I have been shooting stock for some years, but all my microstock stuff has been non-released (images of objects and such). Now I'm interested in shooting some images with recognizable persons. Which release(s) should I have the model to sign? Is there an universal release that would be OK for my top4 (IS, SS, DT, FT) or should I have the model sign four different releases?

i use the getty model release, which is pretty generic for all practical purposes for all the micro sites. http://contributors.gettyimages.com/img/articles/downloads/SAMPLE_Model_Release_-_English_-_Dec_2008.pdf

only is needs a photo of the model attached to the release, which i just photoshop in.

Thanks, I'll go with the Getty release if anyone doesn't say otherwise. Is there any site that don't accept the Getty release?

The Getty form is PDF, and I prefer to pre-fill in my own info and often also the witness name and the shoot location (my clumsy studio) in the print. A Word version is therefore easier to make your modifications.

Based on the English Model Release form of Getty and with a few insignificant changes in style and some fonts, and replacing the countries of jurisdiction by "(...)" [to make it acceptable to all sites], I made a blank MS-Word� 1997-2003 doc format version that you can download clicking this link.

(from here, with some more info, especially some interesting Dan Heller links)

Remember that iStock wants a release per shoot day(s), the model's birth date, and a visual reference. Other sites are happy (for now) with a catch-all release, but better conform to the strictest site.
Since iStock is a harsh mistress, I also add a photo of the model(s) signing the release. 

Remember that iStock wants a release per shoot day(s), the model's birth date, and a visual reference. Other sites are happy (for now) with a catch-all release, but better conform to the strictest site.
Since iStock is a harsh mistress, I also add a photo of the model(s) signing the release. 

yes, even the older MR which IS had is no longer acceptable to SOME IS REVIEWERS.
although i've had no problem with majority of the reviewers using the old IS MR as the generic MR for everyone across the board. for months i had no problem .
but only with a certain reviewer with IS and lately at the other sites too. so it may be the same reviewer working with them, because the rejection of the MR which for months had been accepted by all the other reviewers everywhere suddenly became unacceptable with this reviewer.

reason:  a date must be specified with each signature. 

i find this a bit strange. when you sign a contract, there is only one date at the bottom.
no matter how many signatures there is on a contract,  or even in divorce papers lol..
pages after pages , or real estate, etc.. the date at the end of the contract stipulates that
all the signatures were made on the same day. it's a given, any business man or woman who has ever signed a legal agreement knows that.

obviously, as one of my associates laughingly puts it, "maybe it's some kid who got the job as a reviewer and she/he thinks as a reviewer he/she has to rewrite the whole contractual agreement."

i find that almost hilarious. i would not have found it hilarious had the other reviewers , obviously more experienced with the MR, pick that out some 6 months ago when they checked my MRs.

iow, if this overzealous reviewer is right to insist a date assigned to every signature,
then the other reviewers who have approved my work over the past 6 months were negligent
in not picking that up.

my guess is that this is a reviewer who does not know f...all about a legal document.
 

i find this a bit strange. when you sign a contract, there is only one date at the bottom.

Not really. The shoot date and the signing date can be different. On all releases I saw till now, there is a shooting date mentioned (that can also be a period) and the date the release was signed. That can be some time after the shoot, whenever you can get hold of a witness. A witness hasn't to witness the shoot (I hate these distracting bystanders while shooting) but he has to witness the signing of the contract by the model.

The only rejects I ever had for releases are "witness name not in print" (DT), and "model looks minor" (SS). The first issue was solved by reverting to an other release of the same model (DT has catch-all), the second by resubmitting with a note to the reviewer pointing to the model's social networking site, containing the age.