Having just read a couple of threads about model releases I was wondering if anyone knows how well a contract would stand up in court?

My line of thinking is that the contract is purely with the bride and groom, not with any other people at the wedding. I doubt that the couple can be legally sign a release for all of the guests. If we use a photograph with people other than the bride and groom in the photograph, can we claim to have a signed release?

I know that in most cases nobody is going to care (most are probably thrilled), and the answer is probably different in different countries.

Does anyone have any idea what would happen if someone decided to pursue this legally?

i use gettys release, for all my shoots.
http://www.jayreilly.com/releases/adult_release.pdf
http://www.jayreilly.com/releases/minor_release.pdf

and does it stand up? it should, but depends what the dispute is ;-) all terms could be negotiated.

I am sure a signed model release will stand up, but can it cover guests at a wedding.

Jay, your links don't seem to work.

I asked this on another thread a couple times a few years ago. I never got a good answer from anyone.

The best people could come up with is this...
Leagally, it probably doesn't cover the guests. But, no one complains if you use them on your website. If a guests asks you to take an image down, you should do it out of respect for their wishes.

Legally, it does not cover the guests... unless you had them all sign releases

This is so strange, I was out with a group of photographers tonight and we were JUST talking about this! I think that if a guest really wanted to freak on you about an images they might have the legal ground on that one. I don't know, it's a good question!

Ansolutely - No one can sign a release for another except for the case of a parent/guardian signing for a minor.

So the reality is you have no release from guests at a wedding. You could argue that they are at an event where they knew pictures would be taken so they have no reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore their picture are "fair game" for the photographer. I don't think it would hold up, but here in America I'm sure that the day will come where we'll get to see this litigated.

Until then, if and when a guest complains I'd pull their images. But in general I assume most of us are posting images of the bride and groom, and guests are "incidental."

there is no argument - if you are a guest at a wedding, you have no right to expect privacy.

Being from Australia I know that the laws differ from the states, but I thought that the no reasonable expectation of privacy does not apply if you are using the photographs for a commercial purpose. I know that here, self promotion is classified as advertising.
If this is right we should require a model release.

I am talking about this purely because it just struck me. I doubt whether I will ever really have to worry, but you never know.

I hear what you are saying. I think in the US, you could use them for marketing purposes, portfolio purposes etc. Other than that...it would have to be in a news type of setting...so if a newspaper or (blog)was doing an article on weddings or something than that image could be used as part of a news story.
To use the image directly for commercial use, such as selling it to a stock agency or using it to sell a product etc...would need a release specfically from that person if they are clearly identifiable.