, he can do what he wishes with the photographs (of course, assuming the usual causes of action like defamation or outrage or some other cause of action does not apply).
As for qualifications, I'm not sure why qualifications have to be brought into the picture in a discussion based on substantive facts and laws. It does not follow that when someone possesses high qualifications, he is automatically correct. Hence, in any discussion or debate, what is more important is the points that are made, and the substance that backs those points, than the qualifications of the person making those points. Judges have been wrong; their judgements overturned on appeal. Lawyers have been wrong; with the other side winning instead of them. Senior Counsel, being more qualified than usual, have lost cases to advocates who are not senior counsels.
Also, I find it curious that "my suggestion is not acceptable by you" given that you were the one who initially put forth a similar suggestion to me. At the time you made the suggestion, you have not claimed or asserted that you have done the same but merely threw an invitation for me to do the same so that I can appreciate what you are saying.
And since you asked and since it appears particularly important to you, I confirm that I have " have worked in a law firm or AG's chambers or perhaps IPOS or the clerking office in the courts". Now, does that now make me more qualified to debate with you? I hardly think so, as I prefer to discuss based on substantive points, and not based on who is better qualified.
A discussion based on who is more qualified more often than not turns out to be counter-productive.
As for providing proof that a model cannot seek a claim if a photographer uses her photograph, I trust that you appreciate the concept of burden of proof in a court of law. You are asking me to prove a negative, which is not possible. How do I prove a negative? Are you able to find me proof which says that one cannot brush his teeth? Or that one cannot take a bath? In any judicial system, what is not prohibited is allowed and there is no need to prove that something is allowed, only that something is not allowed. This is also the basis on which causes of action are founded - the plaintiff has to prove a cause of action in order to seek remedies.
The law recognises that proving a negative is an onerous burden, which is why burden of proof is often placed on proving a positive and not proving a negative. In a criminal case, it is the prosecutor who has to prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and not for the accused to prove that he did not do it. In a civil case, it is the plaintiff who proves his case on a balance of probabilities, and not for the defendant to prove that he did not do it. Of course, once a prima facie case is shown, it is then up to the accused/defendant to make out any defences which may apply.
Specific to the issue of usage of photographs, local case law has already shown that the only causes of action which will succeed in such cases are either defamation or copyright infringement.
If you are able to come up with applicable case law or examples on which someone has succeeded in a claim for usage of photographs per se, kindly let us know - I will surely be glad to discuss or analyse that case further. As one can never be entirely sure or have 100% knowledge of anything, if you do know something which I may have missed, I would be glad to consider it further. Merely asserting that it is an industry practice does not confer legitimacy to a cause of action - as stated before, it is an industry practice for security guards to stop people taking photographs from a public area, but that does not make it any more legal than it is.
As for whether this is discussion or one-upmanship, I suggest that you also examine your thoughts to see which applies.
For the final point on general law, with your clarification, I have a better understanding of what you mean - namely that laws cannot catch up with the times. This is indeed a problem especially in the Internet and computing era when laws turn out to be outdated or insufficient to address current day issues. This is a point which has been recognised in the field of law. Yet, how it is addressed are often to turn to existing laws and based on analogy, build up new laws whether case decided, or through legislation. For example, database rights were analogised back to copyright laws.
I recognise your claim as a professional photographer, but do contend again that even if the whole industry THINKS that a model can sue a photographer for using a photograph, the model would have an uphill battle trying to make out a whole brand new cause of action, especially if it cannot be analogically based on an existing and established cause of action.
As for your stand on personal interpretations, I believe in a forum of this nature, everyone's comments are personal interpretations, including your own. You cannot purport to speak on behalf of the whole industry even if you may be working in that industry professionally. Neither can I. I don't see any reason why one should attempt to stifle another's views from being heard on a public forum, especially in offering an alternative or even contrary viewpoint to views already expressed.
Feel free to discuss further if you wish; I would be especially interested if you have further information which I may have missed out on during my own research on this topic.
Cheers